Clinical experience with glass ionomer for proximal fillings

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate, with the aid of a questionnaire handed out to a selected group of dentists, the use of glass ionomer cement (GIC) in different types of proximal preparations. The aim was to evaluate the experience of complications associated with the use of GIC. Very few had often observed secondary caries or gingival inflammation in association with GIC fillings, compared with about 70% of the dentists in association with posterior composites. Tunnel fillings had been made by 60% of the dentists, simple proximal fillings in primary molars by 80%, and sandwich restorations by 80%. Few dentists with at least 2 year's experience with tunnel fillings had observed biologic complications, but ridge fractures had often been observed by 10%. Among the dentists with at least 2 years’ experience with proximal fillings in primary molars, 40% mentioned more complications with these than with amalgams. Biologic complications were also not a great problem with GlC/composite sandwich restorations, but wear or dissolution of the proximal GIC surface was often seen by 17% of the dentists.