Third molar management: a case against routine removal in adolescent and young adult orthodontic patients.

In the nearly two decades since the National Institutes of Health conference, controversy and uncertainty have continued with respect to the diagnosis and treatment of impacted, nondiseased third molars in adolescents and young adults. Articles published over the past 10 years have studied the issue from the vantage point of risk management. Those who favor prophylactic removal justify this action on three premises: 1. All impacted third molars are potentially pathologic; therefore, prophylactic removal reduces or eliminates risk of future disease. 2. The presence of third molars can cause late crowding. 3. Removal during adolescence and young adulthood reduces risks of operative and postoperative complications compared with older patients. Those who favor conservative management offer three counter arguments: 1. Although impacted third molars do pose a risk of a pathologic condition, the risk is relatively small in comparison with the risks of operative and postoperative complications and the costs of unnecessary removal. 2. Although some investigators have shown a statistical association of third molars and late anterior crowding, the association is not strong enough to allow prediction of patients at risk. This is due principally to the high degree of individual variability, suggesting that many other factors interact in the development of postadolescent crowding. 3. Although studies have shown that morbidity is reduced when impacted, nondiseased third molars are removed during adolescence or young adulthood, the cost-risk-benefit data do not justify routine removal. Proponents of prophylactic removal argue that the benefits outweigh the risks. Proponents of conservative management argue that the scientific evidence is inconclusive in support of prophylactic removal. Unfortunately, much of the clinical research has been flawed. This has led to contradictory interpretations that have not fully clarified the relative risks and benefits of early intervention. Untrustworthy data have served only to fuel the debate and controversy concerning proper protocols. However, careful analyses of the published research show that routine removal of impacted or unerupted, disease-free third molars cannot be justified. A case-by-case management protocol that requires monitoring development represents the consensus of most researchers in this field.