Abstract
Purpose: We aimed to systematically review the current literature on the bond strength between custom tray materials and impression materials, including the various parameters affecting the strength. Methods: Four electronic databases were used: Ovid, Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus. Relevant studies were chosen based on their eligibility, determined through inclusion and exclusion criteria. This review followed the PRISMA strategy. A risk of bias assessment was produced to evaluate the validity of each study. Results: There were 173 initial relevant studies identified, and after the screening process, this was reduced to seven. Two additional studies were also included from hand searching, resulting in total nine studies to be included in the review. Four of the nine evaluated studies concerned additively manufactured (AM) materials, including acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), polyethylene terephthalate glycol polyester (PETG), high-impact polystyrene (HIPS), and polylactic acid (PLA). Five studies evaluated an auto-polymerizing resin and one a thermoplastic material. All studies used polyvinyl siloxane impression materials and an adhesive selection following manufacturers’ recommendations. Three studies used scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to analyze their specimens. All studies reported a low risk of bias. Conclusions: Surface roughening was shown to reduce the strength of the bonding interface, whereas combining chemical and mechanical retention was shown to increase the bond strength. Inconsistent results exist in determining if AMed (3D-printed) tray materials are comparable or perform better than the conventional tray materials, highlighting the need for further study. Clinical Significance: The bond strength of the custom tray to the dental impression material is critical as it affects the model produced and therefore the final prosthesis. It is therefore invaluable to use materials with high bond strength for the construction of custom trays.