The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 24 , ISSUE 12 ( December, 2023 ) > List of Articles


Cost-effectiveness and Acceptance in Children and Parents of the Hall Technique: Systematic Review of Clinical Trials

Flavia Bridi Valentim, Kelly Maria Silva Moreira, Vinícius Cavalcanti Carneiro, Lidiane Jacinto do Nascimento, Viviane Colares, José Carlos Pettorossi Imparato

Keywords : Cost-effectiveness evaluation, Dental caries, Dental restoration, Permanent, Patient acceptance of health care, Systematic review

Citation Information : Valentim FB, Moreira KM, Carneiro VC, do Nascimento LJ, Colares V, Imparato JC. Cost-effectiveness and Acceptance in Children and Parents of the Hall Technique: Systematic Review of Clinical Trials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2023; 24 (12):1016-1025.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3607

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 31-01-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Aims: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and acceptance of children and their parents of the Hall technique (HT) for dental rehabilitation in pediatric dentistry. Background: The approach of the HT is that of minimally invasive treatment of the dental element and is used exclusively on primary molars. Various studies in the literature point to HT as a restorative option well accepted by children and parents and quite predictable, with low retreatment rates and good cost-effectiveness for the management of primary molars with carious lesions. However, no systematic review in the literature has approached randomized clinical trials on these topics to produce a high level of evidence and help establish clinical HT protocols. Review results: Eight articles were selected for the systematic review. The HT was more cost-effective than procedures using other restorative materials. Regarding acceptance, in terms of esthetics, high percentages of satisfaction were reported for parents and children, with a divergence between studies in the comparison of esthetic preference with atraumatic restorative treatment. However, when considering crown cementation pain, comfort, anxiety, preference, and satisfaction, the HT was generally better evaluated when compared to other restorative materials. Conclusion: The HT is an excellent restorative option when considering cost-effectiveness and acceptance and is recommended for use in daily clinical practice. Clinical significance: Results indicate that HT is superior to other restorative materials regarding its acceptance by children and parents in terms of pain, comfort, anxiety, and crown preference and satisfaction. There were also high percentages of satisfaction with esthetics. Hall technique may initially appear expensive for dentists, but its effectiveness over time and the lesser need for consultations and reinventions ensure better cost-benefit than other restorative materials.

  1. Tinanoff N, Douglass JM. Clinical decision-making for caries management in primary teeth. J Dent Educ 2001;65(10):1133–1142. DOI: 10.1002/j.0022-0337.2001.65.10.tb03462.x.
  2. Schwendicke F, Splieth C, Breschi L, et al. When to intervene in the caries process? An expert Delphi consensus statement. Clin Oral Invest 2019;23(10):3691–3703. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-019-03058-w.
  3. Ricketts D, Lamont T, Innes NPT, et al. Operative caries management in adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;3:CD003808. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003808.pub3.
  4. Schwendicke F, Dörfer CE, Paris S. Incomplete caries removal: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 2013;92(4):306–314. DOI: 10.1177/0022034513477425.
  5. Banerjee A, Frencken JE, Schwendicke F, et al. Contemporary operative caries management: Consensus recommendations on minimally invasive caries removal. Br Dent J 2017;223(3):215–222. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2017.672.
  6. Innes NPT, Evans DJP, Bonifacio CC, et al. The hall technique 10 years on: questions and answers. Br Dent J 2017;222(6):478–483. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2017.273.
  7. Innes NPT, Frencken JE, Bjorndal L, et al. Managing carious lesions: Consensus recommendation on terminology. Adv Dent Res 2016;28(2):49–57. DOI: 10.1177/0022034516639276.
  8. Innes NPT, Stirrups DR, Evans DJP, et al. A novel technique using preformed metal crowns for managing carious primary molars in general practice–A retrospective analysis. Br Dent J 2006;200(8): 451–454. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4813466.
  9. BaniHani A, Deery C, Toumba J, et al. Effectiveness, costs and patient acceptance of a conventional and a biological treatment approach for carious primary teeth in children. Caries Res 2019;53(1):65–75. DOI: 10.1159/000487201.
  10. Innes NPT, Evans DJP, Stirrups DR. The Hall Technique; a randomized controlled clinical trial of a novel method of managing carious primary molars in general dental practice: Acceptability of the technique and outcomes at 23 months. BMC Oral Health 2007;7:18. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6831-7-18.
  11. Schwendicke F, Krois J, Splieth CH, et al. Cost-effectiveness of managing cavitated primary molar caries lesions: A randomized trial in Germany. J Dent 2018;78:40–45. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2018.05.022.
  12. Schwendicke F, Stolpe M, Innes N. Conventional treatment, Hall technique or immediate pulpotomy for carious primary molars: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Int Endod J 2016:49(9):817–826. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12537.
  13. Santamaria RM, Innes NPT, Machiulskiene V, et al. Acceptability of different caries management methods for primary molars in a RCT. Int J Paediatr Dent 2015;25(1):9–17. DOI: 10.1111/ipd.12097.
  14. Bell SJ, Morgan AG, Marshman Z, et al. Child and parental acceptance of preformed metal crowns. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2010;11(5): 218–224. DOI: 10.1007/BF03262750.
  15. Page LAF, Boyd DH, Davidson SE, et al. Acceptability of the Hall technique to parents and children. N Z Dent J 2014;110(1):12–17. PMID: 24683915.
  16. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J et al. (eds.). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2nd edition. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons; 2019.
  17. Araujo MP, Innes NP, Bonifacio CC, et al. Atraumatic restorative treatment compared to the hall technique for occluso-proximal carious lesions in primary molars; 36-month follow-up of a randomized control trial in a school setting. BMC Oral Health 2020;20(1):318. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-020-01298-x.
  18. Ebrahimi M, Shirazi AS, Afshari E. Success and behavior during atraumatic restorative treatment, the hall technique, and the stainless-steel crown technique for primary molar teeth. Pediatr Dent 2020;42(3):187–192. PMID: 32522320.
  19. Elamin F, Abdelazeem N, Salah I, et al. A randomized clinical trial comparing Hall vs conventional technique in placing preformed metal crowns from Sudan. PloS One 2019;14(6):e0217740. DOI:
  20. Lakshmi SP, Sahana S, Vasa AAK, et al. Atraumatic restorative treatment vs. Hall technique for occlusoproximal lesions in primary dentition-an in vivo study. J Clin Diagn Res 2018;12(2):9–13. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2018/29576.11186.
  21. da Silva Ribeiro Júnior HS, de Brito BA, Corrêa-Faria P. Parents’ acceptance of minimal intervention procedures for dental caries management in children: A scoping review. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2023. DOI: 10.1007/s40368-023-00833-y.
  22. Maciel R, Salvador D, Azoubel K, et al. The opinion of children and their parents about four different types of dental restorations in a public health service in Brazil. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2017;18(1):25–29. DOI: 10.1007/s40368-016-0262-8.
  23. Bhatia HP, Khari PM, Sood S, et al. Evaluation of clinical effectiveness and patient acceptance of Hall technique for managing carious primary molars: an in vivo study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2019;12(6): 548–552. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1699.
  24. Marshman Z, Hall MJ. Oral health research with children. Int J Paediatr Dent 2008;18(4):235–242. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2008.00922.x.
  25. Zimmerman JA, Feigal RJ, Till MJ, et al. Parental attitudes on restorative material as factors influencing current use in pediatric dentistry. Pediatr Dent 2009;31(1):63–70. PMID: 19320262.
  26. Kershaw S, Newton JT, Williams DM. The influence of tooth colour on the perceptions of personal characteristics among female dental patients: Comparisons of unmodified, decayed and ‘whitened’ teeth. Br Dent J 2008;204(5):e9. DOI: 10.1038/bdj.2008.134.
  27. Banerjee A, Splieth C, Breschi L, et al. When to intervene in the caries process? A Delphi consensus statement. Br Dent J 2020;229(7): 474–482. DOI: 10.1038/s41415-020-2220-4.
  28. Elhennawy K, Schwendicke F. Managing molar-incisor hypomineralization: A systematic review. J Dent 2016;55:16–24. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.09.012.
  29. Muppa R, Bhupatiraju P, Duddu M, et al. Comparison of anxiety levels associated with noise in the dental clinic among children of age group 6-15 years. Noise Health 2013;15(64):190–193. DOI: 10.4103/1463-1741.112371.
  30. Rafique S, Banerjee A, Fiske J. Management of the petrified dental patient. Dent Update 2008;35(3):196–198. DOI: 10.12968/denu.2008.35.3.196.
  31. Topaloglu-Ak A, Eden E, Frencken JE. Perceived dental anxiety among schoolchildren treated through three caries removal approaches. J Appl Oral Sci 2007;15(3):235–240. DOI: 10.1590/S1678-77572007000300015.
  32. Ayedun OS, Oredugba FA, Sote EO. Comparison of the treatment assessments of the conventional stainless-steel crown restorations and the hall technique. West Afr J Med 2020;37(3):253–259. PMID: 32476119.
  33. Taylor GD. A change in practice protocol: Preformed metal crowns for treating non-infected carious primary molars in a general practice setting–A service evaluation. Prim Dent J 2015;4(4):22–26. DOI: 10.1308/205016815816682182.
  34. Ngan P, Kess B, Wilson S. Perception of discomfort by patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1989;96(1):47–53. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(89)90228-X.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.