Review of Literature compared to conventional glass ionomer cement. Marginal gap formation for both resin modified glass ionomer cement restorations was limited to axial wall of restorations. They concluded from their study that the clinical marginal seal between the resin modified glass ionomer cement restorations examined and tooth structure, is unable to completely prevent the leakage of fluid as shown by the microleakage results. M.C.Serra, M.F. Navarro et al (1994)30 evaluated the effectiveness of various surface treatments such as light cured bonding resins, nail varnishes, vaseline for glass ionomer cement through spectrophotometer. All the surface agents were effective in protecting setting restorative glass ionomer cement, but nail varnish provided the best results. Cho Elizabeth, Hugh Kopel et al (1995) 9 studied to determine if resin modified glass ionomer cements are less sensitive to moisture than conventional glass ionomer cements, and investigated the effect of barrier coatings and different setting environments. They concluded that resin modified glass ionomer cements are less sensitive to moisture than is the conventional glass ionomer cement control. Drier environments produced stronger resin modified glass ionomer specimens. Use of fissure sealant as a barrier coating increased overall specimen strength.
13