Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

3 questions · 3 findings · 2 reviews · Dental caries

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 1 · 33.3%GRADE not reported 2 · 66.7%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Hall technique vs Non-restorative cavity control (NRCC)

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

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

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

Cost of the intervention · People with a permanent tooth that has undergone endodontic (root canal) treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

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

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

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

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