ArticleBMC oral health2026
Comparison of tensile bond strengths of different impression materials used with custom trays fabricated by 3D printing.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate and compare the tensile bond strength between four different impression materials and custom trays fabricated using various photopolymer-based three-dimensional (3D) printing materials and one conventional method. Additionally, the effect of three surface treatments on bond strength was investigated.
methodsA total of 288 custom tray specimens were fabricated using four different techniques: Stereolithography (SLA), liquid crystal display (LCD), digital light processing (DLP), and a conventional light-cured urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA)-based acrylic. Each tray type was subjected to three surface treatments: adhesive-only, perforated-only, and perforated + adhesive. Four elastomeric impression materials were tested: polyvinylsiloxane, condensation silicone, polyether, and vinylsiloxanether. A standardized CAD model was used for all trays. The impression materials were applied onto the tray surfaces, and tensile bond strength was tested using a universal testing machine. Each condition was tested with six replicates (n = 6). Data were recorded in Newtons and converted to megapascal (MPa) using a standardized bonding surface area of 825 mm². Three-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc tests were conducted (α = 0.05).
resultsAll three independent variables - printing technique, surface treatment, and impression material - had a statistically significant effect on tensile bond strength (p < 0.001). The highest mean bond strength (0.272 MPa) was observed with the DLP-printed tray using perforated-only and polyether impression material. The lowest value (0.018 MPa) was found with the same tray type and surface treatment, but with condensation silicone. Among surface treatments, adhesive-only and adhesive + perforated trays showed significantly higher bond strengths compared to perforated-only groups (p = 0.001). Polyether showed significantly higher bond strength than all other impression materials, while condensation silicone yielded the lowest.
conclusionsWithin the limitations of this in vitro study, tray fabrication method and surface treatment significantly influenced bonding with impression materials. The present findings may provide useful preliminary data for future clinical investigations evaluating retention characteristics of 3D-printed custom trays.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.