Abstract: Introduction: This article aims to shed light on some of the pros and cons of prophylactic extraction of third molars. Materials: Non-intervention in cases of asymptomatic third molars poses the risk of overcrowding in the jaw, the formation of dentigerous and/or other odontogenic cysts, periodontal pathologies, pathological resorption of the adjacent second molar, root caries, infection, etc to name a few. At the same time, less than 12% of impacted teeth are associated with some pathology. Dry socket, secondary infection, and paraesthesia are all complications of extraction of third molars. Results: A lot of clinicians’ advocate for the prophylactic removal of the third molars in order to prevent pathologies associated with them, the actual occurrence of pathologies is very less. There is also a lot of contradicting evidence about the role of third molars in crowding of the lower anterior teeth. At the same time, there are risks associated with extraction of the third molars like paraesthesia, dry socket, secondary infection etc. Conclusion: There is no safe and efficient way to accurately predict which asymptomatic impacted third molars can be expected to eventually develop pathology, and which can be left behind in the jaw safely. Hence, a decision about the prophylactic extraction of asymptomatic third molars should be taken after careful clinical and radiographic examination, and taking into account the concerns of the patient. A lot of consideration must be given to the patient’s concerns in these cases, and intervention must be done only after detailed clinical and radiographic assessment of the teeth and after doing a risk v/s benefit analysis.