## 1 Introduction  
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been much concern about how dental professionals could be infected by patients and thus promote the workplace and community spread of the disease. One of the main concerns for practitioners and policymakers is spray production from rotary dental instrumentation [1]. These fine particles contained in the spray are a mixture of moisture droplets, splatters, and debris that can remain suspended in air for prolonged periods [2]. Dental aerosols contain microorganisms from the mouth and respiratory tract that can contaminate the skin and mucous membranes of the mouth, respiratory passages, and eyes [3; 4; 5]. For instance, _Mycobacterium tuberculosis_ has been found in aerosol particles generated by a dental handpiece used on patients with active tuberculosis [6]. Notably, bacterial air contamination increases significantly following dental treatments [7; 8], and microorganism dissemination can reach up to 60 cm during simple restorative procedures [5]. This concern has been increased further by the identification of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the saliva of COVID-19-positive patients [9], and several potential scenarios of transmission of COVID-19 by droplets from talking, coughing, sneezing, and aerosols produced during clinical procedures have been predicted [10,11]. Moreover, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics has placed dentists within the class of workers with the highest high risk of COVID-19 contamination due to their close proximity to individuals, contact with many patients, and risk of exposure to disease [12,13]. This major concern about the potential of COVID-19 transmissibility in dental offices has led authorities in countries such as Australia, Singapore, Italy, and the United Kingdom to restrict (or even impose a complete ban on) aerosol-generating procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic [14]. However, such an extreme measure aimed at protecting the population has also left thousands of people deprived of treatment and businesses without revenue. The magnitude of the health risks, psychological stresses, and financial losses imposed by these bans are impossible to estimate, but they certainly are immense. During the COVID-19 pandemic, clinicians enhanced their infection control practices and even benefited from digitization (to a limited degree) to keep the clinical staff and patients safe [15,16]. A survey of 614 dental professionals (dentists and oral health therapists) reported increased their use of preoperatively mouthwashes and rubber dams during the pandemic. Moreover, at least 46% of the professionals' survey have changed their habits, reducing the use of aerosol-generating instruments and aerosolization procedures (i.e., ultrasound) [17]. Moreover, international guidance and national guidelines have been deployed to inform clinicians about the best practices (e.g., clinical protocols, disinfection of surfaces, and environmental ventilation) to avoid being infected or promoting the spread of the virus in clinical setups [18]. Although the apocalyptic scenario in which dental offices could become spreaders of the virus has not materialized [15,19], the pandemic has taught us important lessons. For instance, the high global demand for face masks to protect the general population has caused critical disruptions to supply chains along with a temporary shortage of personal protective equipment [20,21]. Prior to the pandemic, this would have been an unimaginable scenario, and the situation has triggered the urgent establishment of new production plants to supply the very basic (and yet much needed) personal protective equipment needed to protect clinicians [22]. In addition, governments, and dental institutions need to develop safety protocols to ensure the safe delivery of dental treatments [23]. It is true that dentistry has overcome many of the challenges imposed by the pandemic, but several of the measures were merely empirical reactions to the unfolding crisis.