What do systematic reviews say?

Hall technique vs Non-restorative caries treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  The studies did not measure this outcome.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Preformed crown (any material; conventional technique or Hall Technique) vs Filling (any material; with or without complete carious tissue excavation; with or without pulp treatment)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  The studies did not measure this outcome.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Ozone applied to the carious lesion (10 or 40 seconds), with a fluoride reductant and oral hygiene/preventive advice vs No ozone, with a fluoride reductant and oral hygiene/preventive advice (as in the intervention group)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Ozone therapy for the treatment of dental caries 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No data were provided in any of the included trials on costs.
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth)

• Dental cavity liners for Class I and Class II resin‐based composite restorations 2019 · Cochrane All outcomes
  One study (Strober 2013) reported cost, concluding that eliminating a resin-modified glass ionomer lining could save approximately USD 4.50 per filling (about USD 2000 per dentist per year). No comparative effect…
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Direct resin composite veneer vs Indirect resin composite veneer

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Direct versus indirect veneer restorations for intrinsic dental stains 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Planned outcome; cost of treatment was not reported by the included trial.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Rubber dam vs Isolite system

It is very uncertain whether rubber dam isolation changes costs: operation/chair time compared with isolite system (very low certainty).

• Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Pit and fissure sealing (permanent molars)
  MD 9.36 [8.42, 10.30]
  1 study · 42 participants
  Very low

High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs Conventional treatment using H-GIC (rotary instruments)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No studies reported on costs for this comparison.
  0 studies
  No studies found

ART using resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC) vs Conventional treatment using RM-GIC

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No studies reported on costs for this comparison.
  0 studies
  No studies found

ART using composite resin vs Conventional treatment using composite resin

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No studies reported on costs for this comparison.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Rubber dam isolation and moisture control (alone or with saliva aspiration) vs Cotton rolls (with or without saliva aspiration)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies
  No studies found

Rubber dam isolation and moisture control (alone or with saliva aspiration) vs Cotton rolls (with or without saliva aspiration)

It is very uncertain whether rubber dam isolation and moisture control (alone or with saliva… changes costs: treatment/operation time compared with cotton rolls (with or without saliva aspiration) (very low certainty).

• Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  NCCL composite (Loguercio); fissure sealing (Ammann, narrative)
  MD -0.40 [-2.26, 1.46]
  1 study · 30 participants
  Very low

Rubber dam vs Isolite system

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies
  No studies found

Resin composite restorations containing antibacterial agents vs Non-antibacterial containing composite restorations

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Antibacterial agents in composite restorations for the prevention of dental caries 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No studies were included in this review, as we were unable to find any trials directly comparing antibacterial containing composites to other active interventions or controls.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Flossing plus toothbrushing (self-performed; manual or automated floss) vs Toothbrushing alone

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Flossing for the management of periodontal diseases and dental caries in adults 2011 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Not reported. No included study measured the economic or resource cost of flossing; the review notes it may be important to measure in future trials.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) vs Stepwise carious tissue removal (SW)

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

  Permanent and primary dentition
  Cost-effectiveness reported narratively: SE found more cost-effective than SW in permanent (Labib 2019) and primary teeth (Elhennawy 2021); not GRADE-rated.
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

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

Hall technique vs Non-restorative cavity control (NRCC)

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

  Primary dentition
  Cost-effectiveness reported narratively: HT found more cost-effective than NRCC in primary teeth (Santamaria 2018); not GRADE-rated.
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Chlorhexidine gel (0.12%) vs no treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Chlorhexidine treatment for the prevention of dental caries in children and adolescents 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Neither of these trials reported on the other secondary outcomes such as measures of pain, quality of life, patient satisfaction or direct and indirect costs of interventions.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Chlorhexidine varnish vs placebo or no treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Chlorhexidine treatment for the prevention of dental caries in children and adolescents 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No trials reported on pain, quality of life, patient satisfaction or costs.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Single full-coverage metal-ceramic crown over composite core and post vs Direct adhesive composite restoration with post (conventional filling, no crown)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Single crowns versus conventional fillings for the restoration of root‐filled teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No data were reported nor measured by the study. The abstract confirms no evidence was available for any secondary outcome.
  Studies not reported
  No studies found