How do you prepare for a Canadian dental school interview?

Dental school interview preparation in Canada has no single answer, because the published formats differ school by school. Toronto states a 20 minute interview with two faculty members, in person at the Faculty. Western states structured, standardized three-person panels held virtually. Alberta states a Multiple Mini Interview with 10 minute stations, 2 minutes to read and 8 minutes with the interviewer, plus a written personal statement the same day. McGill states a virtual asynchronous MMI lasting under an hour. So find your school’s own page first, then build the preparation around the format it actually states.

What does each school publish about its interview?

Only formats that a school states on its own page appear below. Where a school publishes nothing, that is written as nothing rather than filled in.

Toronto (DDS). A 20 minute interview with two faculty members. Shortlisted applicants are invited by email in January to attend the Faculty for an interview and a tour in February, typically on a Saturday or Sunday. Toronto states it interviews approximately 180 prospective students each year. Final offers take account of interviews, academic achievement, DAT scores, Casper scores and essays together.

Western (Schulich Dentistry). Interviews are facilitated virtually in February. They are structured and standardized, and facilitated by three-person panels that may consist of dentists, community members and current dental students. Invitations and declines go out by email approximately two weeks before the interview weekend. Candidates are ranked on a compiled score of academic achievement, DAT score, Casper score, the Western Autobiographical Sketch and the interview.

Alberta (DDS). A Multiple Mini Interview. Alberta states applicants are exposed without interruption to a series of stations, each taking 10 minutes: two minutes to read the question and prepare, then eight minutes sharing the response with the interviewer before moving on. Station count is not stated. Applicants are also scheduled to complete a written personal statement on the same day. Interview invitations go out by email by the end of February.

McGill (DMD). An MMI, held virtually and asynchronously, completed by recording answers at any time within a stated window on the interview day, in one sitting, lasting less than an hour. Stations can be task, simulation, scenario or discussion oriented. McGill publishes its weights: academic performance 70%, Casper 20%, CV 10% for the invitation, and a final ranking based mainly on the MMI score.

UBC (DMD). The Academic Calendar states admission is based on academic performance and personal qualities evidenced by aptitude tests, a problem based learning (PBL) assessment and personal interviews. No station count, no timing, no panel composition. The PBL assessment is worth noting because no other Canadian dental programme on this list names one.

Everyone else. If your school is not above, its own page did not state a format when checked. Ask the admissions office directly rather than taking a number from a forum.

What is actually different about a dental interview?

Two things, and neither is clinical.

First, you will be asked why dentistry rather than medicine, and the answer has to be about dentistry. Not about helping people, not about science, and not about a dentist who was nice to you at twelve. The strong version usually involves the specific combination dentistry has and medicine does not: manual work with an immediate, visible result, continuity with the same patients over decades, and running a small business while being a clinician. If you cannot say what you would find satisfying about the third one, that shows.

Second, cost and access come up more than applicants expect, because dental care in Canada is largely outside public insurance. Expect a station or a question where the clinically right treatment is the one the patient cannot afford.

A dental station, answered badly and well

An original prompt, written for this page and not taken from any real interview:

A long-standing patient needs a crown. She tells you she cannot afford it and asks you to instead do a filling she can pay for, which you know will probably fail within two years. What do you do?

Weak answer. “I would explain to the patient that the crown is the best treatment and that the filling would not last. I would tell her that her long-term oral health is the priority and try to help her understand why the crown is worth the cost, and if she still could not afford it I would refer her elsewhere.”

Strong answer. “She has given me a budget, not a diagnosis, so my job is to find the best available option inside her constraint rather than to talk her out of the constraint.

First, I would be clear and unhurried about the facts: the crown is what I recommend, the filling is likely to fail and roughly on what timescale, and if it fails badly she may lose more tooth structure and end up paying more. She needs that in plain language and in writing, because she is making a financial decision and she deserves the actual numbers on both paths.

Then I would look for options she does not know exist. Whether the practice can stage the treatment or arrange payment over months. Whether a lower-cost material or a different restoration changes the arithmetic. Whether she has any coverage she has not used, including a spouse’s plan, and whether there is a dental school clinic or a public programme in the province she qualifies for. If she has no coverage at all, that referral is a real option and not a brush-off.

If after all of that she still chooses the filling, I would do it, document the discussion and the alternatives offered, make the review interval shorter than usual, and tell her what to watch for. Doing the affordable treatment well, with her informed, is defensible. Refusing to treat her because she cannot afford my first choice is not, and it ends with her losing the tooth somewhere else.

What I would not do is do the filling and say nothing about what is likely to happen, or imply that she is being irresponsible. She is choosing between her tooth and something else in her life, and I do not know what that something else is.“

Why it scores. It treats the financial constraint as a clinical fact to work within, not an attitude to correct. It gives informed consent properly, including the downside of the cheaper option in concrete terms and in writing. It names specific system-level alternatives rather than gesturing at “resources”. It accepts the patient’s autonomy and then adjusts the clinical plan, shorter review interval, documentation, to manage the added risk. And it names the option it refuses and why. The reasoning is the same reasoning a medical station wants; only the furniture is dental.

Key numbers

• Toronto: 20 minute interview, 2 faculty members, approximately 180 applicants interviewed each year, February.
• Western: 3-person panels, virtual, February, invitations approximately 2 weeks ahead.
• Alberta: 10 minute stations, 2 minutes to read, 8 minutes to answer, plus 1 written personal statement the same day.
• McGill: MMI under 1 hour, asynchronous, and published weights of 70% academic, 20% Casper, 10% CV for invitations.
• 0 published station counts at Alberta, McGill and UBC.

Prepare for the format your letter actually names: book an interview session.

Related: Which Canadian dental schools require CASPer? and What is an MMI?.

Last reviewed 17 September 2026. Written by Arvin Ardakani, final-year medical student, 4th quartile on CASPer four times.