Prophylactic Removal of Asymptomatic Third Molars: Evidence-Based Benefit or Unnecessary Intervention

Abstract

One of the most contentious issues in oral and maxillofacial surgery is the treatment of asymptomatic third molars. In order to avoid future pathology such as caries, periodontal disease, and pericoronitis, prophylactic removal has historically been recommended. However, new research raises questions about needless surgical intervention because it indicates that many impacted third molars may remain asymptomatic and disease-free throughout life. The literature on the advantages and disadvantages of prophylactic extraction versus retention of asymptomatic third molars is critically assessed in this review. Relevant clinical studies, cohort studies, and systematic reviews were examined after a thorough search of the main electronic databases. The results show conflicting evidence; some studies highlight the low incidence of severe pathology and the possible risks of surgical complications, while others support early removal due to improved healing and less surgical difficulty. Making decisions is made more difficult by financial constraints, ethical issues, and the possibility of overtreatment. Clinical decisions should be customized based on patient-specific factors, anatomical considerations, and risk assessment because there is currently insufficient evidence to support a universal approach. To weigh the advantages of preventive intervention against the dangers of needless surgery, a patient-centered, evidence-based strategy is crucial.

Keywords

Introduction

Third molars, commonly referred to as wisdom teeth, are the last teeth to erupt in the oral cavity, usually between the ages of 17 and 25 years. Due to evolutionary changes in jaw size and dietary habits, there is often insufficient space to accommodate these teeth, resulting in impaction. Third molar impaction is defined as the failure of a tooth to erupt into its normal functional position because of physical obstruction or lack of space. This condition is frequently encountered in clinical practice and may remain asymptomatic for long periods or become associated with a variety of pathological conditions.[1]

The clinical significance of impacted third molars lies in their potential to cause both local and regional complications. These include pericoronitis, dental caries affecting the third or adjacent second molars, periodontal defects, and, in rare cases, cystic or neoplastic changes. In addition, their anatomical position and variability in angulation make their management a complex surgical decision. Despite being one of the most commonly performed procedures in oral and maxillofacial surgery, the indication for removal particularly in asymptomatic cases remains a matter of ongoing debate.[1]

From an epidemiological perspective, tooth extraction remains a widely practiced intervention, with molars being among the most frequently removed teeth. Dental caries and periodontal disease are the leading causes of extraction globally, but third molars represent a unique category due to their developmental nature and unpredictable behavior.[2] Their removal is often undertaken either in response to symptoms or as a preventive strategy aimed at avoiding future complications. This dual approach has contributed significantly to the high burden of third molar surgeries worldwide.

Historically, there has been a strong inclination toward prophylactic removal of third molars, even in the absence of clinical symptoms. This practice was largely driven by the assumption that impacted or partially erupted third molars would inevitably lead to pathology if retained.[3] Early removal, particularly during young adulthood, was advocated on the basis that surgical procedures are technically easier, healing is more predictable, and the risk of complications is lower at a younger age.[4] Consequently, prophylactic extraction became widely accepted as a preventive measure in many clinical settings.

However, this traditional approach has been increasingly questioned in recent years. Emerging evidence suggests that not all impacted third molars progress to pathological conditions, and many may remain asymptomatic throughout life.[5] Furthermore, surgical removal itself is not without risk. Complications such as pain, swelling, infection, dry socket, and nerve injury must be carefully considered, especially when the procedure is performed without a clear clinical indication.[6] This has led to growing concern regarding the potential for overtreatment and unnecessary surgical intervention.

The controversy surrounding prophylactic removal versus retention of asymptomatic third molars reflect a broader challenge in evidence-based clinical decision-making. While some clinicians advocate early removal to minimize long-term risks, others support a more conservative approach involving active monitoring and intervention only when pathology develops. The absence of definitive long-term evidence and the variability in clinical presentations have contributed to a lack of consensus among practitioners and professional guidelines.[5]

In this context, it becomes essential to critically evaluate the available evidence and balance the potential benefits of preventive extraction against the risks associated with surgical intervention and long-term retention. Therefore, the aim of this critical review is to systematically analyze the current literature on prophylactic removal of asymptomatic third molars, assess the validity of existing arguments on both sides, and provide a clinically relevant perspective to guide decision-making in contemporary oral and maxillofacial practice.

1. 1. BIOLOGICAL BASIS AND NATURAL HISTORY OF THIRD MOLAR:

Third molars represent the terminal stage of human dentition and are uniquely influenced by evolutionary, anatomical, and environmental factors. Anthropological evidence suggests that reduction in jaw size over generations, largely attributed to softer diets and decreased masticatory demand, has led to a mismatch between tooth size and available arch space. This discrepancy is a primary reason why third molars frequently fail to erupt into a functional position, resulting in impaction.[7]The eruption pattern of third molars is highly variable compared to other teeth. Their development begins later, and eruption typically occurs between late adolescence and early adulthood. However, this process is often unpredictable due to spatial limitations, angulation, and surrounding anatomical barriers.[8] As a result, third molars may remain fully impacted within bone, partially erupt through soft tissue, or achieve delayed eruption over time. This variability forms the biological basis for the ongoing uncertainty in their management.Impaction itself arises from multiple etiological factors, including insufficient arch length, abnormal eruption path, dense overlying bone, or obstruction by adjacent teeth. These factors contribute to different types of impaction, commonly classified based on angulation (mesioangular, distoangular, vertical, horizontal) and depth relative to the occlusal plane and ramus.[7] Such classifications are not merely descriptive but have clinical significance, as they influence both the likelihood of eruption and the potential for associated pathology.

An important aspect of third molar biology is their potential for continued positional change even after the age traditionally associated with eruption. Longitudinal observations have demonstrated that a proportion of impacted third molars may undergo spontaneous eruption or change in angulation over time.[9] In some cases, teeth initially considered impacted may partially or fully erupt without intervention, challenging the assumption that impaction is always a static condition. However, this eruption potential is inconsistent and cannot be reliably predicted for every patient.he natural history of asymptomatic third molars further complicates clinical decision-making. While some remain dormant and disease-free for extended periods, others may develop pathology later in life. The absence of symptoms does not necessarily indicate absence of disease, as subclinical changes may exist.[7] This uncertainty underscores the importance of individualized assessment rather than a uniform treatment approach.Additionally, third molars exhibit significant variability in anatomy, including differences in crown morphology, root number, root curvature, and proximity to vital structures such as the inferior alveolar nerve and maxillary sinus.[10] These variations directly affect both eruption behavior and surgical complexity. Teeth with complex root anatomy or unfavorable positioning are less likely to erupt and more likely to present challenges if removal becomes necessary.[8]Clinically, the behavior of third molars ranges from completely asymptomatic and functional to intermittently symptomatic or pathologically involved.[11,12] Some teeth may contribute to adjacent tooth damage, while others remain clinically insignificant throughout life.[7]

1. 2. PAHOLOGICAL SEQUELAE ASSOCIATED WITH RETAINED THIRD MOLAR:

Retained third molars, particularly when impacted or partially erupted, are commonly associated with a range of pathological conditions affecting both the tooth and surrounding structures. Their posterior location, limited accessibility, and tendency for plaque accumulation create a favorable environment for disease development, even in the absence of initial symptoms.[7]Pericoronitis is the most frequent clinical indication for third molar removal. It involves inflammation of the soft tissues surrounding a partially erupted tooth, often due to bacterial colonization beneath the operculum. Patients typically present with pain, swelling, and restricted mouth opening. Recurrent episodes are significant, as they indicate persistent infection and are widely accepted as a definitive indication for extraction.[8,11]Dental caries is another important sequela, particularly involving the distal surface of the second molar. The angulation and proximity of impacted third molars hinder effective oral hygiene, promoting plaque retention and carious activity. This not only affects the third molar but may also compromise the adjacent second molar, which is otherwise functionally important.[7,12]Periodontal disease is frequently observed in association with retained third molars, especially when partially erupted. Chronic biofilm accumulation leads to the formation of periodontal pockets distal to the second molar, resulting in attachment loss and bone resorption over time. This condition may progress silently and contribute to long-term periodontal deterioration.[7,8]Although less common, cystic and neoplastic changes may develop in association with impacted third molars. Dentigerous cysts are the most frequently reported lesions, while odontogenic tumors are rare but clinically significant. Despite their low incidence, the potential severity of these conditions warrants careful evaluation and monitoring.[7,8]From an epidemiological perspective, third molars contribute significantly to the burden of tooth extraction. They are among the most frequently removed teeth, either due to symptomatic pathology or preventive considerations, highlighting their clinical relevance.[2,3]However, it is important to recognize that not all retained third molars progress to disease. Some remain asymptomatic throughout life, emphasizing the need for individualized clinical judgment when deciding between retention and removal.[4]

2. ETHODOLOGY:

This critical review was conducted to evaluate the current evidence regarding the prophylactic removal of asymptomatic third molars, with a focus on clinical indications, associated risks, and long-term outcomes. A comprehensive literature search was performed using electronic databases including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. The search strategy incorporated a combination of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and free-text terms to ensure broad and relevant retrieval of studies. The primary MeSH terms used included Third Molar, Impacted Tooth, Tooth Extraction, Prophylactic Removal, Asymptomatic Disease, Pericoronitis, Dental Caries, Periodontal Diseases, Oral Surgical Procedures, and Treatment Outcome. Boolean operators (AND, OR) were applied to refine the search and capture studies addressing both preventive and therapeutic perspectives.Studies were selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure methodological consistency. Inclusion criteria comprised peer-reviewed clinical studies, cohort studies, systematic reviews, and relevant academic theses that focused on asymptomatic or impacted third molars and evaluated outcomes related to removal or retention. Only articles published in English and presenting clear methodology with clinically relevant outcomes were considered. Exclusion criteria included case reports, narrative opinions without scientific backing, studies unrelated to third molar management, articles with incomplete or unclear data, and duplicate publications identified across databases.Data extraction was performed systematically, focusing on study design, sample characteristics, clinical indications, complications, and treatment outcomes. Given the heterogeneity of available studies, a qualitative synthesis approach was adopted rather than a quantitative meta-analysis. Both supportive and opposing evidence regarding prophylactic removal were deliberately included to maintain the critical nature of the review.Efforts were made to minimize bias by employing a multi-database search strategy and strictly adhering to predefined selection criteria. Preference was given to higher levels of evidence, including systematic reviews and cohort studies, to enhance reliability. Conflicting findings were critically appraised and incorporated to avoid selective reporting and ensure a balanced interpretation of the literature. The choice of a critical review design was intentional, allowing for analytical evaluation of evidence in an area where definitive clinical consensus remains lacking, thereby supporting more informed and individualized decision-making in third molar management.

3. DISCUSSION:
   1. ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING PROPHYLACTIC REMOVAL:

Prophylactic removal of third molars is often justified on the basis of preventing future pathology and limiting disease progression. Clinical evidence indicates that impacted third molars are frequently associated with inflammatory conditions such as pericoronitis, which remains the most common indication for extraction. A clinical study by Krishnan et al. demonstrated that a significant proportion of third molar removals were due to symptomatic conditions, highlighting the tendency of these teeth to become problematic over time.[11] This is supported by Siddiqui et al., who emphasized that asymptomatic third molars may still harbor underlying pathological changes, reinforcing the preventive rationale for early removal.[3]The risk of dental caries, particularly involving the distal surface of the second molar, further strengthens the argument for prophylactic extraction. Marques et al. reported a clear association between impacted third molars and distal cervical caries in adjacent second molars, suggesting that retention may compromise otherwise healthy teeth.[12] In addition, long-term observational data indicate that pathology related to third molars can increase with age, with elderly populations showing higher prevalence of associated disease, thereby supporting early intervention before complications develop.[13]Another key argument relates to the increasing complexity of surgical removal with advancing age. Although not always immediately evident, retained third molars tend to become more difficult to remove over time due to changes in bone density and root morphology. McCoy highlighted that retained third molars may lead to progressive pathological changes, which can complicate later surgical management.[7] Similarly, Prasad emphasized that delaying removal may result in more complex procedures and higher postoperative morbidity, supporting the advantage of early prophylactic intervention.[4]

From an epidemiological and healthcare perspective, third molars contribute significantly to the overall burden of tooth extraction. Studies analyzing extraction patterns have shown that a large proportion of dental extractions are performed due to preventable conditions, including those associated with impacted third molars. Shareef et al. reported that molars are among the most commonly extracted teeth, often due to disease processes that could potentially be avoided with earlier management.[2] Furthermore, systematic evidence by Broers et al. indicates that reasons for tooth removal extend beyond acute pathology and include preventive considerations, reflecting the clinical importance of proactive decision-making.[14]Orthodontic and functional considerations have also been cited in support of prophylactic removal. Although debated, the presence of third molars has been implicated in crowding and occlusal instability, influencing treatment planning in selected patients. Additionally, broader risk factor analyses suggest that patient-specific variables, including oral hygiene status and systemic conditions, may influence outcomes related to both retention and removal, reinforcing the need for timely intervention in appropriate cases.[15]Overall, the evidence suggests that prophylactic removal of third molars may reduce the risk of future disease, protect adjacent teeth, and minimize the burden of complex surgical interventions later in life.

1. 2. ARGUMENTS AGAINST ROUTINE PROPHYLACTIC REMOVAL:

A major argument against routine prophylactic removal of third molars is that many asymptomatic teeth may remain disease-free throughout life. Longitudinal evidence has demonstrated that impacted third molars can remain stable or even erupt over time without developing pathology. Von Wowern and Nielsen observed that a proportion of impacted third molars showed spontaneous eruption or remained asymptomatic during follow-up, suggesting that immediate removal may not always be justified.[9] Similarly, De Bruyn et al. highlighted that retention of third molars is often a deliberate clinical decision when no pathology is evident, reinforcing the concept of conservative management. In addition, Bouloux et al. reported that the likelihood of future extraction of asymptomatic third molars is not sufficiently high to justify routine removal in all patients, further supporting a selective approach.[16,17]The relatively low incidence of severe pathology further challenges the need for routine removal. Ventä et al. reported that although third molars may be associated with certain conditions, the occurrence of significant pathological changes is comparatively low, particularly in the absence of symptoms.[13] This supports the view that not all impacted third molars inevitably progress to disease, and therefore, universal prophylactic extraction may lead to unnecessary intervention.Another critical consideration is the ris associated with surgical removal itself. Third molar extraction is not a risk-free procedure and may result in complications such as pain, swelling, infection, alveolar osteitis, and nerve injury. Chuang et al. demonstrated that complication rates increase with age, but they also emphasized that surgical morbidity is an inherent concern regardless of timing.[18] Pogrel further noted that while early removal may reduce some risks, it does not eliminate the potential for postoperative complications, highlighting the need for careful case selection.[19]Ethical concerns also arise when healthy, asymptomatic teeth are removed without clear clinical indication. Prasad emphasized that the prophylactic extraction of disease-free third molars may conflict with the principle of minimal intervention, particularly when the benefits are uncertain.[4] This raises questions regarding overtreatment and the justification of surgery in the absence of definitive pathology.From an economic and healthcare perspective, routine prophylactic removal may contribute to unnecessary financial burden. Broers et al. demonstrated that tooth extractions are influenced not only by pathology but also by preventive and non-clinical factors, suggesting variability in clinical decision-making.[14] Collectively, these findings emphasize that asymptomatic third molars do not invariably require removal. The potential for long-term stability, combined with the risks of surgery, ethical considerations, and financial implications, supports a more conservative, patient-specific approach rather than routine prophylactic extraction.

1. 3. EVIDENCE APPRAISAL AND CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF LITERATURE:

he current literature on prophylactic removal of third molars is largely derived from systematic reviews and cohort-based studies, yet the conclusions remain inconsistent and often conflicting. Systematic reviews evaluating outcomes of removal versus retention have demonstrated variability in findings, with some suggesting benefits of early intervention while others highlight the stability of asymptomatic teeth over time.[6,16] Similarly, cohort analyses indicate that third molar-related pathology is not universal, and many retained teeth may not require intervention, further complicating clinical decision-making.[17]Guideline perspectives reflect this inconsistency within the evidence base. Some clinical approaches support early removal to prevent future complications and reduce surgical difficulty, whereas others recommend a conservative strategy emphasizing surveillance in the absence of symptoms. Dodson highlighted the lack of definitive criteria guiding removal versus retention, emphasizing that clinical decisions are often influenced by interpretation rather than robust evidence.[5] This divergence underscores the absence of universally accepted protocols for third molar management.A critical limitation in the literature is the lack of high-quality, long-term evidence. Most available studies are retrospective or observational in nature, with limited follow-up durations that fail to capture the full natural history of third molars. Staderini et al. noted that the heterogeneity of study designs and limited number of high-quality trials restrict the ability to establish strong clinical recommendations.[8] Furthermore, existing studies often rely on surrogate endpoints rather than long-term patient-centered outcomes, reducing their applicability in clinical practice.

Bias and heterogeneity are significant concerns within surgical literature. Many studies evaluating removal outcomes include patients who already present with pathology, thereby overestimating the benefits of intervention. Conversely, studies focusing on asymptomatic populations may underestimate future risk due to shorter follow-up periods. McCoy emphasized that retained third molars can present with delayed pathology, which may not be captured in short-term analyses.[7] Additionally, variability in classification systems, surgical techniques, and reporting standards contributes to inconsistencies across studies.he timing of intervention further complicates interpretation. Pogrel demonstrated that surgical outcomes and complication rates vary with age, yet the optimal timing for removal remains unclear due to insufficient longitudinal evidence.[19] Similarly, Chuang et al. identified age as a risk factor for complications, but these findings do not conclusively support routine prophylactic removal in all cases.[18]Overall, the available evidence is characterized by methodological limitations, conflicting findings, and significant heterogeneity. While systematic reviews and cohort studies provide valuable insights, they do not offer definitive guidance due to variability in design and interpretation. This lack of high-quality, long-term evidence highlights the need for cautious, individualized clinical decision-making and underscores the importance of further well-designed longitudinal studies to clarify the role of prophylactic removal in third molar management.

1. 4. RISK–BENEFIT ANALYSIS: A PATIENT-CENTERED PERSPECTIVE:

A patient-centered approach to third molar management requires careful evaluation of individual risk–benefit profiles rather than a uniform treatment strategy. Age is a key determinant influencing both surgical risk and healing outcomes. Evidence indicates that younger patients generally experience less postoperative morbidity, whereas increasing age is associated with greater surgical difficulty, delayed healing, and higher complication rates.[18,19] However, this must be balanced against the fact that not all third molars become pathological with time, making age alone an insufficient indication for removal.Anatomical and positional factors also play a critical role in decision-making. The angulation, depth of impaction, and proximity to vital structures such as the inferior alveolar nerve or maxillary sinus significantly influence both the risk of pathology and the complexity of surgical intervention. Teeth with unfavorable positioning are more likely to contribute to adjacent tooth damage or infection, yet they also present higher surgical risk, necessitating individualized assessment.[7,12]Systemic health and lifestyle factors further modify the risk–benefit equation. Conditions such as diabetes, smoking, and poor oral hygiene can increase the likelihood of postoperative complications, including infection and delayed healing. Broader epidemiological data suggest that patient-specific risk factors must be considered alongside local dental factors when planning treatment, as they may influence both the progression of disease and surgical outcomes.[15]A direct comparison between extraction and retention outcomes highlights the complexity of clinical decision-making. While extraction eliminates the risk of future third molar-related pathology, it introduces immediate surgical risks and potential complications. Conversely, retention avoids surgical morbidity but carries a variable and often unpredictable risk of developing pathology over time. Studies have shown that although some retained third molars remain asymptomatic, others may eventually require more complex intervention, emphasizing the importance of long-term monitoring.[16,17]

1. 5. RETENTION VERSUS REMOVAL: A CLINICAL DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK:

Clinical decision-making in third molar management should be based on a structured and individualized approach rather than a routine protocol of removal or retention. A tiered framework allows clinicians to balance disease risk against surgical morbidity while ensuring patient-centered care.[5,17]Definite indications for removal include the presence of established pathology or high risk of disease progression. Conditions such as recurrent pericoronitis, caries involving the third or adjacent second molar, periodontal destruction, cystic changes, and root resorption necessitate extraction, as continued retention may compromise adjacent structures and overall oral health.[11,12]Conditional removal is considered in cases where third molars are asymptomatic but present risk factors for future disease. These include partial eruption, unfavorable angulation, plaque retention areas, and early radiographic changes. Patient-specific factors such as age, systemic health, and oral hygiene status further influence this decision. In such cases, removal may be justified when the predicted risk of future pathology outweighs the surgical risk.[13,15]Active surveillance represents a conservative strategy for asymptomatic third molars with low risk of pathology. Teeth that are fully impacted, well-positioned, and free of clinical or radiographic disease can be retained with periodic monitoring. Longitudinal observations have demonstrated that some impacted third molars remain stable or even erupt without intervention, supporting a non-interventional approach in selected cases.[9,16]An essential component of this framework is shared decision-making. Patients should be informed about the benefits and risks of both removal and retention, including surgical complications, potential for future pathology, and long-term outcomes. Incorporating patient values and preferences into treatment planning ensures ethical and individualized care while reducing unnecessary interventions.[14,17]

4. FUTURE DIRECTIONS AND EMERGING CONCEPTS:

The ongoing controversy surrounding third molar management highlights the need for more robust and high-quality evidence. Current literature is largely based on retrospective and short-term studies, limiting the ability to draw definitive conclusions regarding long-term outcomes. There is a clear need for well-designed longitudinal studies that follow patients over extended periods to better understand the natural history of asymptomatic third molars and the true risk of disease progression.[6,8]Advances in imaging and diagnostic technologies offer promising opportunities for improving clinical decision-making. The use of three-dimensional imaging modalities, such as cone-beam computed tomography, allows for more precise evaluation of tooth position, root morphology, and proximity to vital structures. These tools enhance risk assessment by enabling clinicians to better predict surgical difficulty and potential complications, thereby supporting more informed treatment planning.[7,19]Emerging concepts in risk prediction are also shifting the approach toward individualized care. Rather than relying solely on generalized guidelines, clinicians are increasingly considering patient-specific variables such as anatomical features, systemic health, and behavioral factors. Predictive models integrating these parameters may help identify patients who are more likely to benefit from early intervention versus those suitable for conservative management.[15,16]Ultimately, the future of third molar management lies in the transition toward personalized and evidence-based decision-making. This approach emphasizes tailoring treatment strategies to the individual patient, balancing clinical findings with patient preferences and risk tolerance.

CONCLUSION

Asymptomatic third molar extraction is still a complex clinical decision rather than a standard practice. Both routine extraction and absolute retention are not entirely supported by the available data. It is crucial to take a balanced approach that incorporates patient preferences, anatomical considerations, and individual risk factors. In order to prevent future morbidity and avoid needless intervention, the focus should shift to selective, evidence-based decision-making, guaranteeing the best possible patient-centered care

Ethical Approval: Not required

Conflict of Interest: Nil

REFERENCES

1. Vranckx M, Fieuws S, Jacobs R, Politis C. Prophylactic vs. symptomatic third molar removal: effects on patient postoperative morbidity. Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice. 2021 Sep 1;21(3):101582.
2. Shareef RA, Chaturvedi S, Suleman G, Elmahdi AE, Elagib MF. Analysis of tooth extraction causes and patterns. Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences. 2020 Apr 20;8(D):36-41.
3. Siddiqui SR, Agrawal S, Monga HS, Gaur A. Prophylactic removal of the third molars: Justified or not. Journal of International Oral Health. 2015 Nov 1;7(11):132.
4. Prasad TS. Prophylactic extraction of third molars: justified or not?. World Journal of Dentistry. 2018 Dec 1;10(1):72-7.
5. Dodson TB. The management of the asymptomatic, disease-free wisdom tooth: removal versus retention. Atlas of the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Clinics. 2012 Sep 1;20(2):169-76.
6. da Silva Pedrosa M, Silva EB, Cordeiro TO, Oliveira LG, da Silveira RR, da Silva CH, Pompeu JG. Prophylactic removal of unerupted asymptomatic third molars: is it justifiable?.
7. McCoy JM. Complications of retention: pathology associated with retained third molars. Atlas of the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Clinics. 2012 Sep 1;20(2):177-95.
8. Staderini E, Patini R, Guglielmi F, Camodeca A, Gallenzi P. How to manage impacted third molars: Germectomy or delayed removal? A systematic literature review. Medicina. 2019 Mar 26;55(3):79.
9. von Wowern N, Nielsen HO. The fate of impacted lower third molars after the age of 20. A four-year clinical follow-up. International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery. 1989 Oct 1;18(5):277-80.
10. Butt SB. Pros and Cons of 3rd Molars Extraction From a Clinical Perspective (Master's thesis, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences (Lithuania)).
11. Krishnan B, Sheikh MH, Rafa EG, Orafi H. Indications for removal of impacted mandibular third molars: a single institutional experience in Libya. Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery. 2009 Sep;8(3):246-8.
12. Marques J, Montserrat-Bosch M, Figueiredo R, Vilchez-Pérez MA, Valmaseda-Castellón E, Gay-Escoda C. Impacted lower third molars and distal caries in the mandibular second molar. Is prophylactic removal of lower third molars justified?. Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry. 2017 Jun 1;9(6):e794.
13. Ventä I, Kylätie E, Hiltunen K. Pathology related to third molars in the elderly persons. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2015 Nov;19(8):1785-9.
14. Broers DL, Dubois L, de Lange J, Su N, de Jongh A. Reasons for tooth removal in adults: a systematic review. International Dental Journal. 2022 Feb 1;72(1):52-7.
15. Passarelli PC, Pagnoni S, Piccirillo GB, Desantis V, Benegiamo M, Liguori A, Papa R, Papi P, Pompa G, D’Addona A. Reasons for tooth extractions and related risk factors in adult patients: a cohort study. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2020 Apr;17(7):2575.
16. Bouloux GF, Busaidy KF, Beirne OR, Chuang SK, Dodson TB. What is the risk of future extraction of asymptomatic third molars? A systematic review. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2015 May 1;73(5):806-11.
17. De Bruyn L, Vranckx M, Jacobs R, Politis C. A retrospective cohort study on reasons to retain third molars. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2020 Jun 1;49(6):816-21.
18. Chuang SK, Perrott DH, Susarla SM, Dodson TB. Age as a risk factor for third molar surgery complications. Journal of oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2007 Sep 1;65(9):1685-92.
19. Pogrel MA. What is the effect of timing of removal on the incidence and severity of complications?. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2012 Sep 1;70(9):S37-40.