WHO Essential Dental Medicines and What They Mean for Modern Caries Care
For most of modern dentistry, caries treatment has been organized around a familiar sequence. Find the lesion, remove diseased tooth structure, restore the defect. Prevention lived beside that model, but operative dentistry still carried much of the weight. The World Health Organization is now framing the problem differently.
In its 2025 Model List of Essential Medicines for Children, WHO includes a dedicated section called Dental medicines and preparations. The list contains five categories. Fluoride, glass ionomer cement, low viscosity resin based composite, high viscosity resin based composite, and 38 percent silver diamine fluoride. These are not presented as competing philosophies. Together they form a practical continuum from prevention, to arrest, to sealing, to restoration.
That distinction matters because WHO uses the word essential carefully. Its Model Lists are intended to identify medicines and health products that address priority health needs, with selection based on public health importance, evidence of effectiveness and safety, and practical considerations such as cost and feasibility. Countries then use the lists as references when developing their own national systems. Inclusion does not mean that every listed product is appropriate for every patient. It means WHO considers the product important enough to belong in the basic therapeutic toolkit of a functioning health system.
Dentistry earned a formal place in that framework in 2021, when WHO’s 23rd Expert Committee reviewed applications involving fluoride, glass ionomer cement, silver diamine fluoride, and a proposed new section devoted specifically to dental preparations. That process was public and evidence based. Applications, expert reviews, outside comments, and final decisions were published. The result was more than approval of a few dental products. WHO created a framework that recognized prevention, nonoperative caries arrest, and minimally invasive restoration as legitimate parts of essential oral health care.
Fluoride is the most familiar member of the group, but WHO does not list it vaguely. The pediatric list specifies toothpaste, creams, gels, mouthrinses, and varnish at defined fluoride concentrations. For a dentist, that reinforces a simple point. Fluoride is not merely a hygiene recommendation. It remains foundational disease management.
Silver diamine fluoride adds a very different tool. WHO reviewed 38 percent SDF as a low cost, minimally invasive way to arrest active carious lesions, particularly where conventional restorative care is difficult to deliver. The evidence considered in the 2021 review was strongest for caries arrest, not for preventing every new lesion. That nuance matters. SDF should not be sold as a cure for caries or a universal substitute for restorative dentistry. It is a way to control selected lesions, buy time, reduce treatment burden, and sometimes avoid or delay sedation, general anesthesia, extraction, or more complex operative care.
The clinical appeal is obvious. Dry the lesion, apply a small amount of material, and reassess over time. No handpiece is required. No injection is required. The tradeoff is equally obvious. Carious tooth structure darkens permanently. That makes informed consent and patient selection critical. The black stain is not a side note. It can determine whether a parent sees the procedure as elegant disease control or an unacceptable cosmetic result.
Glass ionomer cement fills another part of the continuum. WHO’s review emphasized its role in atraumatic restorative treatment and other minimally invasive approaches. GIC chemically adheres to tooth structure, releases fluoride, and can be placed in settings where moisture control, equipment, or access may not be ideal. In a conventional practice, that does not make it better than composite for every restoration. It makes it useful in cases where biology, access, behavior, cost, or speed matter as much as esthetics and wear resistance.
WHO also includes low viscosity and high viscosity resin based composites. The low viscosity material is identified for sealants, while the higher viscosity material is used as a restorative filling material. Their presence alongside SDF and GIC is important. WHO is not replacing conventional restorative dentistry with paint on medicine. It is broadening the treatment ladder.
That broader ladder has real implications in the operatory. A cavitated lesion no longer has to trigger an automatic restorative reflex. The better question is what problem must be solved today. Is this patient best served by prevention, arrest, sealing, restoration, or some combination of those approaches. A three year old who cannot cooperate for restorative treatment presents a different problem from a healthy teenager with an occlusal lesion. A frail older adult with root caries presents another. So does a child with limited access to care who may not return for definitive treatment.
The same shift affects case presentation. Dentists often explain treatment as though the only meaningful choices are filling, crown, root canal, or extraction. WHO’s framework makes the conversation more nuanced. A dentist may be able to tell a parent that the immediate goal is to stop the disease process and keep the child comfortable, then restore the tooth later if function, cleansability, anatomy, or esthetics require it. That can make treatment easier to understand because it separates disease control from reconstruction.
The financial implications are also worth noticing. SDF and GIC can reduce dependence on equipment, chair time, anesthesia, and highly technical delivery in selected cases. That may expand care in Medicaid populations, nursing facilities, schools, public health programs, and patients with special needs. In private practice, these approaches can also make certain treatment plans more flexible. But they are not automatically more profitable. Reimbursement, frequency limits, delegation laws, reapplication, follow up, and staff time still determine whether a workflow makes economic sense.
The largest mistake would be turning WHO’s list into another dental ideology. SDF is not anti dentistry. GIC is not anti composite. Prevention is not anti restoration. The important shift is that essential dental care is no longer being framed as one technique. It is being framed as a sequence of choices based on disease, patient needs, access, and clinical judgment.
For practicing dentists, that may be the real significance of WHO’s five dental preparations. The future of caries care is not simply drill less or drill more. It is choosing the least invasive intervention that predictably controls disease, preserves tooth structure, and still solves the patient’s functional and esthetic problem.
If prevention, arrest, sealing, and restoration are all essential tools, are we using the right one first?
Join the Conversation!