Hall technique vs Other network treatments: Treatment success rate
The Hall technique ranked first for treatment success in the occlusoproximal-surface network (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Hall technique vs Other network treatments Treatment success rate · Primary teeth with dentin caries lesions on occlusoproximal surfaces · Various follow-up times, Various, Occlusoproximal surface without reported lesion depth The Hall technique ranked first for treatment success in the occlusoproximal-surface network (low certainty). Scientific evidence for the management of dentin caries lesions in pediatric dentistry: A systematic review… (2018) All outcomes | RANK 1 | 7 studies | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scientific evidence for the management of dentin caries lesions in pediatric dentistry: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. 2018 All outcomes | December 14, 2017 | 15 | Low / Critically Low |
Studies behind the findings
The primary studies the full-text reviews tie to this outcome. Reviews with headline outcomes only do not list them here.
- The 3.5-year survival rates of primary molars treated according to three treatment protocols: a controlled clinical trial. · 2014 · included by 1 of these review
- Caries management strategies for primary molars: 1-yr randomized control trial results. · 2014 · included by 1 of these review
- Sealing caries in primary molars: randomized control trial, 5-year results. · 2011 · included by 1 of these review
- [ART or conventional restorations? A final evaluation of proximal restorations in deciduous molars]. · 2004 · included by 1 of these review
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.