To prophylactically extract or not to extract partially erupted mesio-angularly impacted lower third molars?

Abstract

Introduction Prophylactic removal of mesio-angularly impacted mandibular third molars (MAIM3Ms) has been discouraged by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in 2000. Consequently, partially erupted MAIM3Ms are retained for longer and only extracted if complications arise. The debate whether to extract prophylactically or to monitor these teeth is ongoing.

Pathologies associated with retained partially erupted MAIM3Ms Retaining third molars long into adulthood has been associated with an increased risk of distal cervical caries and external root resorption of the second molar, periodontal disease and pericoronitis, among other pathologies. Although watchful monitoring can help to identify these pathologies, their nature often leads not only to a poor prognosis for the third molar, but also for the second molar, which then requires costly and time-consuming restorative or even prosthodontic work.

Considering prophylactic extractions While an individual risk assessment is paramount, prophylactic removal of partially erupted MAIM3Ms has been shown to have positive effects on oral health-related quality of life, to relieve the pressure on secondary care services and to be economically feasible for the NHS.

Conclusion While long-term prospective cohort studies are necessary to put an end to the ongoing controversy, patients' needs and wishes should be at the forefront of the provision of care.