Glass-Ionomer Cement vs Amalgam Restorations: A Systematic Review Update
Author Information
Author(s): Mickenautsch Steffen, Yengopal Veerasamy
Primary Institution: University of the Witwatersrand
Hypothesis
Do glass-ionomer cement restorations show less recurrent carious lesions at cavity margins compared to amalgam restorations?
Conclusion
Glass-ionomer cement restorations have a higher caries-preventive effect than amalgam for restorations in permanent teeth, but no difference was found for primary teeth.
Supporting Evidence
- Glass-ionomer cement restorations showed a 65% lower chance of developing carious lesions on restoration margins after 6 years compared to amalgam.
- No significant difference was found for multiple-surface restorations in primary teeth after 3 years.
- Meta-analysis results indicated that GIC has a higher caries-preventive effect in permanent teeth.
Takeaway
This study looked at two types of dental fillings and found that one type, glass-ionomer cement, is better at preventing cavities around the edges than the other type, amalgam, in adult teeth.
Methodology
A systematic literature search was conducted, and quality assessment of trials was performed using updated criteria.
Potential Biases
All accepted trials showed high risk of selection and detection/performance bias.
Limitations
High risk of selection and detection/performance bias in the included trials.
Participant Demographics
Participants included children and adults with varying dental health backgrounds.
Statistical Information
P-Value
0.001
Confidence Interval
0.19 - 0.65
Statistical Significance
p<0.05
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website