Moving contact line dynamics play an important role in liquid spreading, particle wetting, and defect formation in powder-based additive manufacturing (AM) processes such as laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) and metal binder jetting (MBJ). At the mesoscopic scale, interface-resolved simulations indicate that the wetting behavior is sensitive to modelling assumptions [1]. Conservative level-set (CLS) methods provide a mass-conservative framework with an Eulerian representation of the interface well suited for mesoscopic AM simulations. However, the influence of level-set reinitialization on contact line dynamics has not been clearly characterized. This work investigates moving contact line dynamics within a CLS-based multiphase thermo-hydrodynamic framework, considering two formulations: a prescribed wetting boundary condition and a regularized surface force model. Two complementary configurations are considered: (i) binder spreading over static powder beds, and (ii) single-track melt pool evolution on a 316L stainless steel solid substrate. Two reinitialization strategies are studied: a PDE-based conservative approach following [2] and a novel geometric reinitialization method. By examining these cases side-by-side, the present work assesses how interface modelling parameters and framework affect contact line evolution in configurations involving either static, geometrically complex powder beds, or evolving solid-liquid interfaces. Simulation results are also compared with previous work [3, 4]. Investigated quantities of interest include binder lateral spreading diameter and penetration depth, as well as melt pool temperature profile and cross-section dimensions (width, depth, and area). [1] C. Zenz, et al., “A critical comparison of one- and two-fluid approaches for the simulation of laser-induced melt pool formation and vaporisation,” Discover Materials, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 266, 2025. [2] E. Olsson, et al., “A conservative level set method for two phase flow II,” Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 225, no. 1, pp. 785–807, 2007. [3] H. Deng, et al., “Binder jetting additive manufacturing: Three-dimensional simulation of micro-meter droplet impact and penetration into powder bed,” Journal of Manufacturing Processes, vol. 74, pp. 365–373, 2022. [4] C. M. Weeks, et al., “Validation of OpenFOAM modeling of additive manufacturing melt pool dynamics against geometric and thermal experiments,” Journal of Manufacturing Processes, vol. 152, pp. 237-249, 2025.