Oral health is a global issue; therefore, widespread dissemination of results from Oral Medicine–related research and developments around the world is crucial. Hence, global collaboration can answer clinical questions of importance to multiple countries (Kramer et al., 2021). Additionally, due to their rarity in the general population or the difficulties in collecting extensive, long-term follow-up data of good quality, some oral diseases cannot be meticulously studied in individual countries. In such cases, international groups should form to work together, combine their patients' cohorts, perform collaborative research and ultimately learn from each other. Moreover, collecting Big Data in Oral Medicine, that is, large data sets that may be analysed computationally to reveal patterns, trends and associations, could be only possible through global cooperation. One of the main lessons we learnt in the last 2 years during the COVID-19 outbreak was that strong global collaborations are crucial in facing challenging global public health threats and challenges (Hrzic et al., 2022). To date, little is known regarding global cooperation in Oral Medicine. This article presents the results of a survey performed during the 15th Biennial Congress of the European Association of Oral Medicine (EAOM) in Porto, Portugal, September 23–25, 2021. This survey aimed to investigate the collective experience and attitudes of EAOM members regarding multiple aspects of global collaboration in our field, focusing on the needs and possible obstacles that Oral Medicine practitioners have faced. All 307 active EAOM members received a link to fill in a standardised questionnaire. In total, 89 complete answers were received. Table 1 summarises the main results of the survey. Most participants were middle-aged Oral Medicine practitioners, with 71.9% belonging to the 40–59 age group (mean age: 45, SD: 11). Significant experience in Oral Medicine was noticed since 67.5% had more than 10 years of practising time. Approximately 80% worked in an academic environment (hospital or dental school). Interestingly, 84.3% of the responders devoted at least 50% of their working time to Oral Medicine activities, with 41.6% dealing almost exclusively with Oral Medicine. Most surveyees reported a combination of Oral Medicine–related activities, which included patient care (89.9%), teaching (62.9%) and research (51.7%). The majority of members (71.9%) indicated previous involvement in international collaborations, more frequently on more than one occasion (33.7%) or even continuously (22.5%). Currently, 52.9% maintained active collaboration with colleagues from one (12.4%) or more (40.5%) countries. However, 44.9% were, at the time of the survey, not involved in any international cooperation. Research activities came first concerning the type of international collaboration (60.7%). In the majority of cases the collaborative efforts involved literature analysis (36.0%) or original research (34.8%) projects performed without the need for physical presence in a foreign country; the latter form of collaboration was noted only by 13.5% of the participants, indicating that in our modern global society, international cooperation does not depend on the actual mobility of investigators. Regarding global collaboration in research, the EAOM members stated that oral cancer and precancerous lesions, as well as other diseases of the oral mucosa, were the main interest of their collaborative efforts in 46.1% and 41.6% of the answers, respectively. In addition, the most common type of investigations in these international collaborative efforts were systematic reviews or multicentre studies (32.6% and 25.8%, respectively). Lack of funding and lack of time were the most frequent obstacles when attempting to participate in international collaborations, perceived as such by 44.9% and 38.2% of the participants, respectively. Remarkably, only one member of the surveyed membership stated no general interest in global cooperation initiatives. Interestingly, 57.3% of the participants responded that they were not negatively affected by the COVID-19 pandemic regarding their international collaborations. In contrast, 27% reported a reduction in their international collaboration due to the pandemic. Most (88.7%) responders agreed that international collaboration in Oral Medicine must be encouraged more. Therefore, to explore ideas to promote global cooperation, we asked our membership which initiatives they would support. Specifically, all participants were in favour of cooperation initiatives to be developed and implemented in common by Oral Medicine associations, like EAOM, American Academy of Oral Medicine (AAOM), Oral Medicine Academy of Australasia (OMAA), Ibero-American Academy of Oral Pathology and Medicine (AIPBM) and World Workshop on Oral Medicine (WWOM). Furthermore, among suggested initiatives, almost 70% of the surveyees supported global meetings organised by two or more of those above international Oral Medicine societies. Additionally, international webinars on selected topics and participation in international research projects were seen as positive steps towards global cooperation by 58.4% and 43.8% of the surveyees, respectively. The idea of global oral medicine meetings organised by two or more societies is intriguing. Indeed, members with international collaborating experience indicated that the most common environment for establishing international collaboration was official scientific congresses (42.7%). In addition, involvement in international collaborating groups (32.6%), working abroad (24.7%) and official communication channels of academic institutions and scientific associations (23.6%) also provided meaningful opportunities. Considering also the fact that the majority of the surveyed EAOM members (56.2%) stated that they already maintain current cooperation with at least one international oral medicine association, a strong argument could be made that coordination and joint initiatives and actions among existing associations are instrumental in promoting the goal of international collaboration in Oral Medicine. The results of this study should be read with caution since some limitations might be applicable. Specifically, the response rate to our survey was approximately 30%. There is a seemingly low response rate, but studies have shown that response rates to e-mail surveys have decreased since the late 1980s (Sheehan, 2001) and that e-mail response rates may only approximate 25% to 30% (Yun & Trumbo, 2000). Consequently, our response rate is within the expected values. It also needs to be acknowledged that members who responded to our survey were academic clinicians, likely in their mid-late careers. Thus, our results might only reflect the attitudes toward global cooperation of some active EAOM members. As with any survey, response bias cannot be excluded entirely. However, the fact that we used a short questionnaire, neutral language, and different question formats significantly limits it. Additionally, the current survey did not explore the geographic origin of collaborations. Future studies could construct and visualise the existing networks in Oral Medicine using specific software, assess the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of networking, and propose ideas for further improvement. Oral Medicine is an essential but still young dental speciality in many parts of the world, which recognises and fosters the interplay between medical health and oral health (Bez et al., 2017; Scully et al., 2016). However, full recognition of the importance of Oral Medicine to patient care, research, and education is yet to be universally acknowledged. The results of this survey highlight the intense need among Oral Medicine practitioners in Europe for global collaboration in research, teaching, and patient care. By encouraging global collaboration on all these aspects of Oral Medicine, the establishment of our speciality could be further promoted in the challenging post-COVID-19 era. KD contributed to designing the study, conducted the study and analysed and interpreted results and lead drafting the manuscript. MG analysed and interpreted results and contributed to writing the manuscript. AA, EP, JRS, MM contributed to formalising the concept of the study, contributed to writing the manuscript. NGN contributed to the concept, designing the study, analysing, interpreting results and contributed to writing the manuscript. We thank all EAOM members for participating in the survey. The peer review history for this article is available at https://publons.com/publon/10.1111/odi.14593. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.