There seem to be no differences between the clinical performances of glass ionomer cement and composite resin when used for Class II restorations in primary teeth

Comment

Romina Brignardello-Petersen. J Am Dent Assoc. 2018 Nov.

. 2018 Nov;149(11):e154.

doi: 10.1016/j.adaj.2018.05.021. Epub 2018 Jul 10.

No abstract available

Comment on

Clinical performance of glass ionomer cement and composite resin in Class II restorations in primary teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Dias AGA, Magno MB, Delbem ACB, Cunha RF, Maia LC, Pessan JP. Dias AGA, et al. J Dent. 2018 Jun;73:1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2018.04.004. Epub 2018 Apr 9. J Dent. 2018. PMID: 29649506

Clinical performance of resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations in primary teeth. A retrospective evaluation.
Croll TP, Bar-Zion Y, Segura A, Donly KJ. Croll TP, et al. J Am Dent Assoc. 2001 Aug;132(8):1110-6. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2001.0336. J Am Dent Assoc. 2001. PMID: 11575018
Comparative evaluation of microleakage of a carbomer/fluoroapatite-enhanced glass-ionomer cement on primary teeth restorations.
Tolidis K, Boutsiouki C, Gerasimou P. Tolidis K, et al. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2016 Sep;17(3):227-233. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2016. PMID: 27759413
Clinical performance and caries inhibition of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and amalgam restorations.
Donly KJ, Segura A, Kanellis M, Erickson RL. Donly KJ, et al. J Am Dent Assoc. 1999 Oct;130(10):1459-66. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.1999.0056. J Am Dent Assoc. 1999. PMID: 10570589 Clinical Trial.
Clinical requirements for a successful 'sandwich'--dentine to glass ionomer cement to composite resin.
Mount GJ. Mount GJ. Aust Dent J. 1989 Jun;34(3):259-65. doi: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.1989.tb00680.x. Aust Dent J. 1989. PMID: 2669699 Review.
Alternatives to silver amalgam and resin composite in pediatric dentistry.
Croll TP. Croll TP. Quintessence Int. 1998 Nov;29(11):697-703. Quintessence Int. 1998. PMID: 10200719 Review.