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 .
Effectiveness of Three Minimal Intervention Approaches for Managing Dental Caries: Survival of Restorations after 2 Years
The present study was aim ed at comparing the effectiveness of three minimally invasive restorative treatment approaches for dentinal lesions in occlusal surfaces . The approaches tested comprised a conventional and a modified – conventional treatment and a modified Atraumatic Restorative Treatment ( ART ) . The conventional approach was performed in a university dental clinic whilst the modified – conventional , employing portable equipment , and the modified ART , using h and instruments and a caries removal solution ( Caridex ® ) , were carried out in the field . Using the split – mouth design , 430 matched contralateral pairs of occlusal cavities were restored with amalgam or glass – ionomers in permanent molars of 152 school children by one dental therapist . The restorations were assessed using a modified USPHS – Ryge criteria . After 2 years , the cumulative survival percentages for occlusal amalgam and glass – ionomer restorations were 92 and 96 % , respectively . The survival of all restorations in the conventional , modified – conventional and the modified ART group was 96 , 96 and 91 % , respectively . The survival of occlusal amalgam and glass – ionomer restorations per treatment group was as follows : 94 and 99 % , respectively ( conventional group ) ; 95 and 97 % , respectively ( modified – conventional group ) , and 89 and 93 % , respectively ( modified ART group ) . The differences in survival percentage between restorations with amalgam and glass – ionomer , and between the three restorative treatment approaches were not statistically significant . In countries facing scarcity in re sources for dental care , ART seems a promising restorative approach to occlusal caries in posterior teeth . However , a longer clinical observation period is required to substantiate this initial conclusion
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 .