Hall technique vs Non-restorative caries treatment
Costs · Children with decayed primary molar teeth
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- The studies did not measure this outcome.0 studiesNo studies found
Findings
What do systematic reviews say?
2,297 questions · 3,638 findings · 215 reviews · All outcomes
No studies found 98 · 2.7%GRADE not reported 2,946 · 81%Very low 263 · 7.2%Low 158 · 4.3%Moderate 137 · 3.8%High 36 · 1%
Hall technique vs Non-restorative caries treatment
Pain · Children with decayed primary molar teeth
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- Pain: No evidence available (Summary of findings 2).0 studiesNo studies found
Hall technique vs Non-restorative caries treatment
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
- The studies did not measure this outcome.0 studiesNo studies found
Hall technique vs Non-restorative caries treatment
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
- RR 0.12 [0.01, 2.18]1 study · 92 participantsVery low
Hall technique vs Non-restorative caries treatment
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
- Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomesImmediately after treatmentRR 1.67 [0.65, 4.25]1 study · 104 participantsVery low
Hall technique vs Non-restorative caries treatment
Satisfaction with treatment · Children with decayed primary molar teeth
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- Satisfaction with treatment: No evidence available (Summary of findings 2).0 studiesNo studies found
Hall technique vs Non-restorative caries treatment
Adverse events: gingival bleeding · Children with decayed primary molar teeth
It is very uncertain whether preformed metal crown (fitted using the Hall Technique) changes adverse events: gingival bleeding compared with non-restorative caries treatment (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- RR 1.09 [0.42, 2.86]1 study · 92 participantsVery low
Metal-reinforced glass-ionomer cement (MRGIC) restoration vs Conventional GIC
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years
Metal-reinforced GIC had a high annual failure rate (29.9%) in a single RCT; low quality of evidence (ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review
- Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a… 2022 All outcomes1.5 years mean follow-up (Kilpatrick 1995) · Not reported (UK)Annual failure rate (%) 29.91 study · 37 participantsGRADE not reported
Hall technique vs Compomer restoration or non-restorative caries treatment
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children (aged 3-8 years) with 2-surface occluso-proximal dentine caries in primary molars, no pulp therapy
Preformed metal (Hall) crowns had a low reported annual failure rate (3.1%) versus compomer (14.7%) in one RCT; low quality of evidence (ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review
- Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a… 2022 All outcomes2.5 years / 30 months (Santamaria 2017) · University (Germany)Annual failure rate (%) PMC Hall technique 3.1%; compomer 14.7%1 study · 169 participantsGRADE not reported
3Mix (ciprofloxacin + metronidazole + minocycline) pulpotomy vs 3Mix pulpectomy
Clinical failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
3Mix (ciprofloxacin + metronidazole + minocycline) pulpotomy showed no clear difference in clinical failure compared with 3Mix pulpectomy; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
- RR 5.00 [0.25, 99.95]1 study · 60 participantsGRADE not reported
3Mix (ciprofloxacin + metronidazole + minocycline) pulpotomy vs 3Mix pulpectomy
Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth
3Mix (ciprofloxacin + metronidazole + minocycline) pulpotomy showed no clear difference in radiological failure compared with 3Mix pulpectomy; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
- RR 11.00 [0.64, 190.53]1 study · 60 participantsGRADE not reported
Preformed metal crown (stainless steel), conventional technique vs Aesthetic crown (stainless steel with composite/white veneer), conventional technique
Adverse events: bone resorption · Children with decayed primary molar teeth
1 finding from 1 review
- Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomesSix months and four yearsBone resorption: one case at six months in a tooth treated with a veneer crown; no bone resorption at either the veneer crown or stainless steel sites at four-year follow-up (Analysis 3.2).1 study · 11 participantsVery low
Preformed metal crown (stainless steel), conventional technique vs Aesthetic crown (stainless steel with composite/white veneer), conventional technique
Adverse events: gingival bleeding · Children with decayed primary molar teeth
1 finding from 1 review
- Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomesSix months and four yearsAt six months, none (0/11) of the PMC sites had gingival bleeding, but all (11/11) veneer sites had bleeding, 10 of which bled on probing; statistically significant (McNemar's test, P < 0.001). At four years, one case…1 study · 11 participantsVery low
Composite strip crowns with composite, fiber, or reverse metal posts vs Alternative post type
Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth after vital or non-vital pulp therapy
In one RCT, composite strip crowns with composite posts had an annual failure rate of 2.3% after 1 year.
1 finding from 1 review
- Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated primary teeth:… 2022 All outcomes1 year · University, Iran · Composite post (CP) armAnnual failure rate (AFR, %) 2.31 study · 54 participantsGRADE 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 outcomesNo data were reported nor measured by the study. The abstract confirms no evidence was available for any secondary outcome.Studies not reportedNo studies found
Single full-coverage metal-ceramic crown over composite core and post vs Direct adhesive composite restoration with post (conventional filling, no crown)
Patient satisfaction / quality of life (validated measure) · 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 outcomesThis outcome was not reported nor measured by the study. The abstract confirms no evidence was available for any secondary outcome.Studies not reportedNo studies found
Single full-coverage metal-ceramic crown over composite core and post vs Direct adhesive composite restoration with post (conventional filling, no crown)
Catastrophic failure of the restored tooth or restoration leading directly to extraction · People with a permanent tooth that has undergone endodontic (root canal) treatment
1 finding from 1 review
- Single crowns versus conventional fillings for the restoration of root‐filled teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes3 yearsSoF 'Catastrophic failure of restoration': assumed risk (conventional filling) 0, corresponding risk (single crown) 0; no events in either group so a relative effect was not estimable; 117 participants (1 study); GRADE…1 study · 117 participantsVery low
Single full-coverage metal-ceramic crown over composite core and post vs Direct adhesive composite restoration with post (conventional filling, no crown)
Periodontal health status · 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 outcomesNo data were reported nor measured by the study. The abstract confirms no evidence was available for any secondary outcome.Studies not reportedNo studies found
Single full-coverage metal-ceramic crown over composite core and post vs Direct adhesive composite restoration with post (conventional filling, no crown)
Non-catastrophic failure of the post · People with a permanent tooth that has undergone endodontic (root canal) treatment
It is very uncertain whether single full-coverage metal-ceramic crown over composite core and post changes non-catastrophic failure of the post compared with direct adhesive composite restoration with post (conventional… (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Single crowns versus conventional fillings for the restoration of root‐filled teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes3 yearsRR 1.96 [0.18, 21.01]1 study · 117 participantsVery low
Single full-coverage metal-ceramic crown over composite core and post vs Direct adhesive composite restoration with post (conventional filling, no crown)
Incidence or recurrence of caries (assessed clinically or by radiographs) · 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 outcomesNo data were reported nor measured by the study. The abstract confirms no evidence was available for any secondary outcome.Studies not reportedNo studies found