Clinical evaluation of three restorative materials applied in a minimal intervention caries treatment approach. Hypermineralization of Dentinal Lesions Adjacent to Glass-ionomer Cement Restorations The effects of two cavity preparation methods on the longevity of glass ionomer cement restorations: an evaluation after 12 months. Long-term clinical evaluation of fracture and pulp injury following glass-ionomer cement or composite resin applied as a base filling in teeth restored with amalgam. Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional restorative procedures in a hospital clinic: evaluation after 30 months. Clinical evaluation of multiple-surface ART restorations: 12 month follow-up. A clinical evaluation of resin-based composite and glass ionomer cement restorations placed in primary teeth using the ART approach: results at 24 months. Survival of glass ionomer restorations placed in primary molars using atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) and conventional cavity preparations: 2-year results. Clinical performance and caries inhibition of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and amalgam restorations. A clinical comparison of glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer and resin composite restorations in the treatment of cervical caries in xerostomic head and neck radiation patients. A clinical evaluation of two glass ionomer cements in primary molars using atraumatic restorative treatment technique in India: 1 year follow up. Is high-viscosity glass-ionomer-cement a successor to amalgam for treating primary molars? Caries-preventive effect of glass ionomer and resin-based fissure sealants on permanent teeth: An update of systematic review evidence Two-year evaluation of Class II resin-modified glass ionomer cement/composite open sandwich and composite restorations Clinical evaluation of atraumatic restorations in primary molars: a comparison between 2 glass ionomer cements. Randomized clinical trial of adhesive restorations in primary molars. 18-month results. Clinical Investigation of Two Glass–Ionomer Restoratives Used with the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment Approach in China: Two–Years Results
OBJECTIVES This paper reports on a longitudinal evaluation of three material s ( glass ionomer , zinc oxide-eugenol cement , and composite ) employed in a minimal restorative intervention approach of 81 high caries-active pregnant women selected for a preventive oral health program in Brazil . The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical behavior of the glass ionomer cement , currently indicated in programs for control of carious lesions . METHODS The patients were r and omly divided into two groups . Both groups were engaged in an oral health promotion approach . In Group 1 , 417 glass ionomer restorations were placed in 43 individuals , involving all types and sizes of cavities . In the second group , 213 posterior zinc oxide-eugenol ( ZOE ) restorations and 127 anterior composite restorations were placed in 38 patients . Minimal cavity preparations were made , in which only soft or infected dentin was removed , on the basis of clinical judgment . RESULTS After two years , the restorations were clinical ly evaluated by two examiners for marginal integrity , amount of wear , presence of fracture , carious lesions , and lost restorations . Statistical analysis ( chi-square test ) identified statistically significant difference between glass ionomer and ZOE ( 90.6 % vs 9.2 % ) . Comparing glass ionomer and composite , similar survival rates were observed . The success rate observed for the glass ionomer cement ranged from 77.1 percent to 92.5 percent , depending on the type and size of cavity in which it was applied . Four teeth restored with glass ionomer cement and one tooth restored with composite showed caries signs . Regarding the ZOE restorations , caries was always associated with other causes of failure such as excessive wear , restoration loss , or marginal defects , with no possibility of separate evaluation . Despite the preventive and therapeutic measurements employed , a mean increase of 2.15 new surfaces with cavities was observed in Group 1 , as well as 2.83 surfaces presenting the same status in Group 2 . CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrated that highly viscous glass ionomer cement applied in a minimal intervention approach provided high- quality preventive and restorative care after two years to a population at high risk for caries . The composite was employed in cavities exposed to lower stress , such as in the anterior teeth , and its behavior was comparable to that of the glass ionomer cement . The reinforced ZOE presented a high failure rate , thus contraindicating its use for such purpose Previous reports have shown a release of fluoride from glass-ionomer cement ( GIC ) restorations into the oral fluids . Fluoride in the ambient fluids has a caries-preventive effect by enhancing remineralization and inhibiting demineralization of the dental hard tissues . Therefore , the current investigation was undertaken to determine whether GIC fillings could contribute to the remineralization of caries lesions in dentin . Small circular preparations were made in disks of dentin which had incipient caries-like lesions in the remaining tissue . The preparations were filled with amalgam or composite material s ( as controls ) or with GIC . The specimens thus contained a restoration close to a dentinal caries-like lesion . The specimens were placed contralaterally in the buccal surfaces of removable partial dentures and were worn intra-orally by volunteers for a 12-week experimental period , after which the specimens were sectioned and analyzed by microradiography . All specimens with GIC restorations exhibited hypermineralization in the tissue bordering the filling and in the wall of the preparation which had been in contact with the restoration . The ( caries-like ) lesions were remineralized , even under conditions of heavy plaque formation . In contrast , specimens with amalgam or composite restorations showed further extensive demineralization . This study demonstrates a significant remineralization potential exerted by the fluoride-releasing GIC restorative material . Consequently , the choice of the restorative material might be crucial for the occurrence or prevention of recurrent caries around restorations BACKGROUND The authors undertook a study to evaluate the effect of two cavity preparation methods on the initial survival of two more-viscous glass ionomer cements , or GICs , placed in the occlusal surfaces of permanent molar teeth . METHODS Three dentists placed 149 restorations in 68 adult patients in a hospital clinic . They used either atraumatic restorative treatment , or ART , or conventional cavity preparation methods to place two encapsulated esthetic conventional GICs : Fuji IX GP ( GC International Corp. , Tokyo ) and Ketac-Molar Aplicap ( 3 M ESPE , Seefeld , Germany ) . For comparison , they used high-copper-content GK Amalgam Alloy ( Advanced Technology & Material s Co. Ltd. , Beijing ) in conventional preparations . They evaluated the restorations using both direct and indirect observation methods . RESULTS Cavity preparations for which the authors used ART h and instruments took approximately twice as long to complete as did those for which they used conventional rotary instruments . After 12 months , no restorations had failed , but restorations comprising both GICs showed early losses of adjacent sealant material . Both GICs also showed relatively high restoration wear . At 12 months , the mean cumulative net occlusal wear for Fuji IX GP was 77 + /- 47 micrometers , and for Ketac-Molar 83 + /- 51 microm , without statistical significance ( P > .05 ) . Color matching improved significantly with time ( P < .001 ) , without significant differences in color between the two GICs by 12 months ( P = .09 ) . The amalgam alloy had minor surface tarnishing and marginal discrepancies increased with time ( P < .00 1 ) . CONCLUSIONS All of the occlusal restorations were rated as satisfactory after 12 months . The method of cavity preparation did not affect the restoration performance of the GICs . However , their deterioration requires long-term monitoring . Clinical Implication s. The more viscous GICs appear initially suitable for restricted use in clinical practice when placed using either of two cavity preparation methods in the occlusal surfaces of permanent molar teeth in adults The aim of this research was to analyse the long-term clinical behaviour of two dental material s applied as filling under  silver amalgam restorations  : glass-ionomer cement ( GIC ) and composite resin with adhesive system ( CR ) . In this study , 117 posterior teeth ( 29 premolars and 88 molars ) were selected with carious lesions which result ed in great loss of dentin and cusps with unsupported enamel . After caries removal , cavities were prepared and totally filled with GIC or with CR . In a following visit , new cavities were prepared , leaving the employed filling material as a base and support for the enamel , which were then restored with silver amalgam . Restorations were evaluated periodically after 6 months and up to 5 years . Both fracture and pulpal involvement rates were low . Although differences could be observed in the behaviour of the material s , statistical survival estimation showed that the performances of GIC and CR as filling material were similar . There was a significant association both between kind of tooth ( molar or premolar ) and long-term survival of the restorations ; and between degree of unsupported enamel and the same long-term survival . Our results confirmed that the technique in which GIC or CR are used as filling under  silver amalgam restorations is clinical ly acceptable OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to evaluate two glass-ionomer cements placed in the occlusal surfaces of permanent molar teeth , using two cavity preparation methods . METHOD AND MATERIAL S Three dentists placed 149 restorations for 68 patients in a hospital clinic .  Atraumatic restorative treatment or conventional cavity preparation methods were used for two encapsulated , high-strength conventional glass-ionomer cements : Fuji IX GP and Ketac-Molar . Non-gamma 2 amalgam alloy was used in conventional preparations for comparison . RESULTS The restorative procedures were uneventful , but cavity preparations made with atraumatic restorative treatment h and instruments took approximately twice as long as did conventional rotary instrumentation . After 30 months , only one glass-ionomer cement restoration had failed . Both glass-ionomer cements showed high early losses of sealant material , but caries was not detected in the exposed fissures . Both glass-ionomer cements also showed relatively high restoration wear . At 30 months , the mean cumulative net occlusal wear was 119 + /- 12 mm for Fuji IX GP and 96 + /- 13 mm for Ketac-Molar ; the difference was not statistically significant . Color matching improved significantly by 6 months ; there was no significant difference in color match between the two glass-ionomer cements by 12 months . Minor surface tarnishing and marginal discrepancies were present in the amalgam restorations and increased with time . CONCLUSION The occlusal restorations performed satisfactorily over periods of up to 30 months . However , the continued deterioration of the cements requires longer-term studies to be undertaken PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of multiple-surface restorations employing 2 different glass ionomer cements ( GICs ) and the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment ( ART ) approach in permanent molar teeth . METHODS This study examined 60 restorations--36 Class I restorations involving 2 or more tooth surfaces and 24 Class II restorations -- that were placed in 46 schoolchildren ( 9 - 16 years of age ) by 2 dentists using the ART approach . The restorations were r and omly divided into 2 groups : ( a ) 30 cavities were filled with high strength GIC ( Ketac Molar-3 M ESPE ) , and ( b ) 30 cavities were filled with resin-modified GIC ( Fuji VIII-GC Corp ) . Two independent calibrated examiners carried out the evaluations according to ART criteria . The interexaminer kappa was 0.92 . Data were su bmi tted to chi-square , McNemar , and Fisher 's tests . A difference was statistically significant if P<.05 . RESULTS In a 12-month follow-up , 59 restorations were evaluated . The success rates of the restorations were 100 % and 93 % for Fuji VIII and Ketac Molar , respectively . There was no statistically significant difference between GICs , cavity types , or operators . CONCLUSIONS Based on a 12-month follow-up evaluation , the clinical performance of the multiple-surface atraumatic restorative treatment restorations of both glass ionomer cements ( high-strength and resin-modified ) was considered satisfactory with a high success rate BACKGROUND The authors evaluated the 24-month performance of a packable resin-based composite/dentin bonding system and a high-viscosity glass ionomer cement ( GIC ) in restorations placed in primary molars with the atraumatic restorative treatment ( ART )  approach . METHODS Three dentists placed 419 restorations in 219 children aged 6 through 10 years who had bilateral matched pairs of carious posterior Class I and II primary teeth . They used a split-mouth design to place the two material s , which were assigned r and omly to contralateral sides . The authors evaluated the restorations according to U.S. Public Health Service Ryge criteria . RESULTS After 24 months , 96.7 percent of the Class I GIC restorations and 91 percent of the resin-based composite restorations survived , while the success rates for the Class II restorations were 76.1 percent and 82 percent for the GIC and resin-based composite restorations , respectively . The survival rate of the Class II resin-based composite restorations was 5.9 percent higher than that of the GIC restorations at the 24-month evaluation , but this difference was not statistically significant . However , the study results showed a statistically significant difference in survival rates between Class I and II restorations for both material s. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPLICATION S The two-year clinical performance of both material s was satisfactory for the restoration of Class I and II primary molars using the ART approach OBJECTIVE To compare the survival of  glass ionomer cement ( GIC ) restorations placed in a dental clinic setting using both the atraumatic restorative treatment ( ART ) approach with h and instruments , and conventional cavity preparation with rotary instruments . METHOD AND MATERIAL S Two encapsulated high-strength conventional GICs ( Fuji IX GP , Ketac-Molar Aplicap ) were placed in 82 Class I and 53 Class II preparations and one encapsulated non-gamma 2 amalgam alloy ( GK-amalgam ) was placed in 32 Class I preparations , in the primary molars of 60 Chinese children with a mean age of 7.40 + /- 1.24 ( SD ) years . Thus , 9 treatment groups were formed . RESULTS After two years , there were no significant survival differences found among 7 of the 9 treatment groups ( p = 0.99 ) . However , two groups comprising Fuji IX GP and Ketac-Molar Aplicap placed in Class II cavities prepared using the ART approach showed significantly lower restoration survivals ( p < 0.001 ) . Only 3 of the 72 initially sealed fissures adjacent to the restorations appeared to retain any GIC material . CONCLUSIONS In a clinic setting , both the ART h and instrument and conventional rotary instrument methods were equally suitable for high Class I restoration survival , but not for Class II restoration survival where the conventional cavity preparation method was preferable BACKGROUND The authors clinical ly examined two restorative material s to evaluate their effectiveness in Class II restorations in primary molars and their ability to inhibit recurrent caries . METHODS Forty subjects , each in need of two Class II restorations in primary molars , took part in this study . Each patient received one  Class II restoration of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and one of amalgam . The authors evaluated the restorations at six-month , one-year , two-year and three-year recall appointments . On exfoliation , teeth with experimental restorations were retrieved and microscopically examined for inhibition of demineralization at restoration margins . RESULTS The results of the clinical evaluation demonstrated no significant differences between the resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations and the amalgam restorations ( P < .05 ) . Polarized light microscopic examination of the returned teeth that were restored as a part of this study indicated that the resin-modified glass ionomer cement had significantly less enamel demineralization at restoration margins than did amalgam ( P < .0001 ) . CONCLUSIONS The resin-modified glass ionomer cement functioned clinical ly as well as amalgam for Class II restorations in primary molars . However , the resin-modified glass ionomer exhibited significantly less enamel demineralization at restoration margins than did amalgam . CLINICAL IMPLICATION S Resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorative material functions well for Class II restorations in primary molars and exhibits less recurrent caries at restoration margins than does amalgam Controversy exists as to whether there is less secondary caries at the margins of glass ionomer restorations compared with other material s that do not release fluoride . This study examined the incidence of secondary caries for three types of restorative material s in Class V restorations in xerostomic patients . The study group consisted of 45 high caries-risk adult patients who had undergone head and neck irradiation for the treatment of cancer . All were substantially xerostomic and in need of at least three restorations in the same arch . Every patient received a restoration with each of the test material s , a conventional glass ionomer ( GI ) , a resin modified glass ionomer ( RMGI ) and a resin composite ( C ) . Patients were instructed in the daily use of a neutral pH sodium fluoride gel in custom trays . Recall appointments were made at 6 , 12 , 18 and 24 months , and the restorations were examined for material loss , marginal integrity and recurrent caries at the restoration margin . Fluoride compliance was determined at each recall period and recorded as the percentage of recommended use during that interval . Patients were categorized at the end of the study as fluoride non-users if their average compliance was 50 % or less . Those with greater than 50 % compliance were categorized as fluoride users . In the latter group , no recurrent caries was found for any of the restorations , whereas a material -dependent incidence of recurrent caries was found in the fluoride non-user group . None of the GI , one RMGI and eight C restorations failed due to recurrent caries . For the fluoride non-user patients , Fishers exact test ( p=0.05 ) showed no statistical difference between GI and RMGI but statistical differences were found among those material s and resin composite at each recall period . Recurrent caries reductions for GI and RMGI relative to C were greater than 80 % in xerostomic patients not using topical fluoride supplementation AIM To compare the clinical performance of two glass ionomer cements , Amalgomer CR and Fuji IX in small and medium cavities prepared using Atraumatic restorative treatment approach in India . STUDY DESIGN One hundred school children in the age group of 4 - 9 years who had bilateral matched pair of carious lesions in primary posterior teeth were included . A split mouth design was used in which two material s were r and omly placed in contralateral sides . The performance of the restorations was assessed after 1 year using Frenken 's criteria ( 1996 ) . Survival analysis of restoration was done using chi-square test . RESULTS The survival rate of Amalgomer CR and Fuji IX class I restorations were 97.4 % and 94.9 % , respectively . In class II cavities 95.1 % and 88.5 % of Amalgomer CR and Fuji IX restorations were successful . Amalgomer CR and Fuji IX showed a success of 94.2 % and 92.3 % in small sized class II cavities . Amalgomer CR showed a 100 % success for medium sized class I and II restorations . Whereas Fuji IX showed a 100 % and 66.7 % success in medium sized class I and II cavities . CONCLUSION The clinical performances of both material s were satisfactory at the end of 1 year and ART is suitable procedure to be done in a dental clinic for children OBJECTIVES To assess and compare the cumulative survival rate of amalgam and atraumatic restorative treatment ( ART ) restorations in primary molars over 3 years . METHODS 280 children aged 6 - 7 years old were enrolled in a cluster r and omized controlled clinical trial using a parallel group design covering two treatment groups : conventional restorative treatment with amalgam ( CRT ) and atraumatic restorative treatment ( ART ) using a high-viscosity glass-ionomer ( HVGIC ) Ketac Molar Easymix . Three pedodontists placed 750 restorations ( 364 amalgam and 386 ART in 126 and 154 children , respectively ) which were evaluated at 0.5 , 1 , 2 and 3 years . The proportional hazard rate regression model with frailty correction , ANOVA and Wald tests , and the Jackknife procedure were applied in analysing the data . RESULTS The cumulative survival rates over 3 years for all , single- and multiple-surface CRT/amalgam restorations ( 72.6 % , 93.4 % , 64.7 % , respectively ) were no different from those of comparable ART/HVGIC restorations ( 66.8 % ; 90.1 % and 56.4 % , respectively ) ( p=0.10 ) . Single-surface restorations had higher survival rates than multiple-surface restorations for the both treatment procedures ( p<0.0001 ) . A higher proportion of restorations failed because of mechanical reasons ( 94.8 % ) than of secondary caries ( 5.2 % ) . No difference in reasons for restoration failures between all types of amalgam and ART/HVGIC restorations were observed ( p=0.24 ) . SIGNIFICANCE The high-viscosity glass-ionomer used in this study in conjunction with the ART is a viable option for restoring carious dentin lesions in single surfaces in vital primary molars Background This article constitutes a partial up date of the original systematic review evidence by Yengopal et al. from 15 January 2008 ( published in the Journal of Oral Science in 2009 ) with primary focus on research quality in regard to bias risk in trials . Its aim is to up date the existing systematic review evidence from the English literature as to whether caries occurrence on pits and fissures of teeth sealed with either GIC or resin is the same . Methods In addition to the 12 trials included during the original systematic review , 5 new trials were identified during the data base search ( up to 26 August 2010 ) and 2 further trials were included from a h and search and reference check . Of these , 3 trials were excluded and 16 were accepted for data extraction and quality assessment . The quality of accepted trials was assessed , using up date d quality criteria , and the risk of bias was investigated in more depth than previously reported . In addition , the focus of quantitative synthesis was shifted to single data sets that were extracted from the accepted trials . Results Twenty-six dichotomous and 4 continuous data sets were extracted . Meta- analysis and cumulative meta- analysis were used in combining clinical ly homogenous data sets . The overall outcome of the computed data sets suggest no difference between the caries-preventive effects of GIC- and resin-based fissure sealants . Conclusions This overall outcome is in agreement with the conclusions of the original systematic review . Although the findings of the trials identified in this up date may be considered to be less affected by attrition- and publication bias , their risk of selection - and detection-/performance bias is high . Thus , verification of the currently available results requires further high quality r and omised control trials Abstract Restorations made of a combination of resin modified glass ionomer cement ( RMGIC ) and composite resin ( CR ) – open s and wich fillings – have been recommended for use in proximal boxes of molar cavities . The aim of this study was to compare the clinical behaviour over time of RMGIC/CR s and wich restorations versus CR restorations in Class II molar cavities . During a period of 2 years , a total of 220 restorations were placed in 118 patients by one operator ( VV ) . A r and om block allocation was used to allocate cavities to one of the two restorative techniques . Bitewing radiographs and photographs were taken at baseline and at annual recall appointments . At present , a total of 210 restorations have been evaluated after 1 year and 141 restorations after 2 years . All restorations were evaluated using a modification of USPHS criteria . A total of three RMGIC/CR and two CR restorations ( 2.8 % ) were rated as failures caused by endodontic complications or major fractures . Twenty-eight teeth were reported to have postoperative sensitivity at the baseline evaluation 1 week following placement . Nine RMGIC/CR ( 8.5 % ) and four CR ( 4.9 % ) restorations with minor fractures were rated Charlie but were still acceptable . Bitewing radiographs revealed progression of carious lesions in proximal surfaces of originally intact or restored teeth adjacent to five ( 5.9 % ) RMGIC/CR restorations and eight ( 10.9 % ) CR restorations . No statistically significant differences between the two types of restoration were observed with respect to marginal adaptation , discoloration and caries progression . However , a higher number of large CR fillings exhibited postoperative sensitivity at baseline compared to moderate CR or extensive and moderate RMGIC/CR restorations Dental caries continues to be a highly prevalent disease among Brazilian preschoolers , especially those with low socioeconomic status . The purpose of this r and omized , controlled trial was to evaluate in vivo 245 simplified  restorations  in deciduous molars using glass ionomer cements ( Vidrion R and Ketac-Molar ) . Dental restorations were evaluated at 6- and 12-month follow-ups . The teeth restored with Vidrion R ( SS White ) on a single tooth surface were successful in 87 % of the cases evaluated at 6 months and in 63 % at 12 months . The teeth restored with Ketac-Molar on one surface achieved a success rate of 95 % at 6 months and 82 % at 12 months . No recurrent caries or pulpal infection was evident . Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that teeth with cavities restricted to the occlusal surface on sclerotic dentin showed the best adhesion to the restorative material . The restorations with Ketac-Molar had a better clinical performance than those with Vidrion PURPOSE To evaluate the clinical performance of adhesive restorations of resin composite and resin-modified glass-ionomer cements in primary molars . METHODS This r and omized clinical trial included subjects ( 5 - 9 year-old children ) selected at two university centers ( UFRGS and UNIFRA ) . The sample consisted of 132 primary molars presenting active cavitated carious lesions ( with radiographic involvement of the inner half of the dentin ) , located on the occlusal and occlusal-proximal surface . The sample was r and omly divided into three groups , according to the restorative material : ( G1 ) universal restorative system ( Adper Single Bond 2 system and Filtek Z350 ) ; ( G2 ) : Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement ( Vitremer ) ; and ( G3 ) : Low shrink restorative system ( Filtek P90 ) . The restorations were clinical ly and radiographically followed every 6 months for up to 18 months using the USPHS modified criteria for clinical evaluation . Survival estimates for restoration longevity were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method . Log-rank test ( P < 0.05 ) was used to compare the differences in the success rate according to the type of the restorative material . RESULTS The type of restorative material used did not influence the longevity of the restorations . After clinical follow-up , there was no statistical difference in the rates of success for the three material s used to restore active cavitated carious lesions in primary molars . The survival rates for the follow-up were similar regarding the number of restored surfaces and the caries removal technique ( partial or complete ) . Mean estimated time of survival was 17.2 months ( 95 % CI : 16.7 - 17.7 ) . Estimated survival rates of the restorations were 100 % , 98 % , 88 % and 65 % at 1 , 6 , 12 and 18 months of clinical evaluations , respectively Objective : To compare the clinical performance of two glass – ionomer cements , ChemFlex ( Dentsply DeTrey ) and Fuji IX GP ( GC ) , when used with the atraumatic restorative treatment ( ART ) approach in China . Methods : Eighty – nine school children aged between 6 and 14 years who had bilateral matched pairs of carious posterior teeth were included . A split – mouth design was used in which the two material s were r and omly placed on contralateral sides . The performance of the restorations was assessed directly and also indirectly from die – stone replicas at baseline and after 6 , 12 , and 24 months . Results : The 24–month cumulative survival rates of ART restorations  in the primary teeth were 93 and 90 % for the ChemFlex and Fuji IX GP class I restorations , respectively , while 40 and 46 % of class II restorations placed with the respective material s were satisfactory . In the permanent dentition , only class I restorations were involved and the cumulative survival rates were 95 and 96 % for ChemFlex and Fuji IX GP . For the primary teeth after 24 months , net mean occlusal wear was 87 µm for ChemFlex and 85 µm for Fuji IX GP . The occlusal wear in the permanent teeth was 75 µm for ChemFlex and 79 µm for Fuji IX GP . Conclusion : The clinical performance of both material s over a 24–month period was similar and the survival rates of class I ART restorations  in both primary and permanent teeth were high
The overall results of the computed data sets suggest that GIC has a higher caries-preventive effect than amalgam for restorations in permanent teeth .
No difference was found for restorations in the primary dentition .
Background This article aims to up date the existing systematic review evidence elicited by Mickenautsch et al. up to 18 January 2008 ( published in the European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry in 2009 ) and addressing the review question of whether , in the same dentition and same cavity class ,  glass-ionomer cement ( GIC ) restored cavities show less recurrent carious lesions on cavity margins than cavities restored with amalgam .