AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATION S Because new caries lesions in the margins of restorations are the main reason for failure and replacement of restorations in primary teeth , it is important to know whether there is a benefit in using GICs in both occlusal and occlusoproximal cavities
BACKGROUND Fluoride released from glass ionomer cements ( GICs ) is capable of preventing caries lesions .
However , the preventive effect in margins of occlusal and occlusoproximal restorations have not been proved .
The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth: findings From the New England Children's Amalgam Trial.
BACKGROUND Limited information is available from r and omized clinical trials comparing the longevity of  amalgam and resin-based compomer/composite restorations . The authors compared replacement rates of these types of restorations in posterior teeth during the five-year follow-up of the New Engl and Children 's Amalgam Trial . METHODS The authors r and omized children aged 6 to 10 years who had two or more posterior occlusal carious lesions into groups that received amalgam ( n=267 ) or compomer ( primary teeth)/composite ( permanent teeth ) ( n=267 ) restorations  and followed them up semiannually . They compared the longevity of restorations placed on all posterior surfaces using r and om effects survival analysis . RESULTS The average+/-st and ard deviation follow-up was 2.8+/-1.4 years for primary tooth restorations and 3.4+/-1.9 years for permanent tooth restorations . In primary teeth , the replacement rate was 5.8 percent of compomers versus 4.0 percent of amalgams ( P=.10 ) , with 3.0 percent versus 0.5 percent ( P=.002 ) , respectively , due to recurrent caries . In permanent teeth , the replacement rate was 14.9 percent of composites versus 10.8 percent of amalgams ( P=.45 ) , and the repair rate was 2.8 percent of composites versus 0.4 percent of amalgams ( P=.02 ) . CONCLUSION Although the overall difference in longevity was not statistically significant , compomer was replaced significantly more frequently owing to recurrent caries , and composite restorations required seven times as many repairs as did amalgam restorations . CLINICAL IMPLICATION S Compomer/composite restorations on posterior tooth surfaces in children may require replacement or repair at higher rates than amalgam restorations , even within five years of placement
AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATION S Because new caries lesions in the margins of restorations are the main reason for failure and replacement of restorations in primary teeth , it is important to know whether there is a benefit in using GICs in both occlusal and occlusoproximal cavities
BACKGROUND Fluoride released from glass ionomer cements ( GICs ) is capable of preventing caries lesions .
However , the preventive effect in margins of occlusal and occlusoproximal restorations have not been proved .