AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATION S Because new caries lesions in the margins of restorations are the main reason for failure and replacement of restorations in primary teeth , it is important to know whether there is a benefit in using GICs in both occlusal and occlusoproximal cavities
BACKGROUND Fluoride released from glass ionomer cements ( GICs ) is capable of preventing caries lesions .
However , the preventive effect in margins of occlusal and occlusoproximal restorations have not been proved .
Clinical performance and caries inhibition of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and amalgam restorations.
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
AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATION S Because new caries lesions in the margins of restorations are the main reason for failure and replacement of restorations in primary teeth , it is important to know whether there is a benefit in using GICs in both occlusal and occlusoproximal cavities
BACKGROUND Fluoride released from glass ionomer cements ( GICs ) is capable of preventing caries lesions .
However , the preventive effect in margins of occlusal and occlusoproximal restorations have not been proved .