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 .
Survival of glass ionomer restorations placed in primary molars using atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) and conventional cavity preparations: 2-year results.
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
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 .