Aim: The aim of the study was to use different border molding materials and techniques and evaluate which has better retention on the maxillary custom tray. Materials and Methods: In this study, 20 patients were picked on the basis of inclusion and exclusion. Both sectional border molding using low fusing impression compound as well as single step border molding using putty addition silicone was done for each patient. A digital force meter was used to record the retention of the custom trays. The hook of the digital force meter was attached to the handle of the custom tray. And the device was pulled vertically downloads till the custom tray dislodges. And the data was tabulated and statistically analysed. Results: The sectional border molding has more mean value (5.023), while single step border molding has the less mean value (4.39). This difference appeared to be statistically highly significant (t= 4.19, p= 0.026). Conclusion: Being the traditional and oldest method, sectional border molding using low-fusing impression compound still remains the best technique.