Direct pulp cap in a traumatic exposure — ORE Part 1 MCQ
Instant feedback + full explanation. One question, done properly.
Educational content. Not a substitute for clinical judgement or local policy.
Reveal the answer and explanation
Correct answer: A — A vital minimally contaminated pulp can heal if sealed with a biocompatible material
The physiological basis for managing traumatic pulp exposure via direct pulp capping is that a vital, minimally contaminated pulp—when promptly sealed with a biocompatible material (e.g. MTA, Biodentine, CEM)—has the intrinsic capacity to heal by forming a reparative dentinal bridge and maintaining vitality. This case meets all criteria: vital status (responded to percussion/colour), traumatic (not carious) origin, minimal contamination (pinpoint, <2 hours), controlled haemostasis, and rubber dam isolation for seal. Option D is wrong: mature teeth *do* form secondary and reparative dentin and dentinal bridges. Option B is wrong: sterilisation is not the mechanism; the seal prevents further contamination. Option C is wrong: sensibility testing indicates viability, not absence of inflammation. Option E is wrong: radiographs assess apical/root status, not intra-pulpal pathology. Answer A encapsulates the core principle: a properly sealed, vital, minimally traumatised pulp has excellent healing potential.
Reference: SDCEP Management of Acute Dental Problems Interim Guidance (MADP) – Injuries to the Mouth, Face and Jaws; ESE/IADT Vital Pulp Therapy guidelines (2023); PMC11414326 (2024), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11026997/