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 ART and Amalgam Restorations in Permanent Teeth of Children after 6.3 Years
The null hypothesis tested was that there is no difference in the survival percentages of all restorations placed through the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment ( ART ) approach , with high-viscosity glass ionomer , and those produced through the traditional approach , with amalgam ( TA ) , in the permanent dentitions of children after 6.3 years . Using a parallel group design , we r and omly assigned a total of 370 children , aged 6 to 9 years , to the ART group and 311 children , also aged 6 to 9 years , to the TA group . Eight dentists placed a total of 1117 single- and multiple-surface restorations . The cumulative survival percentages  for ART glass-ionomer restorations were statistically significantly higher than those of amalgam restorations at all time intervals except the first ( p ≤ 0.044 ) . After 6.3 years , the cumulative survival percentages of ART and amalgam restorations were 66.1 % ( SE = 3.1 % ) and 57.0 % ( SE = 3.3 % ) , respectively . We concluded that the restorations produced with the ART approach , with high-viscosity glass ionomer , survived longer than those produced with the traditional approach , with amalgam , in the permanent teeth of young children
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 .