Restoration of class II cavities in primary molar teeth with conventional and resin modified glass ionomer cements: a systematic review of the literature

  • B. L. ChadwickEmail author
  • D. J. P. Evans


Aim: To review the literature concerning the restoration of primary teeth with glass ionomer (GIC) or resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGI) used in conventional class II cavities. Methods: A search of the literature identified through Medline between 1966 and 2006 using the key words: glass ionomer, resin modified, glass polyalkenoate, deciduous/primary teeth. Studies that used ART or tunnel preparations were excluded. Papers of relevant clinical studies (prospective and retrospective) were assessed and graded using predetermined criteria. Papers were graded according to the number of criteria met as (A >90%, B1 = 75%, B2 = 50%, C < 50%). Results: The search identified 411 papers, from which an application of the inclusion criteria yielded 20 studies. Of these, 2 were rated B1 and 18 B2. Failure rates varied from 6.6% to 60% for GIC, and from 2% to 24% for RMGI. Conclusion: GIC cannot be recommended for class II cavities in primary molars. There is evidence that RMGIC can perform successfully in small to moderate sized class II restorations.

Key words

glass ionomer cements restorations primary teeth 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andersson-Wenckert IE, van Dijken JWV, Stenberg R. Effect of cavity form on the durability of glass ionomer cement restorations in primary teeth: a three-year clinical evaluation. J Dent Child 1995;62:197–200.Google Scholar
  2. Attari N, Roberts JF. Restoration of primary teeth with crowns: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Arch Paed Dent 2006;758-63.Google Scholar
  3. Attwood D, Reid JS, Evans D. Assessment of glass polyalkenoate restorations in primary molar teeth. Euro J Prosthodont Rest Dent 1994;2:183–185.Google Scholar
  4. Chadwick BL, Dummer PMH, Dunstan F, et al. The longevity of dental restorations: A Systematic Review. Report 19, NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York. 2001.Google Scholar
  5. Croll TP, Bar-Zion Y, Segura A, Donly KJ. Clinical performance of resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations in primary teeth. A retrospective evaluation. J Amer Dent Assoc 2001;132:1110–1116.Google Scholar
  6. Curzon MEJ, Toumba KJ. Restoration of primary teeth: Clinical criteria for assessment of the literature. Eur Arch Paed Dent 2006;7:48–52.Google Scholar
  7. de Araujo FB, Garcia-Godoy F, Cury JA, Concicao EN. Fluoride release from fluoride-containing materials. Operative Dent 1996;21:185–190.Google Scholar
  8. De Gee AJ, van Duinen RN, Werner A, Davidson CL. Early and long-term wear of conventional and resin-modifies glass ionomers. J Dent Res 1996;75:1613–1619.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Donly KJ, Segura A, Kanellis M, Erickson RT. Clinical performance and caries inhibition of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and amalgam restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1999;130:1459–1466.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Espelid I, Tveit AB, Tornes KH, Alvheim H. Clinical behaviour of glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth. J Dent 1999;27:437–442.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frencken JE, Pilot T, Songpaisan Y, Phantumvanit P. Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART): rationale, technique and development. J Public Health Dent 1996; 56:135–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Foley J. Alternative treatment strategies for carious primary teeth: An overview of the evidence. Eur Arch Paed Dent 2006;7:73–80.Google Scholar
  13. Folkesson UH, Andersson-Wenckert IE, van Dijken JWV. Resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations in primary molars. Swed Dent J 1999;23:1–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Fuks A, Araujo FB, Osorio LB, Hadani, Pinto PE. Clinical and radiographic assessment of Class II esthetic restorations in primary molars. Pediatr Dent 2000;22:479–485.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Fuks A, Papagiannoulis L. Pulpotomy in primary teeth: Review of the literature according to standardized assessment criteria. Eur Arch Paed Dent 2006;7:64–71.Google Scholar
  16. Hickel R, Manhart J. Glass-ionomers and compomers in pediatric dentistry; in Davidson, C.L. and Mjor, I.A. (eds): Advances in glass-ionomer cements. Quintessence Publishing, pp. 201–226, 1999.Google Scholar
  17. Hübel S, Mejàre I. Conventional versus resin-modified glass-ionomer cement for Class II restorations in primary molars. A 3-year clinical study. Int J Paed Dent 2003;13:2–8.Google Scholar
  18. Kilpatrick NM, Murray JJ, McCabe JF. The use of a reinforced glass-ionomer cermet for the restoration of primary molars: a clinical trial. Br Dent J 1995;179:175–179.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kilpatrick NM, Neumann A. Durability of amalgam in the restoration of class II cavities in primary molars: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Arch Paed Dent 2007:8:4–12Google Scholar
  20. Kotsanos N, Dionysopoulos P. Lack of effect of fluoride releasing resin modified glass ionomer restorations on the contacting surface of adjacent primary molars. a clinical prospective study. Eur Arch Paed Dent 2004;5:136–142.Google Scholar
  21. Milsom K M, Tickle M, Blinkhorn A. The prescription and relative outcomes of different materials used in general dental practice in the north west region of England to restore the primary dentition. J Dent 2002:30:77–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mjor IA, Dahl JE, Moorhead JE. Placement and replacement of restorations in primary teeth. Acta Odontol Scand 2002:60:25–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mount G. Glass ionomer cements and future research. Am J Dent 1994: 7:286–292.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Osborne JW, Albino JE. Psychological and medical effects of mercury intake from dental amalgam: a status report from the American Journal of Dentistry. Am J Dent 1999:12:151–156.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Ostlund J, Moller K, Koch G. Amalgam, composite resin and glass ionomer cement in Class II restorations in primary molars—a three year clinical evaluation. Swed Dent J 1992:16:81–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Peretz B, Ram D. Restorative material for children’s teeth: preferences or parents and children. J Dent Child 2002:69:243–248.Google Scholar
  27. Pitts NB, Chestnutt IG, Evans D, et al. The dentinal caries experience of children in the United Kingdom, 2003. Br Dent J 2006:200:313–320.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Poulsen S, Pedersen MM. Dental caries in Danish children: 1988–2001. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2002:3:195–198.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Qvist V, Qvist J, Mjor IA. Placement and longevity of tooth-colored restorations in Denmark. Acta Odont Scand 1990:48:305–311.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Qvist V, Laurberg L, Poulsen A, Teglers PT. Longevity and cariostatic effects of everyday conventional glass-ionomer and amalgam restorations in primary teeth: three-year results. J Dent Res 1997:76:1387–1396.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Qvist V, Laurberg L, Poulsen A, Teglers PT. Eight-year study on conventional glass ionomer and amalgam restorations in primary teeth. Acta Odontolog Scand 2004a:62:37–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Qvist V, Manscher E, Teglers PT. Resin-modified and conventional glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth: 8-year results. J Dent 2004b:32:285–294.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Qvist V, Laurberg L, Poulsen A, Teglers PT. Class II restorations in primary teeth: 7-year study on three resin-modified glass ionomer cements and a compomer. Eur J Oral Sci 2004c:112:188–196.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Roberts JF, Attari N, Sherriff M. The survival of resin modified glass ionomer and stainless steel crown restorations in primary molars, placed in a specialist paediatric dental practice. Brit Dent J 2005:198:427–431.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rutar J, McAllan L, Tyas MJ. Clinical evaluation of a glass ionomer cement in primary molars. Pediatr Dent 2000:22:486–488.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Rutar J, McAllan L, Tyas MJ. Three-year clinical performance of glass ionomer cement in primary molars. Int J Paed Dent 2002:12:146–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Threlfall AG, Pilkington L, Milsom KM, Blinkhorn AS, Tickle M. General Dental Practitioners’ views on the use of stainless steel crowns to restore primary molars. Brit Dent J 2005:199:453–456.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Uno S, Finger WJ, Fritz U. Long-term mechanical properties of glass ionomers. Dent Materials 1994:12:64–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Waggoner WF. Anterior crowns for primary anterior teeth: An evidence based assessment of the literature. Eur Arch Paed Dent 2006:753-57.Google Scholar
  40. Walls AWG, Murray JJ, McCabe JF. The use of glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cements in the deciduous dentition. Br Dent J 1988:165:13–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Welbury RR, Walls AW, Murray JJ, McCabe JF. The 5-year results of a clinical trial comparing a glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cement restoration with an amalgam restoration. Br Dent J 1991:170:177–181.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Welbury RR, Shaw AJ, Murray JJ, Gordon PH, McCabe JF. Clinical evaluation of paired compomer and glass ionomer restorations in primary molars: final results after 42 months. Brit Dent J 2000:189:93–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Wilson AD, Kent BE. A new transluscent cement for dentistry. The glass ionomer cement. Br Dent J 1972:132:133–135.Google Scholar
  44. Yu C, Gao X-J, Deng D-M, Yip H-K, Smales RJ. Survival of glass ionomer restorations placed in primary molars using atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) and conventional cavity preparations: 2-year results. Int Dent J 2004:54:42–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. Paediatric Dentistry Unit, School of Dentistry, Heath ParkCardiff UniversityCardiffWales
  2. 2.Dept Paediatric Dentistry, Dundee Dental SchoolUniversity of DundeeDundeeScotland

Personalised recommendations