Figure 1 Specimen fabrication for non-repair group. A: mold; B: glass slide; C: clamp; D: sample.

Figure 2 Specimen fabrication for aged repair groups. A:broken part; B: repaired part; C: joint between two parts.

Figure 3 Specimen fabrication for immediate repair group. I:Fabrication of PVS template. A:prefabricated composite bar with the dimensions of 12.5×2×2 mm; II; injecting PVS material; B: Fabrication of a half-bars of provisional materials. III: PVS template with the dimensions of 12.5×2×2 mm; D: the fabricated half-bar of the sample, C: immediate repairing. E: repaired half-bar.

Figure 4 The effects of repair on flexural strength of three materials.

Figure 5 The effects of provisional material on flexural strength under different conditions

Brand Name

Manufacturer

Material type

Shade

Lot Number

Tuff-Temp™ Plus

Pulpdent Corp, Watertown, MA

Rubberized-Urethane

A2

150313

Integrity

Dentsply, Milford, DE

Bis-Acryl

A2

150319

Jet

Lang Dental Manufacturing Company, Wheeling, IL

Methyl Methacrylate

62

P-382015AH
L-380315AI

Table 1. Provisional restorative materials used in the study.

 

Non-Repair

Immediate Repair

Aged Repair

Integrity

102.93 (11.3)

68.44 (9.1)

62.11 (12.2)

Tuff-Temp™ Plus

56.10 (6.5)

61.56 (7.1)

51.77 (8.6)

Jet

85.10 (5.7)

60.74 (7.9)

44.24 (6.5)

Table 2. Mean (SD) values for flexural strength test in all groups.

Source

Sum of  Squares

df

Mean Squares

F-Ratio

p Value

Repair

12568.992

2

6284.496

33.860

p<0.001

Material

3140.279

1

3140.279

16.919

p<0.001

Table 3. Results of Two-way ANOVA.