ArticleRestorative dentistry & endodontics2023
The clinical success of ART restorations and Hall technique in primary molars: a randomized 18-month follow-up study.
Article in Restorative dentistry & endodontics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative success of minimally invasive treatments for cavitated caries in primary teeth: a network meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2025Pooled it
- Success rate of Hall Technique for restoring carious primary molars - systematic review and meta-analysis.Evidence-based dentistry · 2025Pooled it
- Two-year outcomes of hall technique and modified hall technique in deep carious lesions of primary molars: a randomized clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Effectiveness of Dental Restorative Materials in the Atraumatic Treatment of Carious Primary Teeth in Pediatric Dentistry: A Systematic Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Pain Perception During Minimally Invasive Caries Removal in Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Chemo-Mechanical Caries Removal.Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community DentistryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic success of the Hall technique (HT) and atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations using high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement for the management of occlusal carious lesions in primary molars. Materials and Methods: This randomized clinical study observed 40 children (aged 5-6 years). For each child, one tooth was treated with HT and one with ART. The primary outcome measures for HT restorations were successful, minor, and major failure rates. Clinical evaluations of ART restorations were performed according to the modified United States Public Health Service criteria during 18-month follow-up. McNemar test was used for statistical analysis. Results: Thirty of 40 (75%) participants returned for 18 months of follow-up. In the clinical evaluations of teeth that were treated with HT, the patients did not have complaints of pain or other symptoms, all crowns remained in the oral cavity, the gums were healthy, and the teeth were functional in all evaluations. At the end of the 18-month follow-up, the surface texture and marginal integrity criteria of ART restorations were recorded as 26.7% and 33.3%, respectively. In the radiographic evaluation of 30 patients treated with ART and HT, all restorations were considered successful. Conclusions: The 18-month clinical and radiographic results after treatments applied to single-surface cavities in anxious children showed that both treatment methods were successful.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.