
==== Front
BMC Oral Health
BMC Oral Health
BMC Oral Health
1472-6831
BioMed Central London

39261783
4819
10.1186/s12903-024-04819-0
Research
Prophylactic third molar removal: are oral surgeons and orthodontists aligned in preventive approaches?
Guldiken Ipek Necla ipek.guldiken@istinye.edu.tr

1
Gulsever Serap 2
Malkoc Yagmur 2
Yilmaz Zeynep Cukurova 2
Ozcan Mutlu 3
1 https://ror.org/03081nz23 grid.508740.e 0000 0004 5936 1556 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Istinye University, Vadi Campus, Ayazaga Mah. Azerbaycan Cad. (Vadistanbul 4A Blok), Sariyer, Istanbul, 34396 Turkey
2 https://ror.org/037jwzz50 grid.411781.a 0000 0004 0471 9346 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey
3 https://ror.org/02crff812 grid.7400.3 0000 0004 1937 0650 Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
11 9 2024
11 9 2024
2024
24 107222 1 2024
27 8 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
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.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12903-024-04819-0.

Keywords

Impacted teeth
Prophylactic extraction
Guidelines
Asymptomatic third molar
issue-copyright-statement© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Wisdom teeth are permanent third molars in the posterior jaw and usually erupt between 17 and 25 years of age. Third molars most frequently become impacted due to inadequate distance between the second molar tooth and the ascending ramus for the tooth to erupt and the abnormal developmental position of these teeth; an impacted wisdom tooth can sometimes partially emerge (defined as partially impacted), sometimes it cannot break through the bone and gums at all (defined as fully impacted) [1].

One of the significant contributing factors to impacted third molars is macrodontia, a condition characterized by teeth that are larger than normal. In this instance, the third molars are unable to erupt due to a lack of available space within the jaw [2, 3]. Another common cause is late maturation of the third molars. In such instances, other teeth assume the position previously occupied by the third molars, and there is insufficient space for them to erupt [4]. Furthermore, genetic factors are also a significant contributing factor. Genetic predisposition can influence the size of the teeth, the structure of the jaw, and the timing of tooth eruption [5]. In addition, structural anomalies of the jaw bones and excessive tooth crowding can also result in impacted third molars [6, 7].

One of the most contentious issues surrounding the extraction of third molars is the question of whether these teeth are linked to lateral alveolar bone defects (LADC). In the existing literature, there are studies that suggest a potential association between third molars and LADC. For instance, some studies have indicated that the extraction of third molars may increase the risk of LADC [8]. Nevertheless, this association has not been definitively established, and numerous studies indicate that this association is controversial. Some studies have argued that extraction of third molars does not increase the risk of LADC, and that this link is weak or insignificant [9–11]. Consequently, further research is required in this area. [12]

A consensus favors extracting impacted third molars in the presence of clinical symptoms, but no consensus exists on their management when asymptomatic [13]. In addition, healthcare professionals from different fields of expertise may approach the extraction of these teeth differently. The American Association of Orthodontists (AAO) and the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (AAOMS) have disparate methodologies for the extraction of third molars. In certain instances, the AAO categorizes the removal of third molars as a form of “medically necessary orthodontic treatment.” The AAO recommends the extraction of third molars in cases of space constraints or horizontal tooth growth to prevent damage to other teeth and to prevent periodontal disease [14, 15]. The AAO guidelines stipulate that the condition of third molars should be monitored on a regular basis throughout and following orthodontic treatment. The AAOMS recommends the extraction of impacted third molars, even when asymptomatic, to prevent long-term health complications. The AAOMS guidelines underscore that the extraction of third molars can result in significant complications in later life, necessitating more invasive medical interventions [16]. In particular, prophylactic extractions are of great importance in young patients, as they serve to minimise the potential for complications. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that the extraction of third molars can prevent complications such as tooth root resorption [17]. Orthodontists who adhere to the recommendations of the AAO argue that third molar extractions should only be performed when there are significant symptoms or serious abnormalities. In contrast, oral surgeons who adhere to the recommendations of the AAOMS emphasise the necessity of prophylactic extractions to minimise potential risks and prevent long-term health problems. A number of studies in the literature document the advantages and potential risks of both approaches [18, 19]. Understanding the different approaches of the AAO and AAOMS to the extraction of third molars can assist clinical practitioners in determining the most appropriate treatment plan for their patients. The recommendations of both associations serve the purpose of protecting patient health. It is therefore essential to carefully evaluate these guidelines in order to make the most appropriate treatment decisions for individual patient situations. [20–22].

It is also important to note that the practices and outcomes for the extraction of third molars may also vary according to regional and cultural differences. A number of variables, including different dietary habits, genetic factors, and access to healthcare, can influence the outcomes of these procedures. For instance, certain studies conducted in Asia have indicated that strict dietary habits and genetic factors may result in a reduced frequency of third molar extractions [10, 11, 23].

In Western countries, the extraction of third molars is a more common practice. This is attributed to factors such as dietary differences and the importance attached to oral hygiene, as well as easier access to healthcare services [8, 9]. In studies conducted in Europe and North America, the extraction of third molars is more frequently recommended for the prevention of periodontal diseases and to maintain oral health [14, 18].

In contrast, in Africa and the Middle East, the practice of extracting third molars is conducted in a different manner. In these regions, access to healthcare services may be limited, which may influence decisions about third molar extraction. Moreover, studies conducted in these regions indicate that awareness of third molar extraction is low, which may contribute to increased complications [10].

In light of these discrepancies, it is of paramount importance to conduct multicultural studies. A more comprehensive perspective on clinical practice can be gained by understanding how the practices and outcomes of third molar extraction vary in different geographical regions. Future studies of this kind may contribute to the development of more universal and evidence-based approaches to wisdom teeth extraction.

The principal objective of this study was to conduct a comprehensive comparison of the perspectives of oral surgeons and orthodontists regarding the prophylactic extraction of third molars. In particular, this study intended to gain insight into the varying indications for third molar extraction in the absence of symptoms, but with varying degrees of impaction. Furthermore, we examined how these perspectives differ based on the gender of the practitioners and their level of experience, differentiating between trainees and senior practitioners. By addressing these factors, this research aimed to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of clinical decision-making processes and enhance patient care strategies.

Materials and methods

Ethics approval

The Institutional Ethics Committee of Istanbul Medipol University approved this cross-sectional study (file number: E-10840098-604.01.01-5450). It has been conducted in accordance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki of 1975 as revised in 2000.

Design and sample

The design and methodology of this survey study were informed by the Checklist for Reporting Internet E-Survey Results (CHERRIES) recommendations. Adherence to the CHERRIES guidelines ensures comprehensive and transparent reporting of internet-based survey results, thereby enhancing the validity and reliability of the findings. The CHERRIES checklist encompasses a number of crucial criteria, including the development and pre-testing of the questionnaire, the recruitment process of respondents and identification of the sample, the administration of the questionnaire, and the statistical methods employed in data analysis. This web-based questionnaire was prepared according to the CHERRIES recommendations. Adherence to these recommendations is crucial for the standardization and comparability of online survey research. [24, 25]

The researchers shared the study questionnaires with 250 orthodontists, oral surgeons and trainees from Turkey in full consideration of the possible loss of participants. A short letter requesting voluntary participation explained the survey’s aim. It introduced the questionnaire, generated via the internet-based survey tool Google Forms, and sent to participants via email and WhatsApp. At the beginning of the electronic survey, the introductory section included informed consent for the participants whether they would attend the survey on a voluntary basis. The survey was initiated following the participants’ consent on the online platform. The questionnaire required approximately five minutes to complete. Participants were selected to ensure a range of clinical experiences, which may influence their opinions on the topics surveyed. This diversity in clinical experience is considered a strength of the study, as it provides a comprehensive view of the different perspectives within the field.

The first part of the survey collected demographic data from the participants (sex, age, academic degree, and profession). The second part presented participants with two different asymptomatic case scenarios for third molars regarding the extent of impaction (partially or fully impacted) and indications for removal (Fig. 1). The five common indications were selected from the guidelines of AAOMS and NICE and regarding the authors’ experience. Short descriptive sentences identified the reasons (indications) for the decision. All data was kept confidential by the research team.

Fig. 1 The survey

Data analysis

An independent t-test was used to detect the sample size for the two independent groups. The sample size was calculated as 120 (60 for each group) based on a G-power analysis with an effect size of 0,60, α-an error probability of 0.05, and a power of 0.95. The NCSS program (Number Cruncher Statistical System) 2007 (Kaysville, Utah, USA) performed the statistical analysis. Descriptive statistical methods (mean, standard deviation, median, frequency, percentage, minimum, maximum) were used to evaluate the study data. The Shapiro-Wilk test and graphical examinations were used to test the conformity of the quantitative data to the normal distribution. Dependent groups t-test was used for intra-group comparisons of normally distributed qualitative variables. The Pearson chi-square, Fisher’s exact, and Fisher-Freeman-Halton exact tests were used to compare qualitative data. Statistical significance was accepted as P < 0.05.

Results

Participants

The study was conducted with 127 participants, 51.2% (n = 65) female and 48.8% (n = 62) male, using the internet-based survey tool Google Forms. 49.6% of the participants were oral surgeons, while 50.4% were orthodontists. On the other hand, 49.6% and 50/4% were trainees and specialists, as determined by their academic degrees.

Analyzing the possible risk factors by extent of impaction, 84.3% and 74.0% of participants considered partially impacted third molars a risk factor for caries of an adjacent second molar tooth and development of symptoms during pregnancy. These were relatively higher than the other risk factors (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2 Distribution (%) of prophylactic extraction preferences regarding the indications

Gender and age effect

In both genders, prophylactic extraction of partially impacted third molars was more supported than fully impacted third molars. In every age group, prophylactic extraction of partially impacted third molars was more supported than fully impacted ones (P < 0.05).

Women evaluated caries in the adjacent second molar tooth as a significant indication for prophylactic extraction of a partially impacted tooth more frequently than men. For the prophylactic extraction of the partially impacted third molar tooth, the risk of LADC after orthodontic treatment, the risk of focal infection, the risk of periodontal disease (pericoronitis), the risk of developing symptoms during pregnancy, and the risk of pathology around the impacted tooth (cyst, etc.) did not show a statistically significant difference according to the participants’ gender. The rate of evaluating the risk of periodontal disease (pericoronitis) and caries in the adjacent second molar tooth for the men participants as a prophylactic extraction indication of a fully impacted tooth was found to be statistically significantly higher than in the women (P < 0.05) (Table 1).

The rate of evaluation of the risk of caries in the adjacent second molars as a prophylactic indication for extraction of the partially impacted tooth in the 30–50 age group was higher than those under the age of 30 and over the age of 50 (P < 0.05). A significant difference was found according to age, considering the risk of pathology formation around the preserved impacted tooth as an indication for prophylactic extraction of a fully impacted tooth (P < 0.05). In addition, as a prophylactic extraction indication for a fully impacted, the risk of pathology formation around the tooth was ranked higher in those under 30 years of age than those 30–50 and over 50 years of age (Table 1).

Table 1 Effects of gender and age on prophylactic extraction of partially and fully impacted third molars

Gender	Female
n (%)	Male
n (%)	P-value	
Partially Impacted Third Molars				
Risk of LADC after orthodontic treatment		31 (47.7)	32 (51.6)	a0.659	
Risk of focal infection		47 (72.3)	46 (74.2)	a0.810	
Risk of periodontal disease (pericoronitis)		46 (70.8)	43 (69.4)	a0.862	
Risk of being symptomatic during pregnancy		31 (47.7)	31 (50.0)	a0.795	
Risk of caries at the adjacent second molar tooth		43 (66.2)	26 (41.9)	a 0.006**	
Risk of pathology around the impacted tooth		30 (46.2)	31 (50.0)	a0.665	
Fully Impacted Third Molars				
Risk of LADC after orthodontic treatment		31 (47.7)	32 (51.6)	a0.659	
Risk of focal infection		26 (40.0)	33 (53.2)	a0.135	
Risk of periodontal disease (pericoronitis)		27 (41.5)	37 (59.7)	a 0.041*	
Risk of being symptomatic during pregnancy		15 (23.1)	18 (29.0)	a0.444	
Risk of caries at the adjacent second molar tooth		6 (9.2)	14 (22.6)	a 0.039*	
Risk of pathology around the impacted tooth		24 (36.9)	25 (40.3)	a0.694	
Age	< 30 years >50 30–50	P-value	
n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	
Partially Impacted Third Molars				
Risk of LADC after orthodontic treatment		27 (42.9)	26 (55.3)	10 (58.8)	b0.310	
Risk of focal infection		41 (65.1)	39 (83.0)	13 (76.5)	b0.105	
Risk of periodontal disease (pericoronitis)		44 (69.8)	34 (72.3)	11 (64.7)	b0.839	
Risk of being symptomatic during pregnancy		30 (47.6)	21 (44.7)	11 (64.7)	b0.354	
Risk of caries at the adjacent second molar tooth		31 (49.2)	33 (70.2)	5 (29.4)	b 0.008**	
Risk of pathology around the impacted tooth (cyst etc.)		27 (42.9)	25 (53.2)	9 (52.9)	b0.511	
Fully Impacted Third Molars				
Risk of LADC after orthodontic treatment		29 (46.0)	27 (57.4)	7 (41.2)	b0.375	
Risk of focal infection		27 (42.9)	23 (48.9)	9 (52.9)	b0.694	
Risk of periodontal disease (pericoronitis)		33 (52.4)	24 (51.1)	7 (41.2)	b0.710	
Risk of being symptomatic during pregnancy		18 (28.6)	10 (21.3)	5 (29.4)	b0.649	
Risk of caries at the adjacent second molar tooth		10 (15.9)	7 (14.9)	3 (17.6)	b0.964	
Risk of pathology around the impacted tooth (cyst etc.)		33 (52.4)	12 (25.5)	4 (23.5)	b 0.007**	
Pearson a Chi-Square Test, bFisher Freeman Halton Test

*P < 0.05 **P < 0.05

Proficiency and academic title effect

The prophylactic removal decision differed significantly according to expertise and academic title; orthodontists and oral surgeons in both academic degrees decided to extract asymptomatic partially impacted third molars more frequently than fully impacted ones (P < 0.05).

Orthodontists and oral surgeons differed significantly in their attitudes toward prophylactic extraction of partially impacted third molars relative to the risk of periodontal disease (pericoronitis) and LADC after orthodontic treatment; developing symptoms during pregnancy, caries at the adjacent second molar tooth, and pathology around the impacted tooth (cyst, etc.) (P < 0.05). However, the two groups had no statistically significant difference regarding the focal infection risk. Orthodontists more than oral surgeons favor extracting the fully impacted third molar, considering LADC after orthodontic treatment to be significantly high risk (P < 0.05). Oral surgeons more than orthodontists favor extracting the fully impacted third molar, considering the risk of symptoms developing during pregnancy or focal infection to be statistically significantly high (P < 0.05). Participants showed no statistically significant difference by specialization in favoring extracting the fully impacted third molar, considering the risk of periodontal disease (pericoronitis), caries in the adjacent second molar, and pathology around the third molar (Table 2).

The rate of preference by professors considering the risk that partially impacted third molars may cause LADC after orthodontic treatment was significantly higher than those of trainees; a total of 25 trainees (38.7%) considered the risk of LADC, while 38 (59.4%) of the professors stated that they considered this risk (P < 0.05). According to their academic titles, the risk of the focal infection, periodontal disease (pericoronitis), being symptomatic during pregnancy, caries in the adjacent second molar tooth, and the formation of pathology around the related tooth did not show a statistically significant difference (Table 2).

Considering the risk of pathology around the fully impacted third molars, the trainees’ preference rate was significantly higher than the professors’ for fully impacted third molars (P < 0.05). The risk of LADC after orthodontic treatment, focal infection, periodontal disease (pericoronitis), development of symptoms during pregnancy and caries in the adjacent second molar did not show a significant difference by academic title (Table 2).

Table 2 Effects of profession degree on prophylactic extraction of partially and fully impacted third molars

		P-value	
Orthodontist	Surgeon	
Partially Impacted Third Molars	n (%)	n (%)		
Risk of LADC after orthodontic treatment		42 (66.7)	21 (32.8)	a 0.001**	
Risk of focal infection		45 (71.4)	48 (75.0)	a 0.649	
Risk of periodontal disease (pericoronitis)		39 (61.9)	50 (78.1)	a 0.046*	
Risk of being symptomatic during pregnancy		17 (27.0)	45 (70.3)	a 0.001**	
Risk of caries at the adjacent second molar tooth		46 (73.0)	23 (35.9)	a 0.001**	
Risk of pathology around the impacted tooth (cyst etc.)		20 (31.7)	41 (64.1)	a 0.001**	
Fully Impacted Third Molars				
Risk of LADC after orthodontic treatment		43 (68.3)	20 (31.3)	a 0.001**	
Risk of focal infection		17 (27.0)	42 (65.6)	a 0.001**	
Risk of periodontal disease (pericoronitis)		32 (50.8)	32 (50.0)	a 0.929	
Risk of being symptomatic during pregnancy		11 (17.5)	22 (34.4)	a 0.030*	
Risk of caries at the adjacent second molar tooth		7 (11.1)	13 (20.3)	a 0.155	
Risk of pathology around the impacted tooth (cyst etc.)		21 (33.3)	28 (43.8)	a 0.228	
Pearson Chi-Square Test

. *P < 0.05 **P < 0.05

When the subgroups of academic titles according to professions have been evaluated for partially impacted third molars, different results have been obtained. Regarding the risk of LADC, the attitude of professor orthodontists was significantly different from that of trainee orthodontists (P < 0.05). On the other hand, the attitudes of trainees and professors towards the risk of being symptomatic during pregnancy differed according to their professions (P < 0.05). Regarding risk of caries at the adjacent second molar tooth, professors’ attitudes differed according to their professions, while trainees’ attitudes differed according to their professions regarding risk of pathology around the impacted tooth (P < 0.05) (Table 3).

In the evaluation for fully impacted third molars, it is seen that the attitudes of professor orthodontists are significantly different from those of trainee orthodontists regarding the risk of LADC (P < 0.05). In addition, it was found that there were significant differences in the considerations of the trainees regarding risk of focal infection, risk of being symptomatic during pregnancy, risk of caries at the adjacent second molar tooth and risk of pathology around the impacted tooth (P < 0.05) (Table 3).

Table 3 Effects of academic degree on prophylactic extraction of partially and fully impacted third molars

				Groups P-value	
Trainee	Subgroup P-value	Specialist	Subgroup P-value		
Partially Impacted Third Molars	n (%)		n (%)			
Risk of LADC after orthodontic treatment		25 (39.7)		38 (59.4)		a 0.026*	
Orthodontist		12	a 0.896	30	a 0.001**		
OMFS		13		8			
Risk of focal infection		46 (73.0)		47 (73.4)		a 0.857	
Orthodontist		18	a 0.792	27	a 0.213		
OMFS		20		20			
Risk of periodontal disease		45 (71.4)		44 (68.8)		a 0.742	
Orthodontist		17	a 0.099	22	a 0.952		
OMFS		28		22			
Risk of being symptomatic during pregnancy		35 (55.6)		27 (42.2)		a 0.132	
Orthodontist		8	a 0.001**	9	a 0.002**		
OMFS		27		18			
Risk of caries at the adjacent second molar tooth		31 (49.2)		38 (59.4)		a 0.250	
Orthodontist		17	a 0.733	29	a 0.001**		
OMFS		14		9			
Risk of pathology around the impacted tooth		31 (49.2)		30 (46.9)		a 0.793	
Orthodontist		8	a 0.002**	12	a 0.051		
OMFS		23		18			
Fully Impacted Third Molars						
Risk of LADC after orthodontic treatment		30 (47.6)		33 (51.6)		a 0.657	
Orthodontist		18	a 0.067	25	a 0.048**		
OMFS		12		18			
Risk of focal infection		34 (54.0)		25 (39.1)		a 0.092	
Orthodontist		6	a 0.001**	11	a 0.211		
OMFS		28		14			
Risk of periodontal disease		30 (47.6)		34 (53.1)		a 0.535	
Orthodontist		12	a 0.066	20	a 0.148		
OMFS		18		14			
Risk of being symptomatic during pregnancy		17 (27.0)		16 (25.0)		a 0.799	
Orthodontist		4	a 0.042**	7	a 0.813		
OMFS		13		9			
Risk of caries at the adjacent second molar tooth		11 (17.5)		9 (14.1)		a 0.599	
Orthodontist		3	a 0.006**	4	a 0.982		
OMFS		8		5			
Risk of pathology around the impacted tooth		33 (52.4)		16 (25.0)		a 0.002**	
Orthodontist		12	a 0.012**	9	a 0.814		
OMFS		21		7			
Pearson Chi-Square Test

*P < 0.05 **P < 0.05

Discussion

The extraction of an impacted third molar is a standard procedure in the field of dentistry. An impacted third molar that does not elicit any symptoms is classified as “asymptomatic.” The extraction of these teeth is generally recommended to prevent potential complications, including infection, caries, periodontal disease, and pathologies such as cysts or tumors [26].

This study represents the first attempt to determine the rationale behind prophylactic extraction of partially and completely impacted asymptomatic third molars and to assess the perspectives of oral surgeons and orthodontists, taking into account their academic backgrounds. Moreover, this study will contribute to the evaluation of dentists’ opinions regarding the prophylactic removal of asymptomatic impacted third molars, given the risk of developing symptoms during pregnancy.

In general, specialists consider the prophylactic removal of third molars according to their expertise. The majority of participants expressed a preference for the prophylactic removal of partially impacted third molars, citing the potential for the development of symptoms during pregnancy and the formation of distal caries in the second molars as the rationale for this approach. In contrast to orthodontists, oral surgeons were more likely to cite pregnancy-related risks as a rationale for extracting partially and fully impacted third molars. In the presented study, nearly half of the participants from both areas of expertise indicated that impacted third molars should be removed as a precautionary measure. However, orthodontists were more inclined to believe that prophylactic removal of impacted third molars was necessary to prevent LADC.

The findings of this study indicate that the majority of participants, regardless of gender, academic title, or expertise, supported the indications for the retention of partially impacted molars over those for fully impacted ones. However, there was a divergence of opinion among the participants with regard to the retention of third molars. While professors indicated that retaining these teeth increased the risk for LADC, trainees believed that keeping fully impacted teeth increased the risk of pathology. Although some authors reported that less experienced oral surgeons recommend extraction for asymptomatic impacted third molars more often than their more experienced counterparts, Almendros Marques et al. asserted that the practitioner’s experience does not influence treatment decisions [27, 28].

The therapeutic decisions of oral surgeons and orthodontists regarding asymptomatic third molars have been evaluated. Gavazzi et al. stated that orthodontists and oral surgeons concur that third molars do not generate a force responsible for anterior crowding in the upper and lower jaws and do not consider prophylactic third molar extraction to be a valuable method for preventing LADC [12]. However, a discrepancy regarding that theory exists in the scientific literature. Laskin reported that both orthodontists and oral surgeons believed that eruption force generates a thrust that causes LADC, recommending the removal of third molars prophylactically [29]. Another study points out that orthodontists are less likely than oral surgeons to recommend prophylactic removal of these teeth; oral surgeons, more than orthodontists, think that asymptomatic third molars cause LADC [30]. Some researchers argue that impacted third molars with insufficient mesiodistal distance for eruption in the dental arch can cause crowding in the anterior teeth by applying force to other teeth; some advocate that these teeth do not have enough power to move other teeth and cannot cause crowding [31–33]. There is an ongoing discussion as to whether prophylactic extraction of these teeth is necessary before or during orthodontic treatment to prevent orthodontic recurrence [12, 30].

The practitioner’s field of experience has been shown to influence the treatment method decision for asymptomatic impacted third molars. Gavazzi et al. state that orthodontists and oral surgeons agree that third molars cannot generate a force responsible for anterior crowding [12]. Laskin reported that orthodontists and oral surgeons recommend prophylactic removal of third molars to prevent LADC [29]. Conversely, Lindauer said orthodontists less often than oral surgeons recommend prophylactic removal of these teeth [30]. Our study found that orthodontists, more often than oral surgeons, advocated the removal of both partially and fully impacted asymptomatic third molars to prevent LADC.

In this study, a greater proportion of oral surgeons and orthodontists preferred the removal of partially impacted third molars in order to prevent distal cervical caries than any other group of dental professionals. Some authors have argued that periodontal pathogens present in the vicinity of impacted teeth can act as a reservoir for the development of periodontal disease, and that these teeth should therefore be extracted in order to eliminate periodontal pathogens around second molars. Others have reported that gingival infections around partially impacted teeth can be prevented with good oral hygiene, and have suggested that impacted teeth should be retained as long as they are asymptomatic [34–37]. Many authors have reported a relatively high rate of cystic changes around impacted wisdom teeth [38, 39]. Almendros-Marques et al. pointed out that asymptomatic third molars may lead to the development of some form of pathology [40]. Other authors reported that the incidence of cysts and tumors associated with impacted third molars is low, and removal of these teeth is contraindicated [41, 42]. In our study, oral surgeons considered removing partially erupted asymptomatic third molars as an appropriate intervention to prevent future pathological changes.

Pre-pregnancy extraction is discussed in reference to the risks surgery poses for mother and fetus [43]. Compared to orthodontists, oral surgeons preferred the extraction of partially or fully erupted third molars before pregnancy. This difference may be due to the typical presentation of pregnant patients to surgical departments for symptoms related to impacted third molars; hormonal changes and immune system deficiency related to pregnancy increase the tendency for inflammation in the oral cavity, though there is no evidence of a significant increase in the risk of complications associated with an impacted third molar during pregnancy. Therefore, prophylactic removal of impacted molars during pregnancy is an issue that should be carefully examined on a case-by-case basis, considering the individual’s medical history and weighing the potential risks or benefits of the procedure. It has been recommended that any dental treatment should be delayed until the second trimester to avoid potential threats to the developing fetus [43].

The main limitation of this study was that it included only orthodontics and oral and maxillofacial surgery rather than other specialities. The study focused solely on the viewpoints of dentists within a single country. International studies with a larger participant pool can remedy this limitation in the future.

A comprehensive and meticulous evaluation by dental professionals is critical to determine an appropriate treatment plan. Further research must be conducted to gain a deeper understanding and make an informed judgment regarding the proper treatment approach.

Conclusions

From this study, the following could be concluded:

A notable divergence was observed between the perspectives of orthodontists and oral surgeons with regard to the indications for prophylactic third molar extraction. Orthodontists favored prophylactic extraction of asymptomatic impacted third molars to prevent LADC and caries, whereas oral surgeons favored extraction to prevent pericoronitis, pathology, focal infection, or symptom development during pregnancy.

When genders are compared, the extraction preference of partially impacted third molars was significantly higher in females compared to males, regarding the risk of caries on second molars. This may hold relevance in the field of gender medicine.

The degree of clinical experience also influenced the opinions expressed. Trainee dentists were more likely to favor prophylactic extraction to prevent long-term complications, while experienced specialists tended to base their decisions on immediate clinical symptoms and risks.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Abbreviations

LADC Late Anterior Dental Crowding

AAOMS American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

NHS National Health Service (UK)

NICE National Institute of Clinical Excellence

NCSS Number Cruncher Statistical System

CHERRIES Checklist for Reporting Internet E-Survey Results

Acknowledgements

not applicable.

The study was presented as an oral presentation at the 11th International OMFS Congress of ACBID in 2018.

Author contributions

I.G. designed the study, wrote the main manuscript, and edited it multiple times. S.G. designed the study, helped with statistical analyses, and contributed to the writing. Y.M. organized data collection and made statistical analyses. Z.C.Y. designed the study, checked and edited the references, and contributed to the writing. M.O. led the design of the study, edited the main text and made contribution to the writing. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Funding

Not applicable.

Data availability

If there is any request regarding the data, the corresponding author (Ipek Necla Guldiken) will be the provider, whose the contact address is given below: ipek.guldiken@istinye.edu.tr.

Declarations

Ethical approval

The Institutional Ethics Committee of Istanbul Medipol University approved this cross-sectional study (file number: E-10840098-604.01.01-5450).

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained online at the start of the survey, with agreement indicated by continuing with the survey.

Consent for publication

not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Forsberg CM Huddinge O Tooth size, spacing, and crowding in relation to eruption or impaction of third molars Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1988 94 57 62 10.1016/0889-5406(88)90451-9
Forsberg CM, Huddinge O. Tooth size, spacing, and crowding in relation to eruption or impaction of third molars. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1988;94:57–62.10.1016/0889-5406(88)90451-9
2. Ahire B Bhoosreddy A Bhoosreddy S Shinde M Pandharbale A Kunte V Radiographic assessment of agenesis, impaction, and pararadicular radiolucencies in relation with third molar in Nashik City of Maharashtra J Dent Allied Sci 2016 5 1 3 10.4103/2277-4696.185185
Ahire B, Bhoosreddy A, Bhoosreddy S, Shinde M, Pandharbale A, Kunte V. Radiographic assessment of agenesis, impaction, and pararadicular radiolucencies in relation with third molar in Nashik City of Maharashtra. J Dent Allied Sci. 2016;5(1):3.10.4103/2277-4696.185185
3. Saisha J Kapeshi C Siame A Sikhanyiso M Kafumukache E Gupta K Clinical presentation of impacted third molar tooth and its effect on the adjacent tooth, in Lusaka, Zambia Anat J Afr 2023 12 1 2296 302 10.4314/aja.v12i1.6
Saisha J, Kapeshi C, Siame A, Sikhanyiso M, Kafumukache E, Gupta K, et al. Clinical presentation of impacted third molar tooth and its effect on the adjacent tooth, in Lusaka, Zambia. Anat J Afr. 2023;12(1):2296–302.10.4314/aja.v12i1.6
4. Sivaramakrishnan SM, Ramani P. Study on the prevalence of eruption status of third molars in South Indian population. Biology Med. 2015;7(4).
5. Adeyemo WL James O Oladega AA Adamson OO Adekunle AA Olorunsola KD Correlation between height and impacted third molars and Genetics Role in Third Molar Impaction J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2021 20 1 149 53 10.1007/s12663-020-01336-9 33584057
Adeyemo WL, James O, Oladega AA, Adamson OO, Adekunle AA, Olorunsola KD, et al. Correlation between height and impacted third molars and Genetics Role in Third Molar Impaction. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2021;20(1):149–53.33584057 10.1007/s12663-020-01336-9
6. Gkantidis N, Tacchi M, Oeschger ES, Halazonetis D, Kanavakis G. Third molar agenesis is associated with facial size. Biology (Basel). 2021;10(7).
7. Tassoker M Kok H Sener S Is there a possible association between skeletal face types and third molar impaction? A retrospective Radiographic Study Med Principles Pract 2019 28 1 70 4 10.1159/000495005
Tassoker M, Kok H, Sener S. Is there a possible association between skeletal face types and third molar impaction? A retrospective Radiographic Study. Med Principles Pract. 2019;28(1):70–4.10.1159/000495005
8. Shekhar V Khanna S Gandhi C Bhushan R Shaik I Sharma S Does caries in the adjacent tooth justify prophylactic odontectomy of impacted tooth? J Dent Res Rev 2020 7 4 197 10.4103/jdrr.jdrr_56_20
Shekhar V, Khanna S, Gandhi C, Bhushan R, Shaik I, Sharma S. Does caries in the adjacent tooth justify prophylactic odontectomy of impacted tooth? J Dent Res Rev. 2020;7(4):197.10.4103/jdrr.jdrr_56_20
9. Ghaeminia H Perry J Nienhuijs MEL Toedtling V Tummers M Hoppenreijs TJM Surgical removal versus retention for the management of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth Cochrane Database Syst Reviews 2016 2016 8
Ghaeminia H, Perry J, Nienhuijs MEL, Toedtling V, Tummers M, Hoppenreijs TJM, et al. Surgical removal versus retention for the management of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Reviews. 2016;2016:8.
10. Fawzi Omar BDSL Prevalence of impacted Wisdom Teeth among Hawler Young people Mustansiria Dent J 2008 5 1 97 103 10.32828/mdj.v5i1.513
Fawzi Omar BDSL. Prevalence of impacted Wisdom Teeth among Hawler Young people. Mustansiria Dent J. 2008;5(1):97–103.10.32828/mdj.v5i1.513
11. Soesilawati P Yuliati A Fandani F Prabowo NZS Tamariska T Salma RF Diet as a partial explanation for Wisdom Teeth Problem e-GiGi 2022 10 1 129 10.35790/eg.v10i1.39183
Soesilawati P, Yuliati A, Fandani F, Prabowo NZS, Tamariska T, Salma RF, et al. Diet as a partial explanation for Wisdom Teeth Problem. e-GiGi. 2022;10(1):129.10.35790/eg.v10i1.39183
12. Gavazzi M, De Angelis D, Blasi S, Pesce P, Lanteri V. Third molars and dental crowding: different opinions of orthodontists and oral surgeons among Italian practitioners. Prog Orthod. 2014;15(1).
13. Renton T, Wilson NHF. Problems with erupting wisdom teeth: signs, symptoms, and management. British Journal of General Practice [Internet]. 2016 Aug 1 [cited 2023 Nov 6];66(649):e606–8. https://bjgp.org/content/66/649/e606
14. Consolaro A Third molars and premolars extraction in conventional orthodontics and in treatments based on maxillary bone remodeling with temporary anchorage: indications and care Dent Press J Orthod 2017 22 1 23 31 10.1590/2177-6709.22.1.023-031.oin
Consolaro A. Third molars and premolars extraction in conventional orthodontics and in treatments based on maxillary bone remodeling with temporary anchorage: indications and care. Dent Press J Orthod. 2017;22(1):23–31.10.1590/2177-6709.22.1.023-031.oin
15. Susami T Fukawa T Miyazaki H Sakamoto T Morishita T Sato Y A survey of orthodontic treatment in team care for patients with syndromic craniosynostosis in Japan Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2018 55 4 479 86 10.1177/1055665617747703 29351022
Susami T, Fukawa T, Miyazaki H, Sakamoto T, Morishita T, Sato Y, et al. A survey of orthodontic treatment in team care for patients with syndromic craniosynostosis in Japan. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(4):479–86.29351022 10.1177/1055665617747703
16. Rafetto LK. Managing impacted third molars. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Clinics of North America. Volume 27. W.B. Saunders; 2015. pp. 363–71.
17. Mayrink G Ballista PR Kinderlly L Araujo S Marano R External Root Resorption associated with impacted third molars: a Case Report J Oral Health Craniofac Sci 2017 2 43 8 10.29328/journal.johcs.1001010
Mayrink G, Ballista PR, Kinderlly L, Araujo S, Marano R. External Root Resorption associated with impacted third molars: a Case Report. J Oral Health Craniofac Sci. 2017;2:43–8.10.29328/journal.johcs.1001010
18. Angeles Fuster Torres M Gargallo Albiol J Berini Aytes L Gay Escoda C Gay-Escoda C Evaluation of the indication for surgical extraction of third molars according to the oral surgeon and the primary care dentist. Experience in the master of oral surgery and implantology at Barcelona University Dental School Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2008 13 8 499 504
Angeles Fuster Torres M, Gargallo Albiol J, Berini Aytes L, Gay Escoda C, Gay-Escoda C. Evaluation of the indication for surgical extraction of third molars according to the oral surgeon and the primary care dentist. Experience in the master of oral surgery and implantology at Barcelona University Dental School. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2008;13(8):499–504.
19. Antanas Š, Giedrė T. Effect of the lower third molars on the lower dental arch crowding. Stomatologija, Baltic Dental and Maxillofacial Journal. 2006;8(3):80–4.
20. Dodson TB Gonzalez ML American Association of Oral and maxillofacial surgeons’ anesthesia and third molar extraction Benchmark Study: Rationale, methods, and initial findings J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016 74 5 903 10 10.1016/j.joms.2015.11.032 26752186
Dodson TB, Gonzalez ML. American Association of Oral and maxillofacial surgeons’ anesthesia and third molar extraction Benchmark Study: Rationale, methods, and initial findings. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;74(5):903–10.26752186 10.1016/j.joms.2015.11.032
21. Richards D Management of unerupted and impacted third molar teeth. A National Clinical Guideline Evid Based Dent 2000 2 2 44 5 10.1038/sj.ebd.6400030
Richards D. Management of unerupted and impacted third molar teeth. A National Clinical Guideline. Evid Based Dent. 2000;2(2):44–5.10.1038/sj.ebd.6400030
22. Adam N, Update JSO. 2018 undefined. NICE Guidance on the Extraction of Wisdom Teeth–Time for a Rethink? magonlinelibrary.comN Adam, J SandlerOrthodontic Update, 2018•magonlinelibrary.com [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2023 Nov 6]; https://www.magonlinelibrary.com/doi/abs/10.12968/ortu.2018.11.1.33
23. Kuang S, Liu Y, Zhuang W, Li K, Yang W, Tian Y. The effect of root orientation on inferior alveolar nerve injury after extraction of impacted mandibular third molars based on propensity score-matched analysis: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Oral Health. 2023;23(1).
24. Daikeler J Bosnjak M Manfreda KL Web versus other survey modes: an updated and extended meta-analysis comparing response rates J Surv Stat Methodol 2020 8 3 513 39 10.1093/jssam/smz008
Daikeler J, Bosnjak M, Manfreda KL. Web versus other survey modes: an updated and extended meta-analysis comparing response rates. J Surv Stat Methodol. 2020;8(3):513–39.10.1093/jssam/smz008
25. Eysenbach G. Improving the Quality of Web Surveys: The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res [Internet]. 2004;6(3):34. http://www.jmir.org/2012/1/e8
26. Song F, O’meara S, Wilson P, SGHT. 2000 undefined. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prophylactic removal of wisdom teeth. europepmc.orgF Song, S O’meara, P Wilson, S Golder, J KleijnenHealth Technology Assessment (Winchester, England), 2000•europepmc.org [Internet]. [cited 2023 Nov 6]; https://europepmc.org/article/med/10932022
27. Almendros-Marqués N Berini-Aytés L Gay-Escoda C Influence of lower third molar position on the incidence of preoperative complications. Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral Pathology Oral Radiol Endodontology 2006 102 6 725 32
Almendros-Marqués N, Berini-Aytés L, Gay-Escoda C. Influence of lower third molar position on the incidence of preoperative complications. Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral Pathology. Oral Radiol Endodontology. 2006;102(6):725–32.
28. Ventä I. How often do asymptomatic, disease-free third molars need to be removed? Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2012;70(9 SUPPL. 1).
29. Laskin DM Evaluation of the third molar problem J Am Dent Assoc 1971 82 4 824 8 10.14219/jada.archive.1971.0130 5278781
Laskin DM. Evaluation of the third molar problem. J Am Dent Assoc. 1971;82(4):824–8.5278781 10.14219/jada.archive.1971.0130
30. Lindauer SJ Laskin DM Tüfekçi E Taylor RS Cushing BJ Best AM Orthodontists’ and surgeons’ opinions on the role of third molars as a cause of dental crowding Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2007 132 1 43 8 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.07.026
Lindauer SJ, Laskin DM, Tüfekçi E, Taylor RS, Cushing BJ, Best AM. Orthodontists’ and surgeons’ opinions on the role of third molars as a cause of dental crowding. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2007;132(1):43–8.10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.07.026
31. Richardson M, Dentofacial DOAJ, of O. and, 1989 undefined. The role of the third molar in the cause of late lower arch crowding: a review. Elsevier [Internet]. [cited 2023 Nov 6]; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/088954068990139X
32. Niedzielska I. Third molar influence on dental arch crowding. Eur J Orthod [Internet]. 2005 Oct 1 [cited 2023 Nov 6];27(5):518–23. 10.1093/ejo/cji045
33. Ades AG Joondeph DR Little RM Chapko MK A long-term study of the relationship of third molars to changes in the mandibular dental arch Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1990 97 4 323 35 10.1016/0889-5406(90)70105-L
Ades AG, Joondeph DR, Little RM, Chapko MK. A long-term study of the relationship of third molars to changes in the mandibular dental arch. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1990;97(4):323–35.10.1016/0889-5406(90)70105-L
34. Friedman JW The prophylactic extraction of third molars: a public health hazard Am J Public Health 2007 97 9 1554 9 10.2105/AJPH.2006.100271 17666691
Friedman JW. The prophylactic extraction of third molars: a public health hazard. Am J Public Health. 2007;97(9):1554–9.17666691 10.2105/AJPH.2006.100271
35. Kim SJ Hwang CJ Park JH Kim HJ Yu HS Surgical removal of asymptomatic impacted third molars: considerations for orthodontists and oral surgeons Semin Orthod 2016 22 1 75 83 10.1053/j.sodo.2015.10.010
Kim SJ, Hwang CJ, Park JH, Kim HJ, Yu HS. Surgical removal of asymptomatic impacted third molars: considerations for orthodontists and oral surgeons. Semin Orthod. 2016;22(1):75–83.10.1053/j.sodo.2015.10.010
36. Falci SGM De Castro CR Santos RC De Souza Lima LD Ramos-Jorge ML Botelho AM Association between the presence of a partially erupted mandibular third molar and the existence of caries in the distal of the second molars Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012 41 10 1270 4 10.1016/j.ijom.2012.03.003 22464852
Falci SGM, De Castro CR, Santos RC, De Souza Lima LD, Ramos-Jorge ML, Botelho AM, et al. Association between the presence of a partially erupted mandibular third molar and the existence of caries in the distal of the second molars. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;41(10):1270–4.22464852 10.1016/j.ijom.2012.03.003
37. White RP Madianos PN Offenbacher S Phillips C Blakey GH Haug RH Microbial complexes detected in the second/third molar region in patients with asymptomatic third molars J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002 60 11 1234 40 10.1053/joms.2002.35718 12420254
White RP, Madianos PN, Offenbacher S, Phillips C, Blakey GH, Haug RH, et al. Microbial complexes detected in the second/third molar region in patients with asymptomatic third molars. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002;60(11):1234–40.12420254 10.1053/joms.2002.35718
38. Adelsperger J Campbell JH Coates DB Summerlin DJ Tomich CE Early soft tissue pathosis associated with impacted third molars without pericoronal radiolucency Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000 89 4 402 6 10.1016/S1079-2104(00)70119-3 10760721
Adelsperger J, Campbell JH, Coates DB, Summerlin DJ, Tomich CE. Early soft tissue pathosis associated with impacted third molars without pericoronal radiolucency. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2000;89(4):402–6.10760721 10.1016/S1079-2104(00)70119-3
39. Baykul T Saglam AA Aydin U Başak K Incidence of cystic changes in radiographically normal impacted lower third molar follicles Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontology 2005 99 5 542 5 10.1016/j.tripleo.2004.08.010
Baykul T, Saglam AA, Aydin U, Başak K. Incidence of cystic changes in radiographically normal impacted lower third molar follicles. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontology. 2005;99(5):542–5.10.1016/j.tripleo.2004.08.010
40. Almendros-Marqués N Berini-Aytés L Gay-Escoda C Influence of lower third molar position on the incidence of preoperative complications Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontology 2006 102 6 725 32 10.1016/j.tripleo.2006.01.006
Almendros-Marqués N, Berini-Aytés L, Gay-Escoda C. Influence of lower third molar position on the incidence of preoperative complications. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontology. 2006;102(6):725–32.10.1016/j.tripleo.2006.01.006
41. Stathopoulos P, Mezitis M, … CKJ of oral and, 2011 undefined. Cysts and tumors associated with impacted third molars: is prophylactic removal justified? Elsevier [Internet]. 2011 Feb [cited 2023 Nov 7];69(2):405–8. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278239110005690.
42. Adeyemo WL Do pathologies associated with impacted lower third molars justify prophylactic removal? A critical review of the literature. Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral Pathology Oral Radiol Endodontology 2006 102 4 448 52
Adeyemo WL. Do pathologies associated with impacted lower third molars justify prophylactic removal? A critical review of the literature. Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral Pathology. Oral Radiol Endodontology. 2006;102(4):448–52.
43. Al Agili DE, Khalaf ZI. The role of oral and prenatal healthcare providers in the promotion of oral health for pregnant women. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023;23(1).
