What do systematic reviews say?

Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Hall Technique (sealing with a preformed metal crown)

Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) may leads to higher failure of therapy compared with hall Technique (sealing with a preformed metal crown) (low certainty).

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  30-60 months · Cavitated (not deep) lesions, primary dentition
  OR 8.35 [3.73, 18.68]
  2 studies · 249 participants
  Low

Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Hall Technique (sealing with a preformed metal crown)

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Primary dentition
  Cost-effectiveness reported narratively: HT found more cost-effective than CR in primary teeth (Innes 2011; Santamaria 2018); not GRADE-rated.
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE)

It is very uncertain whether non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) changes failure of therapy compared with selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) (very low certainty).

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12 months · Cavitated but not deep lesions, primary dentition
  OR 0.62 [0.21, 1.88]
  2 studies · 204 participants
  Very low
• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12-18 months · Deep lesions, permanent dentition
  OR 11.32 [1.97, 65.02]
  2 studies · 179 participants
  Very low
• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6-36 months · Deep lesions, primary dentition
  OR 4.43 [1.04, 18.77]
  4 studies · 265 participants
  Very low

Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Stepwise carious tissue removal (SW)

Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) probably leads to higher failure of therapy compared with stepwise carious tissue removal (SW) (moderate certainty).

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6-60 months · Deep lesions, permanent dentition
  OR 2.06 [1.34, 3.17]
  3 studies · 398 participants
  Moderate
• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12 months · Deep lesions, primary dentition
  OR 2.43 [0.65, 9.12]
  1 study · 63 participants
  Very low

Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE)

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Cavitated but not deep lesions, primary dentition
  Lesion progression reported narratively: Ribeiro 1999 found 6/24 lesions progressed after 12 months; not pooled and not GRADE-rated.
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Non-restorative cavity control (NRCC)

It is very uncertain whether non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) changes failure of therapy compared with non-restorative cavity control (NRCC) (very low certainty).

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  30 months · Cavitated lesions, primary dentition
  OR 1.16 [0.5, 2.71]
  1 study · 102 participants
  Very low