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 .
Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional cavity preparations for glass-ionomer restorations in primary molars: one-year results.
OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to compare the success rates of  glass-ionomer cement restorations placed with the atraumatic restorative treatment approach and conventional cavity preparation methods . METHOD AND MATERIAL S Two encapsulated , high-strength , esthetic conventional glass-ionomer cements were placed in 82 Class I and 53 Class II atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional cavity preparations  , and an encapsulated amalgam alloy was placed in 32 Class I conventional preparations , in vital primary molars of 60 Chinese children aged 7 to 9 years . RESULTS The atraumatic restorative treatment preparations , made with h and instruments only , took approximately 50 % longer to complete than did the preparations completed with conventional rotary instrumentation . After 1 year , there were no amalgam failures . For the glass-ionomer cement restorations , when the atraumatic restorative treatment method was used , significantly better survival rates were found for Class I ( 92.9 % ) than for Class II ( 64.7 % ) cavity preparations . There was also a strong trend for relatively better survival rates for the conventional cavity preparation method ( 86.7 % ) than for the atraumatic restorative treatment ( 64.7 % ) method for Class II cavity preparations . However , both the atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional methods appeared equally effective for Class I preparations . CONCLUSION In a clinic setting , the use of atraumatic restorative treatment h and instruments for cavity preparation is more time consuming , and the method may also provide less mechanical retention and /or bulk of glass-ionomer cement for some Class II preparations in primary molars than does the use of conventional rotary instruments
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 .