The forgotten merits of GIC restorations: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

To reevaluate proven strengths and weakness of glass ionomer cements (GICs) and to identify agreement versus conflicting evidence in previous reports regarding the transition between GIC and the tooth, and the existence of an "interphase".

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Relevant electronic databases (PubMed, Embase via Ovid and Medline via Web of science) were searched for publications of evidence relating to the transition zone at the GIC-tooth interphase. Studies were examined and grouped according to characteristics of GIC-tooth attachment area quantified by X-ray and optical microscopy techniques in 2D and 3D.

RESULTS

Inclusion criteria comprised of in vitro studies that showed images of the conventional GIC-tooth substrate attachments using at least one of the following techniques: SEM, CLSM, or μCT. The search identified 419 studies, from which 33 were included. Ten studies demonstrated the existence of an interphase layer and five studies quantified the layer thickness (1-15 μ). Twenty-nine publications studied different failure modes of the GIC-tooth interphase. Eleven studies described discontinuities inside the GIC bulk.

CONCLUSION

The GIC-tooth interphase attributes evolve with time. Good attachment is evident even under compromised surface preparation. The GIC-tooth attachment area is resistant to acidic dissolution as compared to both tooth and GIC bulk. In general, studies revealed mostly intact GIC-tooth interphases with only some cracked interphases.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

GIC bonds to the tooth structure and forms an acid resistant attachment zone that might enhance caries inhibition. Due to fluoride release and ease of use, GIC provides a cost effective treatment, ideal for low income or high caries populations.