Treatment success (caries lesion arrest or restoration survival) · Children (aged 3-11 y) with cavitated caries lesions in primary teeth
At 12 months, the Hall technique had significantly higher treatment success than sealing (OR 13.93; moderate certainty).
2 findings from 1 review
OR 13.93 [1.34, 144.52]
43 studies
Moderate
OR 90.71 [1.57, 5243.63]
44 studies
Moderate
Treatment success (caries lesion arrest or restoration survival) · Children (aged 3-11 y) with cavitated caries lesions in primary teeth
At 6 months, the Hall technique had significantly higher treatment success than placebo (OR 163.59; moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Treatment success (caries lesion arrest or restoration survival) · Children (aged 3-11 y) with cavitated caries lesions in primary teeth
At 6 months, the Hall technique had significantly higher treatment success than ART (OR 10.11; moderate certainty).
3 findings from 1 review
OR 10.11 [3.03, 33.71]
44 studies
Moderate
OR 6.15 [2.55, 14.83]
43 studies
Moderate
OR 5.13 [1.18, 22.38]
21 studies
Moderate
Treatment success (caries lesion arrest or restoration survival) · Children (aged 3-11 y) with cavitated caries lesions in primary teeth
At 12 to 24 months, the Hall technique had significantly higher treatment success than conventional restoration (OR 4.17; moderate certainty).
3 findings from 1 review
OR 4.17 [1.44, 12.10]
21 studies
Moderate
OR 2.92 [1.40, 6.11]
43 studies
Low
OR 3.66 [1.29, 10.40]
44 studies
Moderate
Treatment success (caries lesion arrest or restoration survival) · Children (aged 3-11 y) with cavitated caries lesions in primary teeth
At 12 months, the Hall technique had significantly higher treatment success than sodium fluoride varnish (OR 6.38; moderate certainty).
2 findings from 1 review
OR 6.38 [1.41, 28.96]
43 studies
Moderate
OR 8.19 [1.44, 46.63]
44 studies
Moderate
Treatment success (caries lesion arrest or restoration survival) · Children (aged 3-11 y) with cavitated caries lesions in primary teeth
At 12 months, the Hall technique had significantly higher treatment success than SMART (OR 4.36; moderate certainty).
2 findings from 1 review
OR 4.36 [1.13, 16.77]
43 studies
Moderate
OR 5.61 [1.36, 23.08]
44 studies
Moderate
Treatment success (caries lesion arrest or restoration survival) · Children (aged 3-11 y) with cavitated caries lesions in primary teeth
At 12 months, the Hall technique had significantly higher treatment success than SDF (OR 3.23; moderate certainty).
2 findings from 1 review
OR 3.23 [1.13, 9.22]
43 studies
Moderate
OR 4.87 [1.23, 19.30]
44 studies
Moderate
Treatment success (caries lesion arrest or restoration survival) · Children (aged 3-11 y) with cavitated caries lesions in primary teeth
At 6 months, the Hall technique had significantly higher treatment success than partial caries removal (OR 13.49; moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
OR 13.49 [1.83, 99.68]
44 studies
Moderate
Treatment success rate · Primary teeth with dentin caries lesions on occlusoproximal surfaces
The Hall technique ranked first for treatment success in the occlusoproximal-surface network (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Preformed metal crown (fitted using the Hall Technique) vs Preformed metal crown (fitted using a conventional technique)
Outcome not reported · Children with decayed primary molar teeth
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Discomfort during treatment · Children (3-10 years) with dentine caries in primary molars
The reported estimate for treatment discomfort with the Hall Technique versus conventional restorations was inconclusive (ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review
RR 1.67 [0.65, 4.25]
2 studies
GRADE not reported
Adverse events: gingival bleeding · Children (3-10 years) with dentine caries in primary molars
The reported estimate for gingival bleeding with preformed metal crowns was inconclusive (ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review
RR 1.09 [0.42, 2.86]
2 studies
GRADE not reported
Restoration failure · Children (3-10 years) with dentine caries in primary molars
The Hall Technique was reported to reduce restoration and major failure versus conventional restorations (3% vs 37%; ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review
3% (HT) vs 37% (control)
1 study
GRADE not reported
Efficiency, costs or cost-effectiveness · Children and/or adults with permanent or primary teeth, vital (sensitive) pulps, and cavitated or dentine carious lesions conventionally…
1 finding from 1 review
Failure of therapy · Children and/or adults with permanent or primary teeth, vital (sensitive) pulps, and cavitated or dentine carious lesions conventionally…
It is very uncertain whether hall Technique (sealing with a preformed metal crown) changes failure of therapy compared with non-restorative cavity control (NRCC) (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Costs · Children with decayed primary molar teeth
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Pain · Children with decayed primary molar teeth
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Time to restoration failure/retreatment · Children with decayed primary molar teeth
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Major failure · Children with decayed primary molar teeth
It is very uncertain whether preformed metal crown (fitted using the Hall Technique) changes major failure compared with non-restorative caries treatment (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Discomfort associated with the procedure · Children with decayed primary molar teeth
It is very uncertain whether preformed metal crown (fitted using the Hall Technique) changes discomfort associated with the procedure compared with non-restorative caries treatment (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review