الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 140 |  |  |
| | | from | 140 | | |
Abstract
Summary
101
Results:
I-In Vivo:
The recall rate was (100 %) after 1 year .
According to modified USPHS criteria , for Marginal discoloration all
the restorations of Equia forte and Riva LC showed (Alfa) score except for only
one restoration of Fuji Equia forte and one restoration of Riva LC which
showed bravo score after 1 year .
For Marginal integrity , 100% of Equia forte restorations showed
(Bravo) score after 1 year. Also 100% of Riva Lc restorations showed (Bravo)
score after 1 year.
For Surface Texture , 100% of Equia forte restorations showed (Bravo)
score after 1 year. Also 100% of Riva Lc restorations showed (Bravo) score
after 1 year.
For Wear , 100% of Equia forte restorations showed (Bravo) score after
1 year. Also 100% of Riva Lc restorations showed (Bravo) score after 1 year.
For Secondary Caries , 100% of Equia forte restorations showed (Alfa)
score after 1 year. Also 100% of Riva Lc restorations showed (Alfa) score after
1 year.
For Postoperative sensitivity , 100% of Equia forte restorations showed
(Alfa) score after 1 year. Also 100% of Riva Lc restorations showed (Alfa)
score after 1 year.
The statistical analysis comparison showed no statistical significant
difference in performance of both restorations in class I cavities in primary
molars after 1 year according to modified USPHS criteria.
Summary
102
II-In Vitro:
The statistical analysis comparison showed there was statistical
significant difference between Fuji equia forte with coat and Riva LC.
Riva Lc had high wear resistance and low surface roughness according to
our results than Equia Forte with Resin coat