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 .
Chemical exchange between glass-ionomer restorations and residual carious dentine in permanent molars: an in vivo study.
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the remineralization of carious dentine following the restoration of an extensive lesion in a permanent molar with a high strength glass-ionomer cement ( GIC ) .  MATERIAL S AND METHODS Thirteen first permanent molars , which were scheduled for extraction because of the presence of extensive caries lesions , were selected for this study . They were first restored , according to the ART technique , using encapsulated Fuji IX(GP ) , which contains a strontium glass rather than the traditional calcium glass . The cavities were prepared with a clean enamel margin and minimal removal of the carious dentine around the walls . After a period of 1 - 3 months they were harvested and subsequently sectioned and examined using an electron probe micro analysis ( EPMA ) and scanning electron microscopy ( SEM ) . RESULTS EPMA demonstrated that both fluorine and strontium ions had penetrated deep into the underlying demineralized dentine . The only possible source of these ions was the GIC restoration . CONCLUSION The pattern of penetration of the fluorine and strontium ions into the dentine was consistent with a remineralization process
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 .