Dental services are significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Almost all dental procedures carry a high infection risk for providers and patients due to spread of aerosols. As a consequence, national public health agencies, and dental professional associations have issued guidelines for enhanced infection control, personal protection equipment and limiting care to urgent or emergency services. However, there is no dental service concept for disaster preparedness or response that might be applied. Similarly, pathways to care provision in a post-pandemic future are missing. We propose Safe Aerosol-free, Emergent Dentistry (SAFE Dentistry) as one approach to dental services during and emerging from pandemics. The concept’s starting point is the identification of the most common patient needs. The next step is to replace common treatments relating to the most common needs with alternative interventions with less infection risk because they do not generate aerosols. SAFE Dentistry is innovative, safe, and responds to the requirements of a pandemic and post-pandemic emergence where the risk of disease transmission remains high. SAFE Dentistry thereby ensures continuity of dental services while protecting providers and patients from infectious pathogens. Moreover, SAFE Dentistry allows dental service providers to remain operational and generate income even under pandemic conditions. Implementation and policy options for SAFE Dentistry include universal availability without co-payments by patients and a uniform bundled payment scheme for providers to simplify budgeting, reimbursement and to provide easier administration during a pandemic. Adaptations and adjustments of the concept are possible and encouraged, as long as the principle of avoiding aerosol-generation is maintained.

Background: Fluoride toothpaste (FT) has recently been included in the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Model List of Essential Medicines. Whereas it is essential for preventing dental caries, its current affordability around the globe remains unclear. This study aimed to analyse the affordability of FT in as many as possible countries worldwide. Methods: A standardized protocol was developed to collect country-specific information about the characteristics of the cheapest FT at a common point of purchase. 82 members of the WHO Global Oral Health Network of Chief Dental Officers (CDOs), directors of WHO Collaborative Centres and other oral health experts collected data using mobile phone technology. The Fluoride Toothpaste Affordability Ratio (FTAR) was calculated as the price associated with the recommended annual consumption of FT, relative to the daily wage of the lowest-paid unskilled government worker (FTAR >1 = unaffordable spending on fluoride toothpaste). The daily expenditure per capita of the poorest 15% of the income distrubition was used as the main proxy of the daily wage, using World Bank data. Alternatively, we used the daily minimum wage as a proxy of the daily wage. Stratified descriptive statistics were undertaken with respect to different World Bank Income Groups and WHO Regions. Results: There are significant discrepancies in the affordability of FT across 78 countries. FT was strongly affordable in high-income countries, relatively affordable in upper middle-income countries, and strongly unaffordable in lower middle-income and low-income countries. The affordability of FT across WHO Regions was dependent upon the economic mix of WHO Regions’ member states. Conclusion: FT is still unaffordable for many people, particularly in low-resource settings. Health policy members should develop better strategies to address and improve the universal affordability of FTs, for the incidence of dental caries to be reduced at a global level.