Back to resultsEvaluation of Hall Technique and Atraumatic Restorative Treatment for Management of Caries in the Primary Dentition
Primary Purpose
Primary Dental Caries
Status
Completed
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
Egypt
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Hall technique
Atraumatic restorative treatment
Conventional restorative treatment
Sponsored by
About this trial
This is an interventional treatment trial for Primary Dental Caries
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
- Children free of any systemic disease or special health care needs.
- Cooperative children ( positive/ definitely positive) according to Frankl's behavior rating scale.
- Children who are willing to participate in the study
Tooth inclusion criteria:
- Primary molar teeth with occlusal or occlusoproximal carious lesions into dentin (International Caries Detection and Assessment System) (ICDAS) codes: 3-5
- Absence of clinical signs or symptoms of irreversible pulpitis
- Absence of fistula or abscess near the selected tooth clinically and radiographically
- Absence of spontaneous pain
- Absence of pulp exposure
- Absence of pathological mobility by placing the points of a pair of tweezers in an occlusal fossa, and gently rocking the tooth bucco-lingually.
Exclusion Criteria:
- Clinical signs and symptoms of irreversible pulpilitis.
- Tooth mobility
- Spontaneous pain
Sites / Locations
- Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University
Arms of the Study
Arm 1
Arm 2
Arm 3
Arm Type
Experimental
Active Comparator
Sham Comparator
Arm Label
Hall technique
Atraumatic restorative treatment
Conventional restorative treatment
Arm Description
Outcomes
Primary Outcome Measures
Success of the crown (for Hall and conventional techniques)
The presence of a satisfactory crown will be checked. Loss of the crown, perforated crown or restoration fracture are considered failures.
Success of the crown (for Hall and conventional techniques)
The presence of a satisfactory crown will be checked. Loss of the crown, perforated crown or restoration fracture are considered failures.
Success of the crown (for Hall and conventional techniques)
The presence of a satisfactory crown will be checked. Loss of the crown, perforated crown or restoration fracture are considered failures.
Success of the crown (for Hall and conventional techniques)
The presence of a satisfactory crown will be checked. Loss of the crown, perforated crown or restoration fracture are considered failures.
Success of the atraumatic restorative technique
Scoring of the restoration between 0-9. 0: Present, satisfactory. 1: Present, slight deficiency at cavity margin of less than 0.5 mm. 2: Present, slight deficiency at cavity margin of 0.5 mm or more. 3: Present, fracture in restoration. 4: Present, fracture in tooth. 5: Present, overextension of approximal margin of 0.5 mm or more. 6: Not present, most or all of restoration missing. 7: Not present, other restorative treatment performed. 8: Not present, tooth is not present. 9: Unable to diagnose. Success scores are 0 and 1, while failure scores are 2-8.
Success of the atraumatic restorative technique
Scoring of the restoration between 0-9. 0: Present, satisfactory. 1: Present, slight deficiency at cavity margin of less than 0.5 mm. 2: Present, slight deficiency at cavity margin of 0.5 mm or more. 3: Present, fracture in restoration. 4: Present, fracture in tooth. 5: Present, overextension of approximal margin of 0.5 mm or more. 6: Not present, most or all of restoration missing. 7: Not present, other restorative treatment performed. 8: Not present, tooth is not present. 9: Unable to diagnose. Success scores are 0 and 1, while failure scores are 2-8.
Success of the atraumatic restorative technique
Scoring of the restoration between 0-9. 0: Present, satisfactory. 1: Present, slight deficiency at cavity margin of less than 0.5 mm. 2: Present, slight deficiency at cavity margin of 0.5 mm or more. 3: Present, fracture in restoration. 4: Present, fracture in tooth. 5: Present, overextension of approximal margin of 0.5 mm or more. 6: Not present, most or all of restoration missing. 7: Not present, other restorative treatment performed. 8: Not present, tooth is not present. 9: Unable to diagnose. Success scores are 0 and 1, while failure scores are 2-8.
Success of the atraumatic restorative technique
Scoring of the restoration between 0-9. 0: Present, satisfactory. 1: Present, slight deficiency at cavity margin of less than 0.5 mm. 2: Present, slight deficiency at cavity margin of 0.5 mm or more. 3: Present, fracture in restoration. 4: Present, fracture in tooth. 5: Present, overextension of approximal margin of 0.5 mm or more. 6: Not present, most or all of restoration missing. 7: Not present, other restorative treatment performed. 8: Not present, tooth is not present. 9: Unable to diagnose. Success scores are 0 and 1, while failure scores are 2-8.
Treatment (restoration) survival
ART restorations, Hall technique and conventional restorations will be scored as satisfactory will be considered "successful," while those presented minor and/or major failures will be considered as "failed."
Treatment (restoration) survival
ART restorations, Hall technique and conventional restorations will be scored as satisfactory will be considered "successful," while those presented minor and/or major failures will be considered as "failed."
Treatment (restoration) survival
ART restorations, Hall technique and conventional restorations will be scored as satisfactory will be considered "successful," while those presented minor and/or major failures will be considered as "failed."
Treatment (restoration) survival
ART restorations, Hall technique and conventional restorations will be scored as satisfactory will be considered "successful," while those presented minor and/or major failures will be considered as "failed."
Radiographic evaluation of the treatment
Digital postoperative periapical radiographs will be obtained using a paralleling device to allow for exact and reproducible alignment of the dental film and the X-ray tube at the different follow up intervals. Teeth will be considered radiographically successful if they showed no evidence of radicular radiolucency, internal or external root resorption or periodontal ligament space widening
Radiographic evaluation of the treatment
Digital postoperative periapical radiographs will be obtained using a paralleling device to allow for exact and reproducible alignment of the dental film and the X-ray tube at the different follow up intervals. Teeth will be considered radiographically successful if they showed no evidence of radicular radiolucency, internal or external root resorption or periodontal ligament space widening
Secondary Outcome Measures
Child satisfaction
The patient's perception of the treatment was assessed by using a faces scale modified to represent satisfaction, indifference, or dissatisfaction . A few minutes will be spent before each procedure to establish rapport with the child and to obtain some notion of the child's understanding of the meaning of those schematic facial expressions. After treatment, the child will be instructed to choose the face that best represented how he/she felt during the procedure.
Assessment of oral cleanliness (plaque)
using plaque index of Sillness and Loe. 0: No plaque. 1: A film of plaque adhering to the free gingival margin and adjacent area of the tooth. The plaque may be seen in situ only after application of disclosing solution or by using the probe on the tooth surface. 2: Moderate accumulation of soft deposits within the gingival pocket, or the tooth and gingival margin which can be seen by the naked eye. 3: Abundance of soft matter within the gingival pocket and/or on the tooth and gingival margin.
Assessment of oral cleanliness (plaque)
using plaque index of Sillness and Loe. 0: No plaque. 1: A film of plaque adhering to the free gingival margin and adjacent area of the tooth. The plaque may be seen in situ only after application of disclosing solution or by using the probe on the tooth surface. 2: Moderate accumulation of soft deposits within the gingival pocket, or the tooth and gingival margin which can be seen by the naked eye. 3: Abundance of soft matter within the gingival pocket and/or on the tooth and gingival margin.
Assessment of oral cleanliness (plaque)
using plaque index of Sillness and Loe. 0: No plaque. 1: A film of plaque adhering to the free gingival margin and adjacent area of the tooth. The plaque may be seen in situ only after application of disclosing solution or by using the probe on the tooth surface. 2: Moderate accumulation of soft deposits within the gingival pocket, or the tooth and gingival margin which can be seen by the naked eye. 3: Abundance of soft matter within the gingival pocket and/or on the tooth and gingival margin.
Assessment of oral cleanliness (plaque)
using plaque index of Sillness and Loe. 0: No plaque. 1: A film of plaque adhering to the free gingival margin and adjacent area of the tooth. The plaque may be seen in situ only after application of disclosing solution or by using the probe on the tooth surface. 2: Moderate accumulation of soft deposits within the gingival pocket, or the tooth and gingival margin which can be seen by the naked eye. 3: Abundance of soft matter within the gingival pocket and/or on the tooth and gingival margin.
Assessment of the gingival condition
using gingival index of Loe and Sillness. 0: Normal gingival. 1: Mild inflammation; slight change in color and slight edema, no bleeding on probing. 2: Moderate inflammation; redness, edema, glazing and bleeding on probing. 3: Severe inflammation; marked redness, edema, ulcerations and tendency towards spontaneous bleeding.
Assessment of the gingival condition
using gingival index of Loe and Sillness. 0: Normal gingival. 1: Mild inflammation; slight change in color and slight edema, no bleeding on probing. 2: Moderate inflammation; redness, edema, glazing and bleeding on probing. 3: Severe inflammation; marked redness, edema, ulcerations and tendency towards spontaneous bleeding.
Assessment of the gingival condition
using gingival index of Loe and Sillness. 0: Normal gingival. 1: Mild inflammation; slight change in color and slight edema, no bleeding on probing. 2: Moderate inflammation; redness, edema, glazing and bleeding on probing. 3: Severe inflammation; marked redness, edema, ulcerations and tendency towards spontaneous bleeding.
Assessment of the gingival condition
using gingival index of Loe and Sillness. 0: Normal gingival. 1: Mild inflammation; slight change in color and slight edema, no bleeding on probing. 2: Moderate inflammation; redness, edema, glazing and bleeding on probing. 3: Severe inflammation; marked redness, edema, ulcerations and tendency towards spontaneous bleeding.
Full Information
NCT ID
NCT04367649
First Posted
April 25, 2020
Last Updated
November 2, 2020
Sponsor
Nourhan M.Aly
Collaborators
Alexandria University
1. Study Identification
Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT04367649
Brief Title
Evaluation of Hall Technique and Atraumatic Restorative Treatment for Management of Caries in the Primary Dentition
Official Title
Evaluation of Hall Technique and Atraumatic Restorative Treatment for Management of Caries in the Primary Dentition (A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial)
Study Type
Interventional
2. Study Status
Record Verification Date
November 2020
Overall Recruitment Status
Completed
Study Start Date
November 20, 2018 (Actual)
Primary Completion Date
November 29, 2019 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
August 30, 2020 (Actual)
3. Sponsor/Collaborators
Responsible Party, by Official Title
Sponsor-Investigator
Name of the Sponsor
Nourhan M.Aly
Collaborators
Alexandria University
4. Oversight
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product
No
Data Monitoring Committee
No
5. Study Description
Brief Summary
The aim of the present study is to evaluate both Hall technique and atraumatic restorative technique in comparison to the conventional restorative technique in the management of carious lesions in primary molars.
Detailed Description
This study is a three arm randomized controlled clinical trial. Eligible children will be selected from the outpatient clinic of Pediatric Dentistry and Public Health Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University after securing necessary consents. One hundred and fifty five teeth will be randomly allocated into 3 groups fifty two each. Group I will be assigned to Hall technique Group II will be assigned to atraumatic restorative treatment using Glass ionomer cement, and Group III will be assigned to a conventional restoration and will serve as a control.
6. Conditions and Keywords
Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Primary Dental Caries
7. Study Design
Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Masking
Participant
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
155 (Actual)
8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions
Arm Title
Hall technique
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Title
Atraumatic restorative treatment
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Title
Conventional restorative treatment
Arm Type
Sham Comparator
Intervention Type
Other
Intervention Name(s)
Hall technique
Intervention Description
Orthodontic separators will be used to create space for fitting the stainless crown, then removed after 3-5 days
Occlusion will be measured assessing the patient's occlusal-vertical dimensions (OVD) using a modified version of van der Zee and van Amerongen method with a millimeter probe measuring the distance from the lowest point of the gingiva, around the lower canine on the vestibular side up to the point where the tip of the upper canine ends in order to assess the degree of overbite after mounting of the crown.
The correct crown size will be selected. The crown should cover all the cusps and approaches the contact points, with a slight feeling of "spring back." till reaching the gingival margin. Cementation will be done using glass ionomer cement
Intervention Type
Other
Intervention Name(s)
Atraumatic restorative treatment
Intervention Description
Caries removal using excavators, then restoration using glass ionomer (GIC)
Intervention Type
Other
Intervention Name(s)
Conventional restorative treatment
Intervention Description
Complete caries removal using high-speed hand piece, and an excavator to clear carious dentin from the pulpal wall. Then, stainless steel crown preparation, selection of the proper size with the smallest crown size that completely covers the preparation chosen. The correct occlusogingival crown length will be established. Cementation will be done using glass ionomer cement
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Success of the crown (for Hall and conventional techniques)
Description
The presence of a satisfactory crown will be checked. Loss of the crown, perforated crown or restoration fracture are considered failures.
Time Frame
1 week
Title
Success of the crown (for Hall and conventional techniques)
Description
The presence of a satisfactory crown will be checked. Loss of the crown, perforated crown or restoration fracture are considered failures.
Time Frame
1 month
Title
Success of the crown (for Hall and conventional techniques)
Description
The presence of a satisfactory crown will be checked. Loss of the crown, perforated crown or restoration fracture are considered failures.
Time Frame
6 months
Title
Success of the crown (for Hall and conventional techniques)
Description
The presence of a satisfactory crown will be checked. Loss of the crown, perforated crown or restoration fracture are considered failures.
Time Frame
12 months
Title
Success of the atraumatic restorative technique
Description
Scoring of the restoration between 0-9. 0: Present, satisfactory. 1: Present, slight deficiency at cavity margin of less than 0.5 mm. 2: Present, slight deficiency at cavity margin of 0.5 mm or more. 3: Present, fracture in restoration. 4: Present, fracture in tooth. 5: Present, overextension of approximal margin of 0.5 mm or more. 6: Not present, most or all of restoration missing. 7: Not present, other restorative treatment performed. 8: Not present, tooth is not present. 9: Unable to diagnose. Success scores are 0 and 1, while failure scores are 2-8.
Time Frame
1 week
Title
Success of the atraumatic restorative technique
Description
Scoring of the restoration between 0-9. 0: Present, satisfactory. 1: Present, slight deficiency at cavity margin of less than 0.5 mm. 2: Present, slight deficiency at cavity margin of 0.5 mm or more. 3: Present, fracture in restoration. 4: Present, fracture in tooth. 5: Present, overextension of approximal margin of 0.5 mm or more. 6: Not present, most or all of restoration missing. 7: Not present, other restorative treatment performed. 8: Not present, tooth is not present. 9: Unable to diagnose. Success scores are 0 and 1, while failure scores are 2-8.
Time Frame
1 month
Title
Success of the atraumatic restorative technique
Description
Scoring of the restoration between 0-9. 0: Present, satisfactory. 1: Present, slight deficiency at cavity margin of less than 0.5 mm. 2: Present, slight deficiency at cavity margin of 0.5 mm or more. 3: Present, fracture in restoration. 4: Present, fracture in tooth. 5: Present, overextension of approximal margin of 0.5 mm or more. 6: Not present, most or all of restoration missing. 7: Not present, other restorative treatment performed. 8: Not present, tooth is not present. 9: Unable to diagnose. Success scores are 0 and 1, while failure scores are 2-8.
Time Frame
6 months
Title
Success of the atraumatic restorative technique
Description
Scoring of the restoration between 0-9. 0: Present, satisfactory. 1: Present, slight deficiency at cavity margin of less than 0.5 mm. 2: Present, slight deficiency at cavity margin of 0.5 mm or more. 3: Present, fracture in restoration. 4: Present, fracture in tooth. 5: Present, overextension of approximal margin of 0.5 mm or more. 6: Not present, most or all of restoration missing. 7: Not present, other restorative treatment performed. 8: Not present, tooth is not present. 9: Unable to diagnose. Success scores are 0 and 1, while failure scores are 2-8.
Time Frame
12 months
Title
Treatment (restoration) survival
Description
ART restorations, Hall technique and conventional restorations will be scored as satisfactory will be considered "successful," while those presented minor and/or major failures will be considered as "failed."
Time Frame
1 week
Title
Treatment (restoration) survival
Description
ART restorations, Hall technique and conventional restorations will be scored as satisfactory will be considered "successful," while those presented minor and/or major failures will be considered as "failed."
Time Frame
1 month
Title
Treatment (restoration) survival
Description
ART restorations, Hall technique and conventional restorations will be scored as satisfactory will be considered "successful," while those presented minor and/or major failures will be considered as "failed."
Time Frame
6 months
Title
Treatment (restoration) survival
Description
ART restorations, Hall technique and conventional restorations will be scored as satisfactory will be considered "successful," while those presented minor and/or major failures will be considered as "failed."
Time Frame
12 months
Title
Radiographic evaluation of the treatment
Description
Digital postoperative periapical radiographs will be obtained using a paralleling device to allow for exact and reproducible alignment of the dental film and the X-ray tube at the different follow up intervals. Teeth will be considered radiographically successful if they showed no evidence of radicular radiolucency, internal or external root resorption or periodontal ligament space widening
Time Frame
6 months
Title
Radiographic evaluation of the treatment
Description
Digital postoperative periapical radiographs will be obtained using a paralleling device to allow for exact and reproducible alignment of the dental film and the X-ray tube at the different follow up intervals. Teeth will be considered radiographically successful if they showed no evidence of radicular radiolucency, internal or external root resorption or periodontal ligament space widening
Time Frame
12 months
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Child satisfaction
Description
The patient's perception of the treatment was assessed by using a faces scale modified to represent satisfaction, indifference, or dissatisfaction . A few minutes will be spent before each procedure to establish rapport with the child and to obtain some notion of the child's understanding of the meaning of those schematic facial expressions. After treatment, the child will be instructed to choose the face that best represented how he/she felt during the procedure.
Time Frame
immediately after completion of the dental treatment procedures
Title
Assessment of oral cleanliness (plaque)
Description
using plaque index of Sillness and Loe. 0: No plaque. 1: A film of plaque adhering to the free gingival margin and adjacent area of the tooth. The plaque may be seen in situ only after application of disclosing solution or by using the probe on the tooth surface. 2: Moderate accumulation of soft deposits within the gingival pocket, or the tooth and gingival margin which can be seen by the naked eye. 3: Abundance of soft matter within the gingival pocket and/or on the tooth and gingival margin.
Time Frame
1 week
Title
Assessment of oral cleanliness (plaque)
Description
using plaque index of Sillness and Loe. 0: No plaque. 1: A film of plaque adhering to the free gingival margin and adjacent area of the tooth. The plaque may be seen in situ only after application of disclosing solution or by using the probe on the tooth surface. 2: Moderate accumulation of soft deposits within the gingival pocket, or the tooth and gingival margin which can be seen by the naked eye. 3: Abundance of soft matter within the gingival pocket and/or on the tooth and gingival margin.
Time Frame
1 month
Title
Assessment of oral cleanliness (plaque)
Description
using plaque index of Sillness and Loe. 0: No plaque. 1: A film of plaque adhering to the free gingival margin and adjacent area of the tooth. The plaque may be seen in situ only after application of disclosing solution or by using the probe on the tooth surface. 2: Moderate accumulation of soft deposits within the gingival pocket, or the tooth and gingival margin which can be seen by the naked eye. 3: Abundance of soft matter within the gingival pocket and/or on the tooth and gingival margin.
Time Frame
6 months
Title
Assessment of oral cleanliness (plaque)
Description
using plaque index of Sillness and Loe. 0: No plaque. 1: A film of plaque adhering to the free gingival margin and adjacent area of the tooth. The plaque may be seen in situ only after application of disclosing solution or by using the probe on the tooth surface. 2: Moderate accumulation of soft deposits within the gingival pocket, or the tooth and gingival margin which can be seen by the naked eye. 3: Abundance of soft matter within the gingival pocket and/or on the tooth and gingival margin.
Time Frame
12 months
Title
Assessment of the gingival condition
Description
using gingival index of Loe and Sillness. 0: Normal gingival. 1: Mild inflammation; slight change in color and slight edema, no bleeding on probing. 2: Moderate inflammation; redness, edema, glazing and bleeding on probing. 3: Severe inflammation; marked redness, edema, ulcerations and tendency towards spontaneous bleeding.
Time Frame
1 week
Title
Assessment of the gingival condition
Description
using gingival index of Loe and Sillness. 0: Normal gingival. 1: Mild inflammation; slight change in color and slight edema, no bleeding on probing. 2: Moderate inflammation; redness, edema, glazing and bleeding on probing. 3: Severe inflammation; marked redness, edema, ulcerations and tendency towards spontaneous bleeding.
Time Frame
1 month
Title
Assessment of the gingival condition
Description
using gingival index of Loe and Sillness. 0: Normal gingival. 1: Mild inflammation; slight change in color and slight edema, no bleeding on probing. 2: Moderate inflammation; redness, edema, glazing and bleeding on probing. 3: Severe inflammation; marked redness, edema, ulcerations and tendency towards spontaneous bleeding.
Time Frame
6 months
Title
Assessment of the gingival condition
Description
using gingival index of Loe and Sillness. 0: Normal gingival. 1: Mild inflammation; slight change in color and slight edema, no bleeding on probing. 2: Moderate inflammation; redness, edema, glazing and bleeding on probing. 3: Severe inflammation; marked redness, edema, ulcerations and tendency towards spontaneous bleeding.
Time Frame
12 months
10. Eligibility
Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
4 Years
Maximum Age & Unit of Time
8 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
Children free of any systemic disease or special health care needs.
Cooperative children ( positive/ definitely positive) according to Frankl's behavior rating scale.
Children who are willing to participate in the study
Tooth inclusion criteria:
Primary molar teeth with occlusal or occlusoproximal carious lesions into dentin (International Caries Detection and Assessment System) (ICDAS) codes: 3-5
Absence of clinical signs or symptoms of irreversible pulpitis
Absence of fistula or abscess near the selected tooth clinically and radiographically
Absence of spontaneous pain
Absence of pulp exposure
Absence of pathological mobility by placing the points of a pair of tweezers in an occlusal fossa, and gently rocking the tooth bucco-lingually.
Exclusion Criteria:
Clinical signs and symptoms of irreversible pulpilitis.
Tooth mobility
Spontaneous pain
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Dina Sharaf, M.Sc
Organizational Affiliation
Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Egypt
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Karin ML Dowidar, PhD
Organizational Affiliation
Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Egypt
Official's Role
Study Chair
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Laila M El Habashy, PhD
Organizational Affiliation
Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Egypt
Official's Role
Study Chair
Facility Information:
Facility Name
Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University
City
Alexandria
ZIP/Postal Code
21512
Country
Egypt
12. IPD Sharing Statement
Citations:
PubMed Identifier
25216660
Citation
Santamaria RM, Innes NP, Machiulskiene V, Evans DJ, Splieth CH. Caries management strategies for primary molars: 1-yr randomized control trial results. J Dent Res. 2014 Nov;93(11):1062-9. doi: 10.1177/0022034514550717. Epub 2014 Sep 12.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
22027459
Citation
Gruythuysen RJ, van Strijp AJ, van Palestein Helderman WH, Frankenmolen FW. [Non-restorative treatment of cavities in temporary dentition: effective and child-friendly]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2011;155(42):A3489. Dutch.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
16703041
Citation
Innes NP, Stirrups DR, Evans DJ, Hall N, Leggate M. A novel technique using preformed metal crowns for managing carious primary molars in general practice - a retrospective analysis. Br Dent J. 2006 Apr 22;200(8):451-4; discussion 444. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4813466.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
24602167
Citation
Santamaria RM, Innes NP, Machiulskiene V, Evans DJ, Alkilzy M, Splieth CH. Acceptability of different caries management methods for primary molars in a RCT. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2015 Jan;25(1):9-17. doi: 10.1111/ipd.12097. Epub 2014 Mar 7.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
24402057
Citation
Frencken JE, Holmgren CJ. Caries management through the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) approach and glass-ionomers: update 2013. Braz Oral Res. 2014;28:5-8. doi: 10.1590/S1806-83242013000600001. No abstract available.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
26494348
Citation
Innes N, Stewart M, Souster G, Evans D. The Hall Technique; retrospective case-note follow-up of 5-year RCT. Br Dent J. 2015 Oct 23;219(8):395-400. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.816.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
18096042
Citation
Innes NP, Evans DJ, 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 Dec 20;7:18. doi: 10.1186/1472-6831-7-18.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
19927456
Citation
Innes N, Evans D, Hall N. The Hall Technique for managing carious primary molars. Dent Update. 2009 Oct;36(8):472-4, 477-8. doi: 10.12968/denu.2009.36.8.472.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
20932395
Citation
van der Zee V, van Amerongen WE. Short communication: Influence of preformed metal crowns (Hall technique) on the occlusal vertical dimension in the primary dentition. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2010 Oct;11(5):225-7. doi: 10.1007/BF03262751.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
8915958
Citation
Frencken JE, Pilot T, Songpaisan Y, Phantumvanit P. Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART): rationale, technique, and development. J Public Health Dent. 1996;56(3 Spec No):135-40; discussion 161-3. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-7325.1996.tb02423.x.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
20372951
Citation
Farag A, van der Sanden WJ, Abdelwahab H, Frencken JE. Survival of ART restorations assessed using selected FDI and modified ART restoration criteria. Clin Oral Investig. 2011 Jun;15(3):409-15. doi: 10.1007/s00784-010-0403-0. Epub 2010 Apr 7.
Results Reference
background
Learn more about this trial
Evaluation of Hall Technique and Atraumatic Restorative Treatment for Management of Caries in the Primary Dentition
We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs