Observations in Australia of the use of glass ionomer cement restorative material

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate, with the aid of a questionnaire distributed to selected groups of dentists, the use of glass ionomer cement in different types of proximal restorations and further to evaluate any complications observed with the use of GIC. Few dentists responded in the 'Often' category regarding the observation of secondary caries or gingival inflammation in association with GIC fillings compared with about three-quarters of the dentists who reported on posterior composite resin restorations. Tunnel cavities had been prepared and restored by 54 per cent of the dentists, simple proximal restorations in primary molars by 89 per cent and 'sandwich' restorations by 69 per cent. Few dentists with at least two years experience with tunnel restorations observed biological complications, but fracture of the marginal ridge was reported in the 'Often' category by 12 per cent. Among the dentists with at least five years experience with proximal restorations in primary molars 59 per cent of the operators mentioned more complications with these than with amalgam restorations. Biological complications were not a great problem with glass ionomer/composite laminates but wear or dissolution of the proximal GIC surface was recorded in the 'Often' section by 14 per cent of those placing them.