Do glass ionomer cements prevent caries lesions in margins of restorations in primary teeth?

Restorations in primary teeth: a systematic review on survival and reasons for failures

“…Some authors have suggested that the fluoride released from GIC materials can prevent caries, as GIC can reduce the demineralization of adjacent surfaces. Despite in vitro and in situ studies demonstrating the capacity of these materials to release fluoride and prevent demineralization, there is no strong clinical evidence showing that fluoride‐releasing materials prevent the occurrence of secondary caries.…”

Synergistic effects of titanium dioxide and cellulose on the properties of glassionomer cement

“…As is well known, the generally good antimicrobial properties of GIC are mostly due to its release of fluoride 6) . However, investigation has shown that fluoride ions released from GICs cannot entirely inhibit bacterial growth and the formation of secondary caries 7,8) . Thus, different methods have been applied to improve the strength and antimicrobial properties of GIC.…”

Clinical performance of glass ionomer cement and composite resin in Class II restorations in primary teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…One study [10] concluded that adhesive materials with resin component (CR, resin-modified GIC and compomer) presented similar longevity rates to each other, with worst performance observed for silver-reinforced GIC. A subsequent study evaluated the effect of GIC restorations in the prevention of marginal carious lesions [11]. The authors concluded that, while the rate of secondary caries was similar among the materials (amalgam, CR, polyacid-modified resin and compomer) for occlusal restorations, the clinical performance of GIC in occluso-proximal restorations was significantly better compared to the other groups.…”

“…It is noteworthy, however, that the aforementioned reviews [10,11] gathered data on Class I and II cavities simultaneously, and also included restorative materials that are rarely used or have been increasingly discontinued, which may have largely influenced the results. It is known that the longevity of Class II restorations is significantly reduced compared to Class I preparations [12,13], since the greater number of surfaces involved leads to a greater interface area between the tooth structure and the restorative material, in addition to the loss of the marginal ridge, which poses an occlusal overload on the restoration [14].…”