Eight‐year study on conventional glass ionomer and amalgam restorations in primary teeth

Abstract

The aim of this randomized clinical study was to compare the longevity and the cariostatic effects of conventional glass ionomer and amalgam restorations in primary teeth placed in everyday practice in the Danish Public Dental Health Service. All restorations inserted during a 7-month period by 14 clinicians in 2 municipalities were included in the study. The sample consisted of 515 conventional glass ionomer restorations and 543 amalgam restorations in 666 children aged between 2.8 and 13.5 years. The restorations were in contact with 592 unrestored surfaces in primary and permanent teeth. The study was terminated after 8 years, with 2% of the restorations in function and 7% patient dropouts. Fifty percent of the teeth restored with glass ionomer and 63% of those with amalgam were exfoliated with the restoration in situ, while 42% of the glass ionomer and 20% of the amalgam restorations had been repaired or replaced. Fracture of restoration, endodontic complication, and loss of retention were the major reasons for failure. The 50% survival time for glass ionomer restorations in all cavity types was 42 months, while the median survival time for amalgam restorations could not be estimated but exceeded 7.8 years (P < 0.001). Progression of caries lesions on tooth surfaces adjacent to amalgam restorations required operative treatment on 30% of the teeth, while only on 16% of teeth adjacent to glass ionomer restorations. The 75% survival time was 40 months for surfaces in contact with glass ionomer compared to 25 months for surfaces in contact with amalgam (P = 0.005). Multivariate analyses were performed in order to assess the influence of a number of factors on the longevity of restorations, occurrence of prevalent failures, and caries treatment of surfaces in contact with the restorations. Owing to the high frequency of failures of the conventional glass ionomer restorations, it was concluded that they are not an appropriate, universal alternative to amalgam for restorations in primary teeth, although they reduce caries progression and the need for operative treatment of adjacent surfaces.

Therapeutic effect of glass‐ionomers: an overview of evidence

“…23 The difference between both materials regarding the numbers of carious lesions of multiple-surface GIC restorations in primary teeth after three years was not statistically significant (OR 2.00; 95% CI 0.06-5.06; p = 0.10) but tended to favour GIC. 23 This trend was confirmed when the three-year results were combined with data from an eight-year study 24 using meta-analysis (OR = 2.35; 95% CI 1.18-4.71; p = 0.02). 23 …”

Systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HealOzone® for the treatment of occlusal pit/fissure caries and root caries

“…The mean values for annual rates of caries progression for the current treatments assumed in the industry submission, along with the study reference from which these values were obtained, are: noncavitated pit and fissure caries 0%, 67 cavitated pit and fissure caries 4.9%, [68][69][70] and root caries 3.9%. 68,69 The progression rates cited for HealOzone were all 0%, taken from studies with follow-up of 3-21 months. 35,40,42,44,53,71,72 Caries reversal rates for non-HealOzone treatments were assumed to be zero.…”

Evaluation of the ion-releasing and recharging abilities of a resin-based fissure sealant containing S-PRG filler

“…When glass ionomer is used as a material in the sealants, it exhibits the property of fluoride release. Consequently, fluoride release by glassionomer cement restorations ensures an anticariogenic effect around the enamel and in adjacent teeth [1][2][3][4] . Koga et al reported that glass-ionomer sealants had the highest fluoride release and recharge in distilled water among four different types of sealants and that the conventional resin-based sealants did not show fluoride recharge 5) .…”