Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

The ultimate guide to restoration longevity in England and Wales. Part 3: Glass ionomer restorations – time to next intervention and to extraction of the restored tooth

Key Points

  • Circa 1.6million Glass Ionomer (GI) restorations were included, these being placed in class II and class V cavities. Of these, circa 700,000 had a re-intervention at 15 years. Kaplan Meier Analysis revealed that, overall, only 28% of GI restorations had survived without re-intervention at 15 years.

  • GI restorations performed less well than other treatment groups overall, both in terms of time to re-intervention and also time to extraction of the restored tooth, with 23% of GI-restored teeth being extracted at 15 years.

  • GI restorations performed better in younger patients than in older patients and performed least well when placed in upper incisor teeth: the performance of GI restorations was highly tooth-dependent.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16


  1. 1

    Lucarotti P S K, Burke F J T . The ultimate guide to restoration longevity in England and Wales: 1: methodology. Br Dent J 2018; In press.

  2. 2

    Wilson A D, Kent B E . A new translucent cement for dentistry. The glass ionomer cement. Br Dent J 1972; 132: 133–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Combe E C, Burke F J T, Douglas W H . Dental Biomaterials. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Dental Practice Board. Digest of Statistics, April 2004 – March 2005. Eastbourne UK: Dental Practice Board, 2005.

  5. 5

    Randall R C, Wilson N H F . Glass ionomer restoratives: A systematic review of a secondary caries treatment effect. J Dent Res 1999; 78: 628–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    3M ESPE Ketac Molar Quick Product Brochure. Available at (accessed May 2018).

  7. 7

    Dentsply De Trey GmbH Professional Research. Chemflex Technical Manual. p 25. Germany: Dentsply De Trey, 1998.

  8. 8

    Information Centre for Health and Social Care, NHS Business Services Authority. Longitudinal Dental Treatment, 1990–2006. [data collection]. UK Data Service, 2012.

  9. 9

    Levitch L C, Bader J D, Shugars D A, Heymann H O . Non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent 1994; 22: 195–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Lucarotti P S K, Holder R L, Burke F J T . Outcome of direct restorations placed within the General Dental Services in England and Wales (Part 1): Variation by type of restoration and re-intervention. J Dent 2005; 33: 805–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Steele J G, O'Sulivan I . Adult Dental Health Survey 2009. London: Health and Social Care Information Centre, 2009.

  12. 12

    Stewardson D A, Creanor S, Thornley P et al. The survival of Class V restorations in general dental practice: Part 3, five year survival. Br Dent J 2012; 212: E14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors acknowledge the support of the Economic and Social Data Service, the Health and Social Care Information Centre and the NHS Business Services Authority for collating and releasing this valuable data resource.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. J. T. Burke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Burke, F., Lucarotti, P. The ultimate guide to restoration longevity in England and Wales. Part 3: Glass ionomer restorations – time to next intervention and to extraction of the restored tooth. Br Dent J 224, 865–874 (2018).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links