Prophylactic third molar removal: are oral surgeons and orthodontists aligned in preventive approaches?

Background: There is a general consensus among dental professionals regarding the extraction of impacted third molars in the presence of clinical symptoms. However, there is less agreement on the management of asymptomatic third molars. The objective of this study is to compare the perspectives of oral surgeons and orthodontists regarding the indications for the extraction of asymptomatic third molars. It is possible that healthcare professionals from different specialties may approach the extraction of these teeth in different ways. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, a web-based questionnaire has been employed to collect data by inquiring about the reasons why participants prefer the extraction of asymptomatic third molars. Descriptive statistics were employed to evaluate the data obtained. The level of significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: Prophylactic extraction of partially impacted molars was more favored among the participants (P < 0.05). The orthodontists preferred prophylactic extraction due to the risk of late anterior dental crowding (LADC); however, the oral surgeons preferred pre-pregnancy extractions (P < 0.05). The extraction decision for partial impaction was higher in females when the risk of distal caries was considered. For fully impacted ones, it was higher in males when the risk of caries and pericoronitis were considered (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Orthodontists preferred extraction because of the risk of LADC and caries, while oral surgeons focused on preventing pericoronitis, pathology, focal infection, and symptoms during pregnancy. This divergence between the participants may inform the guidelines for prophylactic management of third molars. These findings may be pertinent in gender medicine. Clinical relevance: This study has been enlightening for departments to consult each other before the extraction of a patient’s asymptomatic third molar.