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 .
Longevity and Cariostatic Effects of Everyday Conventional Glass-ionomer and Amalgam Restorations in Primary Teeth: Three-year Results
The aim of this study was to compare the longevity and cariostatic effects of everyday  conventional glass-ionomer and amalgam restorations in primary teeth . The material s consisted of  515 Ketac-Fil glass-ionomer restorations and 543 Dispersalloy amalgam restorations prepared in 666 children , from 3 to 13 years of age , by 14 dentists within the Danish Public Dental Health Service in the municipalities of Vaerlose and Hillerød . The restorations , of which 79 % were of the Class II type , were in contact with 593 unrestored surfaces in adjacent primary and permanent teeth . After 3 years , 6 % of the patients had dropped out of the study , and 33 % of the teeth were exfoliated with the restoration in situ . A further 37 % of the glass-ionomer and 18 % of the amalgam restorations were recorded as failed ( p < 0.001 ) . The frequency of failures was highest for Class II glass-ionomer restorations , which showed a 50 % median survival time of only 34½ months , because of many fractures , while the 75 % survival time for Class II amalgam restorations just exceeded the actual 36 months ( p < 0.001 ) . Caries progression was most often recorded in surfaces adjacent to amalgam restorations , and 21 % of these surfaces needed restorative treatment vs. 12 % of the surfaces adjacent to glass-ionomer restorations ( p < 0.01 ) . The three-year results indicated that conventional glass ionomer is not an appropriate alternative to amalgam for all types of restorations in primary teeth . In particular , the short longevity of Class II glass-ionomer restorations could not be compensated for by the reduced caries progression and need for restorative therapy of adjacent surfaces
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 .