Peel bond strength between 3D printing tray materials and elastomeric impression/adhesive systems: A laboratory study

Current research on dental tray materials has identified a need to understand how 3D printing affects bonding with impression systems. Prior studies have shown that surface characteristics influence adhesion, but few have focused on 3D printed materials. It was already known that conventional resins form reliable bonds with impression materials. However, the behavior of 3D printed alternatives remains unclear. No prior work had resolved how different printing technologies impact peel bond strength. This gap motivated the need for a controlled comparison of 3D printed and conventional tray materials. Understanding these interactions is important for clinical applications. The study aimed to fill this knowledge gap by evaluating bonding performance. Surface topography and failure modes were considered key factors in this investigation.

The goal was to assess how 3D printed tray materials interact with common impression/adhesive systems. Specifically, the study focused on peel bond strength as a measure of adhesion. Three 3D printed materials and one conventional resin were compared. The selected impression systems included vinylsiloxanether, vinyl polysiloxane, and polyether. The researchers aimed to determine if 3D printed materials could match the bonding performance of traditional options. Surface topography was also examined as a potential influencing factor. The peel test was used to quantify bond strength between materials. The study sought to provide guidance on material selection for clinical use.

Test blocks were created using three 3D printing technologies and one conventional method. The materials included Dental LT, FREEPRINT tray, polylactide (PLA), and Zeta Tray LC. Surface topography was analyzed using scanning electron microscopy. Roughness measurements were taken to quantify surface characteristics. The peel bond strength was tested between each tray material and three impression systems. A total of 12 samples were tested per group. Microscopic analysis identified failure modes and rupture sites. The study design allowed for a direct comparison of 3D printed and conventional materials.

The four tray materials showed distinct surface topographies. Peel bond strength was not significantly different with vinylsiloxanether and polyether. Polylactide and the reference material had higher bond strength with vinyl polysiloxane. The difference was statistically significant compared to Dental LT and FREEPRINT. Adhesive failure occurred at the adhesive-impression interface or within the adhesive. No failures were observed at the adhesive-tray interface. The bond strength of 3D printed materials was generally adequate for clinical use. The study found that 3D printing technologies influenced bonding behavior.

The authors suggest that 3D printed tray materials can form reliable bonds with common impression systems. The bond strength was comparable to conventional materials in most cases. Surface topography generated by 3D printing may affect adhesion. The study found no essential differences in failure modes across materials. The researchers propose that 3D printed trays can be used clinically with confidence. Polylactide is recommended for use with vinyl polysiloxane in specific cases. The findings support the use of 3D printing in tray fabrication. The study highlights the importance of material selection based on impression system.