ABSTRACTObjectivesTo estimate and compare the inter‐examiner variability among examiners conducting Objectively Structured Viva‐Voce (OSVE) and Conventional Viva‐Voce (CVE) examinations among pre‐clinical and clinical students of Prosthodontics and to compare the validity of OSVE and CVE. Additionally, to study the perceptions of examinees and examiners regarding OSVE and CVE.MethodsThis study was conducted among Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) students in the Department of Prosthodontics, Government Dental College, Kottayam, Kerala, India. Participants included 40 second‐year BDS (pre‐clinical) and 35 final‐year BDS (clinical) students who voluntarily provided informed consent. Two examiners conducted OSVE using pre‐validated viva cards. While CVE was conducted by two other examiners. Theory and total marks obtained by students in their summative examinations were recorded to assess potential correlations with their viva‐voce performance. Perceptions of all students and examiners were collected.ResultDifference in mean marks awarded by examiners was minimum for OSVE. Inter‐examiner variability was least for OSVE and it correlated well with the marks students scored in their summative examinations. Students and examiners preferred OSVE because of less examiner bias and even distribution of different difficulty level questions.ConclusionsOSVE demonstrated higher validity than CVE because of its stronger correlations to theory and total summative scores. Among pre‐clinical students, OSVE demonstrated stronger reliability than CVE, whereas among clinical students, both methods showed moderate reliability. Students and examiners preferred OSVE for its greater objectivity. Findings indicate that OSVE has the potential to become a robust assessment tool in dental education, though more supporting evidence and examiner training are essential for effective implementation.