Search result: There is still a lack of studies to this topic and only two clinical studies concerning restorations in the primary dentition were found.
Clinical outcomes: The results of (conventional) high-viscosity GIC indicate no difference to amalgam while, lowviscosity GIC perform significantly worse than amalgam.
State of evidence and recommendations: The quality of the existing evidence requires further assessment.
[‘Preliminary Systematic Literature Searches’ are based on SYSTEM’s periodic systematic searches of the dental literature and provide first overviews over existing clinical evidence but are limited in the number of databases searched, as well as the assessment of precision and internal validity of results and thus do not replace the need for a full systematic review report to the topic]
Mickenautsch, S. (2019). Retention of GIC versus Amalgam as restorations [October 17, 2014]. Afribary. Retrieved from https://tracking.afribary.com/works/retention-of-gic-versus-amalgam-as-restorations-october-17-2014
Mickenautsch, Steffen "Retention of GIC versus Amalgam as restorations [October 17, 2014]" Afribary. Afribary, 26 May. 2019, https://tracking.afribary.com/works/retention-of-gic-versus-amalgam-as-restorations-october-17-2014. Accessed 24 Nov. 2024.
Mickenautsch, Steffen . "Retention of GIC versus Amalgam as restorations [October 17, 2014]". Afribary, Afribary, 26 May. 2019. Web. 24 Nov. 2024. < https://tracking.afribary.com/works/retention-of-gic-versus-amalgam-as-restorations-october-17-2014 >.
Mickenautsch, Steffen . "Retention of GIC versus Amalgam as restorations [October 17, 2014]" Afribary (2019). Accessed November 24, 2024. https://tracking.afribary.com/works/retention-of-gic-versus-amalgam-as-restorations-october-17-2014