Objective The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate how different interventions can impact the bond strength of additively manufactured crown materials after cementation.

Data/Sources Four online databases Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar were searched up to January 2023. Inclusion criteria were English-language publications, full-text, and in vitro studies only. Exclusion criteria were studies that did not assess the bonding of an additively manufactured crown material to cement or did not conduct any bond strength tests. An assessment of risk of bias was done in accordance with a modified Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist. Each study was analysed and compared based on the interventions and bond strength results.

Study selection Six studies satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria, five of which evaluated photopolymerised resin and one that tested zirconia manufacturing via 3D printing. All studies observed a low risk of bias. The interventions applied included the type of surface pretreatments, airborne-particle abrasion pressure, cement type, taper of crown, and artificial aging. Three studies compared the bonding performance to milled materials.

Conclusions The bond strength of crown materials additively manufactured from photopolymers presented high values and are comparable to milled materials. The systematic review demonstrated there was no definite superior cement type, but airborne-particle abrasion with alumina was generally recommended. There is a clear gap in the literature regarding the bond strength of additively manufactured crowns. Therefore, further research is necessary to evaluate its clinical applicability for permanent restorations.

Clinical Significance Factors influencing the bond strength of additively manufactured crown materials should be evaluated so dental health professionals can adopt procedures that promote the strongest bond. In doing so, a retentive restoration can be ensured.