Objective: One of the biggest problems in publicly funded dental clinics is the patient waiting list. The appropriate referral plays a keyrole in avoiding an increase in the number of patients on this waiting list. This study aimed to assess general dentists’ diagnostic skillsand approaches for different malocclusions. Methods: A questionnaire was prepared using photos of 8 patients previously treated for different malocclusions. One hundredtwenty general dentists (83 female, mean age: 24 ± 1.18 years; 37 male, mean age: 24 ± 1.95 years) participated in the survey andwere asked to decide whether the patient needed orthodontic treatment or orthognathic surgery, and to provide the reason for sur gery (irregular teeth, or both unesthetic profile and irregular teeth), and the cause of the unesthetic profile (mandibular protrusion,mandibular retrusion, maxillary protrusion, maxillary retrusion). Results: The answers suggesting the need for orthodontic treatment were significantly higher for all malocclusions except for theClass II camouflage case. Of the Class III cases, the general dentists chose orthognathic surgery for both surgery and facemask cases(93.1%, 66.4% respectively). For the severe open bite case, orthognathic surgery was chosen with a ratio of 81.2%, and orthognathicsurgery was decided as not necessary for the mild open bite case (74.8%). Among the surgery cases, mandibular retrusion for the ClassII case (94.6%), mandibular protrusion for Class III case (95.4%), and maxillary retrusion for the severe open bite case (44.6%) were themaximum reported reasons. Conclusion: The distinction between camouflage and surgical treatment was better made by dentists in Class II and open bite casesthan in Class III cases.