ABSTRACT Objective: To identify online recommendations from pediatric and pediatric dentistry associations of the Americas regarding the pacifier habit. Material and Methods: A search was conducted on the associations' website (November/2021 to March/2023) to the questions: (1) Recommend using a pacifier?, (2) What care?, (3) Advantages and (4) disadvantages, (5) Ideal age, and (6) methods for habit removal. Results: Among the 36 American countries, 21 were represented on websites, social media, and official guides. The most significant portion of pediatric dentistry associations (23.81%) does not recommend the use of a pacifier if the infant is exclusively breastfeeding, and recommends avoiding the offer of a pacifier in the first days of life to facilitate the establishment of breastfeeding. Some pediatric (29.63%) associations suggested that use reduces the risk of sudden infant death syndrome. Most pediatric dentistry associations (85.71%) and some pediatric associations (22.22%) linked pacifier use to breastfeeding difficulties and the occurrence of orthodontics. Most of the 20 pediatric dentistry associations stated that the habit should be removed by a maximum of three years of age (90.48%). The most reported recommendations were behavior modification techniques and positive reinforcement. Conclusion: Most pediatric dentistry associations recommend the care and disadvantages of pacifiers and the ideal age to remove them. The few pediatric associations that provide information address indications, care, advantages and disadvantages of pacifiers, age, and methods for removing them. Objective Methods November/2021 November2021 November 2021 (November/202 March/2023 March2023 March 2023 questions 1 (1 pacifier, , pacifier? 2 (2 care? 3 (3 4 (4 5 (5 6 (6 removal Results countries websites media guides 23.81% 2381 23 81 (23.81% 29.63% 2963 29 63 (29.63% syndrome 85.71% 8571 85 71 (85.71% 22.22% 2222 22 (22.22% orthodontics 90.48%. 9048 90.48% . 90 48 (90.48%) reinforcement Conclusion them indications November/202 November202 202 (November/20 March/202 March202 ( 23.81 238 8 (23.81 29.63 296 (29.63 85.71 857 7 (85.71 22.22 222 (22.22 904 90.48 9 (90.48% November/20 November20 (November/2 March/20 March20 23.8 (23.8 29.6 (29.6 85.7 (85.7 22.2 (22.2 90.4 (90.48 November/2 November2 (November/ March/2 March2 23. (23. 29. (29. 85. (85. 22. (22. 90. (90.4 November/ (November March/ (23 (29 (85 (22 (90. (8 (90 (9

The present systematic review was performed to investigate if there is evidence justifying the prophylactic extraction of third molars, one of the most frequent procedures in oral surgery. A series of searches was carried out for randomized, clinical trials and systematic reviews in seven databases (MEDLINE, BBO, LILACS, Web of Science, EMBASE, BIREME and Cochrane Library), with no restrictions regarding year or language. A supplemental manual search of the references of retrieved articles was also performed. The search strategy resulted in 260 papers. Both the data extracted and the quality of each paper were evaluated independently by two reviewers. After selection based on the preestablished eligibility criteria, four papers qualified for the final analysis. A medium degree of quality and methodological consistency was found in three studies, and low quality was found in one study. No studies showed a high degree of consistency. The most significant flaw was an inadequate sample size. The results of the present review indicate a lack of scientific evidence to justify the indication of the prophylactic extraction of third molars.