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 two tooth-saving preparation techniques for one-surface cavities.
The atraumatic restorative treatment technique ( ART ) is based on removing infected tooth material using only h and instruments and filling the subsequently cleaned cavity with adhesive material such as glass ionomer . As its name suggests , the ART technique should be atraumatic during treatment , as well as for the tooth itself as for the patient . It was primarily developed for treating people living in underserved areas of the world where re sources and facilities such as electricity and trained manpower are limited . Many studies have evaluated the ART technique and the results have supported its application . However , a very limited number of studies have compared ART with more conventional techniques . For that reason , a study was conducted in Pakistan , to compare the ART technique with another more conventional treatment technique . The results of this study show that the preparations with h and instruments result ed in smaller sized cavities and therefore may be less traumatic to the tooth . It was also associated with less pain reactions compared to the more conventional technique . Although preparations with h and instruments required more time , this did not seem to affect the survival of restorations . The survival of glass ionomer cement restorations  made with h and instruments was comparable with single surface amalgam restorations made with a more conventional technique . Recurrent caries was not associated with any glass ionomer cement restorations made with h and instruments . The retention rate of glass ionomer sealants was low , however one dentist had a sealant retention rate of 81.5 percent that suggests that this procedure can be performed satisfactorily in conjunction with a glass ionomer cement restoration . Operator variances did seem to affect the restorations . Survival of glass ionomer restorations  made with both h and and rotary instruments varied for different operators . Similarly , the retention of fissure sealant also varied amongst operators . Operator differences also influenced the extent of tooth substance lost due to cavity preparation . The ART technique is a feasible approach towards the treatment of dental caries especially of one-surface lesions for underserved population
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 .