# California Law and Ethics practice questions: Dental practice owners

Five original California Law and Ethics practice questions on dental practice owners, each answered on this page with a rationale and a source.

Last updated: 2026-09-29.

## Question 1

A new associate reads the office manual, which says an RDA may perform certain intraoral duties under "indirect supervision" while the dentist is reachable by phone. How should this be analyzed under California law?

- A. The manual is valid because the dentist remains reachable by telephone at all times.
- B. The manual is valid for RDAs, though not for unlicensed dental assistants.
- C. The manual is defective: California recognizes only direct supervision and general supervision.
- D. The manual is defective only if the delegated procedures involve local anesthesia.

**Answer C:** The manual is defective: California recognizes only direct supervision and general supervision.

BPC §1741 recognizes only direct and general supervision — direct requires the dentist physically present in the facility and a check of the work before dismissal; general requires advance authorization via a written treatment plan.

**Common trap:** "indirect supervision" is an automatic wrong answer on any California supervision question.

Source: [California Business & Professions Code §1741 — direct and general supervision definitions](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=1741)

## Question 2

An unlicensed dental assistant has completed the Board-approved 8-hour infection-control course, holds current BLS certification, and just earned the certificate from a Board-approved coronal polishing course. May she perform coronal polishing?

- A. No — coronal polishing remains an RDA-only duty in every California practice.
- B. Yes, under direct supervision only, per BPC §1750(f)(4) and the Board's current duties table.
- C. Yes, under general supervision, since the course certificate substitutes for licensure.
- D. No, unless a licensed RDAEF is also physically present in the same operatory.

**Answer B:** Yes, under direct supervision only, per BPC §1750(f)(4) and the Board's current duties table.

under BPC §1750(f)(4) and the Board's permitted-duties table, a DA who completed the 8-hour infection-control course, holds current BLS, and earned the Board-approved coronal polishing certificate may polish under direct supervision only.

**Common trap:** "coronal polishing is RDA-only" was true before SB 1453 took effect 1/1/2025.

Source: [California Business & Professions Code §1750 — DA definition, BSDP, the pre-exposure infection-control course-or-examination prerequisite (as amended…](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=1750)

## Question 3

A 6-year-old presents with finger-shaped bruising and a torn frenum inconsistent with the parent's explanation. The dentist tells the office manager to "look into it and file whatever paperwork is needed." Which statement is correct?

- A. The dentist has complied, because an office may centralize reporting through one administrator.
- B. The dentist should re-examine the child at the next visit to confirm the suspicion before reporting.
- C. The dentist must report within 2 working days, the uniform timeline for all abuse categories.
- D. The dentist must personally phone immediately and file a written report within 36 hours.

**Answer D:** The dentist must personally phone immediately and file a written report within 36 hours.

CANRA (Penal Code §11166) requires the mandated reporter personally to make an immediate or as-soon-as-practicable telephone report and a written report within 36 hours; the duty is individual and non-delegable, and failure is a misdemeanor.

**Common trap:** option C imports the elder/dependent-adult and assaultive-injury written timeline (2 working days) onto CANRA's 36-hour clock.

Source: [California Penal Code §11166 — child-abuse reporting under CANRA (immediate phone, written within 36 hours)](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=11166)

## Question 4

A licensed California dentist sells the administrative assets of their practice to a private equity-backed Management Services Organization (MSO) and signs an employment agreement. The contract stipulates that the MSO will determine the daily patient quota, oversee the hiring and firing of clinical staff based on corporate metrics, and requires the dentist to honor a non-compete clause within a 10-mile radius upon termination. Under California law, which aspect of this arrangement is legally enforceable?

- A. The daily patient quota, because scheduling is an administrative rather than clinical function.
- B. The corporate control over hiring and firing of clinical staff, because the MSO is the employer.
- C. The 10-mile non-compete clause, because the dentist signed the agreement voluntarily.
- D. None of these specific clinical or operational control provisions are legally enforceable.

**Answer D:** None of these specific clinical or operational control provisions are legally enforceable.

Senate Bill 351 (effective January 1, 2026, codified at HSC §1191) prohibits private equity groups and hedge funds from interfering with professional dental judgment — including imposing patient quotas and making clinical staffing decisions. Because this MSO is private equity-backed, the prohibitions reach the arrangement through its controlling investors. Furthermore, non-compete and non-disparagement clauses in these provider employment agreements are explicitly void and unenforceable.

**Common trap:** Assuming that setting patient quotas or enforcing geographic non-competes are standard, legally binding business practices in California healthcare contracts — and note the statute's precise scope: HSC §1191 names private equity groups and hedge funds, not MSOs as such; an MSO without private equity or hedge fund control is reached by other rules, not §1191.

Source: [Senate Bill 351 (2025), codified at HSC section 1191 — Corporate Practice of Dentistry restrictions on private equity groups and hedge funds;…](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&sectionNum=1191)

## Question 5

A practice owner hires an unlicensed dental assistant (DA) with no prior dental experience. The owner plans to have the DA observe for one week, then begin performing basic supportive procedures such as curing restorative materials and retracting tissue. The owner schedules the DA to take an 8-hour Board-approved infection control course three months after their start date. Is this timeline legally compliant?

- A. Yes; a newly hired DA has up to one full year to complete the infection control course.
- B. Yes; one week of supervised observation substitutes for the course until it is completed.
- C. No; an infection-control course or exam must come before exposure-prone work.
- D. No; the course must be completed within 30 days of the assistant's hire date.

**Answer C:** No; an infection-control course or exam must come before exposure-prone work.

Senate Bill 1453 repealed the previous one-year grace period for DA infection control training. Under current Business and Professions Code section 1750(c), the employer is responsible for ensuring that an unlicensed DA has completed an infection-control course or examination under section 1755(b) before any potential clinical exposure occurs. Since SB 1311 (effective September 14, 2026) that can be the DANB Infection Control exam, a Board-approved 8-hour course, or a video-based course of at least 4 hours didactic plus 2 hours laboratory from an approved provider.

**Common trap:** Relying on stale prep materials that still mention the old one-year grace period for new dental assistants.

Source: [BPC section 1750 dental assistant definition, BSDP, and infection-control prerequisites](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=1750)

## Next step

[Take the free 15-question practice test](https://dentovio.com/free-practice-test)

Official reference: [Dental Board of California — Law and Ethics Examination](https://www.dbc.ca.gov/applicants/law_and_ethics_exam.shtml). Original exam-style questions written for study, never recalled exam content. Independent educational preparation, not legal advice, and not affiliated with or endorsed by the Dental Board of California. Confirm current requirements with the Board.