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 .
Influence of Fluoride-Releasing Restorative Material on Root Dentine Secondary Caries in situ
The usefulness of fluoride-releasing restorations in  secondary caries prevention may be question ed because of the presence of other common sources of fluoride and because of ageing of the restorations . This study tested the hypothesis that glass-ionomer cement restorations , either aged or unaged , do not prevent secondary root caries , when fluoride dentifrice is frequently used . Sixteen volunteers wore palatal appliances in two phases of 14 days , according to a 2 × 2 crossover design . In each phase the appliance was loaded with bovine root dentine slabs restored with either glass-ionomer or resin composite , either aged or unaged . Specimens were exposed to cariogenic challenge 4 times/day and to fluori date d dentifrice 3 times/day . The fluoride content in the biofilm ( FB ) formed on slabs and the mineral loss ( ΔZ ) around the restorations were analysed . No differences were found between restorative material s regarding the FB and the ΔZ , for either aged ( p = 0.792 and p = 0.645 , respectively ) or unaged ( p = 1.00 and p = 0.278 , respectively ) groups . Under the cariogenic and fluoride dentifrice exposure conditions of this study , the glass-ionomer restoration , either aged or unaged , did not provide additional protection against secondary root caries
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 .