Third molar extraction is one of the most common oral surgeries performed on Canadian patients, particularly young adults. Vigorous debate persists about the risks of retention of asymptomatic impacted third molars, compared to extraction. The controversy centres on whether medical necessity justifies the cost of third molar extraction for the patient in terms of substantial pain and potential loss of income during recovery and for the federal or provincial health care systems, which may be billed for a portion of the surgical fees. Several research studies initiated by the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (AAOMS) report new associations between oral disease and asymptomatic impacted third molars. These findings merit careful attention because they are being used by the AAOMS to advocate for prophylactic third molar extraction--an approach that contradicts the conclusions of a Canadian health technology report, American Public Health Association policy, and health technology reports from Sweden, Belgium and the UK. The decision to extract third molars seems most effective when made on a case-by-case basis that is tailored to each patient's health status and access to professional oral health care.