Comparison of the Hall Technique and Conventional Compomer Restorations: A 60-Month Follow-up

Şen Yavuz, Betül; kargul, betul

doi:10.33808/clinexphealthsci.1105908

Comparison of the Hall Technique and Conventional Compomer Restorations: A 60-Month Follow-up

Betül ŞEN YAVUZ, (Marmara Üniversitesi, Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi, Çocuk Diş Hekimliği Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul, Türkiye)

Betül KARGÜL (Marmara Üniversitesi, Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi, Çocuk Diş Hekimliği Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul, Türkiye)

Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences

1 0

Yıl: 2023 Cilt: 13 Sayı: 3 Sayfa Aralığı: 541 - 548 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.1105908 İndeks Tarihi: 19-09-2023

Comparison of the Hall Technique and Conventional Compomer Restorations: A 60-Month Follow-up

Öz:

Objective: The Hall Technique is one biological strategy for sealing carious lesions with preformed metal crowns in primary molars. This study aimed to compare the Hall Technique's survival rate with conventional compomer restorations in caries management in primary molars for 60 months. Methods: Children with preformed metal crowns placed with Hall Technique and conventional compomer restorations were invited to Pediatric Dentistry Clinics for a 60-month follow-up. The restorations of these children were evaluated clinically and radiographically. Dental health records of 12 and 24-month follow-up appointments were obtained from the electronic archive. The survival rate of the restorations was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier analysis and the success/failure of the restorations by the Chi-Square test. Restorations with finding such as secondary caries, pulpitis, restoration wear/fracture/loss, crown perforation, inter-radicular radiolucency, and internal root resorption were scored according to major and/or minor failure criteria, while satisfactory ones were scored as successful. Results: Twenty-six primary molars were included in the study. There was no significant difference in the survival rates of preformed metal crowns placed with the Hall Technique (92.3%) and conventional compomer restorations (84.6%) at 60-month follow-up (2 = 2.455, p = .48). The Hall Technique (84.6%) was found significantly more successful clinically and radiographically compared to conventional compomer restorations (23.1%) according to the success or failure criteria in 60-month follow-up (p < .01). Conclusion: The Hall Technique was clinically and radiographically more successful than conventional compomer restorations according to the success or failure criteria at 60-month follow-up. The Hall Technique had a similar survival rate to the conventional compomer restorations as well as low failure findings in caries management in primary molars.

Anahtar Kelime: Carious dentin dental caries Hall Technique pediatric dentistry primary teeth

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

[1] Murray CJ, Vos T, Lozano R, Naghavi M, Flaxman AD, Michaud C, Ezzati M, Shibuya K, Salomon JA, Abdalla S, Aboyans V. Disability- adjusted life years 20 (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990–2010: A 21 systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2010. Lancet 2012;380(9859):2197- 2223. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61689-4
[2] Ricketts DN, Pitts NB. Traditional operative treatment options. Monogr Oral Sci. 2009;21:164-173. DOI: 10.1159/000224221
[3] Scottish Dental Clinical Effectiveness Programme. Prevention and management of dental caries in children, dental clinical guidance. Scotland, Dundee: NHS education for Scotland. Published [2010]. Updated [May 2018]. Accessed [16 April 2022]. http://www.sdcep.org.uk/published-guidance/caries- in-children/.
[4] American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Guideline on caries- risk assessment and management for infants, children, and adolescents. The Reference Manual of Pediatric Dentistry. Chicago, IL. Published [2013]. Updated [2022]. Accessed [16 April 2022]. http://www.aapd.org/media/Policies_ Guidelines/G_CariesRiskAssessment.pdf.
[5] Schwendicke F, Frencken J, Innes N. Current concepts in carious tissue removal. Curr Oral Health Rep. 2018;5(3):154- 162. DOI: 10.1007/s40496.018.0183-1
[6] Innes NPT, Evans D. Modern approaches to caries management of the primary dentition. Br Dent J. 2013;214(11):559-566. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2013.529
[7] Innes NPT, Stirrups DR, Evans DJP, 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;200(8):451-454. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4813466
[8] Hesse D, Araujo MP, Olegario IC, Innes N, Raggio DP, Bonifacio CC. Atraumatic restorative treatment compared to the hall technique for occluso-proximal cavities in primary molars: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2016;17(1):169. DOI: 10.1186/s13063.016.1270-z
[9] Altoukhi DH, El-Housseiny AA. Hall technique for carious primary molars: A review of the literature. Dent J (Basel). 2020;8(1):E11. DOI: 10.3390/dj8010011
[10] Badar SB, Tabassum S, Khan FR, Ghafoor R. Effectiveness of hall technique for primary carious molars: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2019;12(5):445– 452. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1666
[11] AlHalabi M, Salami A, Alnuaimi E, Kowash M, Hussein I. Assessment of paediatric dental guidelines and caries management alternatives in the post COVID-19 period. A critical review and clinical recommendations. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2020;21:543-556. DOI: 10.1007/s40368.020.00547-5
[12] Clark W, Geneser M, Owais A, Kanellis M, Qian F. Success rates of hall technique crowns in primary molars: A retrospective pilot study. Gen Dent. 2017;65(5):32-35.
[13] Ludwig KH, Fontana M, LaQuia A, Jeffrey AP, Jeffrey AD. The success of stainless-steel crowns placed with the hall technique. J Am Dent Assoc. 2014;145(12):1248-1253. DOI: 10.14219/jada.2014.89
[14] Innes NP, 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(1):1-21. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6831-7- 18
[15] Elamin F, Abdelazeem N, Salah I, Mirghani Y, Wong F. A randomized clinical trial comparing hall vs. conventional technique in placing preformed metal crowns from Sudan. PLoS One 2019;14(6):e0217740. DOI: 10.1371/journal. pone.0217740
[16] Threlfall AG, Pilkington L, Milsom KM, Blinkhorn AS, Tickle M. General dental practitioners’ views on the use of stainless steel crowns to restore primary molars. Br Dent J. 2005;199(7):453- 455. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4812746
[17] Innes N, Evans D, Stewart M, Keightley A. The hall technique: A minimal intervention, child centered approach to managing the carious primary molar. Published [1 July 2015]. Accessed [16 April 2022]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ File:HallTechGuide_V4.pdf#file.
[18] Hussein I, AlHalabi M, Kowash M, Salami A, Ouatik N, Yang YM, Duggal M, Chandwani N, Nazzal H, Albadri S, Roberts A. Use of the hall technique by specialist paediatric dentists: A global perspective. Br Dent J. 2020;228(1):33-38. DOI: 10.1038/ s41415.019.1100-2
[19] Mejàre I, Axelsson S, Dahlén G, Espelid I, Norlund A, Tranæus S, Twetman S. Caries risk assessment. A systematic review. Acta Odontol Scand. 2014;72(2):81-91. DOI: 10.3109/00016.357.2013.822548
[20] De Menezes Abreu DM, Leal SC, Frencken JE. Self-report of pain in children treated according to the atraumatic restorative treatment and the conventional restorative treatment –A pilot study. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2009;34(2):151-156. DOI: 10.17796/ jcpd.34.2.9k67p786l7126263
[21] 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;11(5):225-227. DOI: 10.1007/BF03262751
[22] Murray PE, Smith AJ, Windsor LJ, Mjor IA. Remaining dentine thickness and human pulp responses. Int Endod J. 2003;36(1):33-43. DOI: 10.1046/j.0143-2885.2003.00609.x
[23] Tedesco TK, Calvo AF, Pássaro AL, Araujo MP, Ladewig NM, Scarpini S, Lara JS, Braga MM, Gimenez T, Raggio DP. Nonrestorative treatment of initial caries lesion in primary teeth: A systematic review and network meta- analysis. Acta Odontol Scand. 2021;80(1):1-8. DOI: 10.1080/00016.357.2021.1928748
[24] Loch C, van Vuuren LJ, Duncan WJ, Boyd DH, Page LAF. Ultrastructure and properties of primary carious molars treated using the hall technique. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2020;31(3):290- 298. DOI: 10.1111/ipd.12681
[25] Innes NP, Ricketts D, Chong LY, Keightley AJ, Lamont T, Santamaria RM. Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;31(12):CD005512. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005512
[26] Schwendicke F, Walsh T, Lamont T, Al-Yaseen W, Bjørndal L, Clarkson JE, Fontana M, Rossi JG, Göstemeyer G, Levey C, Müller A. Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018(6):CD013039. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013039
[27] Binladen H, Halabi MA, Kowash M, Salami AA, Khamis AH, Hussein I. A 24-month retrospective study of preformed metal crowns: The hall technique versus the conventional preparation method. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2020;22(1):67- 75. DOI: 10.1007/s40368.020.00528-8
[28] Araujo MP, Innes NP, Bonifácio CC, Hesse D, Olegário IC, Mendes FM, Raggio DP. Atraumatic restorative treatment compared to the hall technique for occluso-proximal carious lesions in primary molars; 36-month follow-up of a randomised control trial in a school setting. BMC Oral Health. 2020;20(1):1-18. DOI: 10.1186/s12903.020.01298-x
[29] Santamaria RM, Innes N, Machiulskiene V, Schmoeckel J, Alkilzy M, Splieth CH. Alternative caries management options for primary molars. Caries Res. 2017;51(6):605-614. DOI: 10.1159/000477855
[30] Santamaria RM, Innes NPT, Machiulskiene V, Evans DJP, Splieth CH. Caries management strategies for primary molars: 1-yr randomized control trial results. J Dent Res. 2014; 93(11):1062- 1069. DOI: 10.1177/002.203.4514550717
[31] Salas CF, Guglielmi CA, Raggio DP, Mendes FM. Mineral loss on adjacent enamel glass ionomer cements restorations after cariogenic and erosive challenges. Arch Oral Biol. 2011;56(10):1014-1019. DOI: 10.1016/j. archoralbio.2011.03.005
[32] Berg JH. Glass ionomer cements. Pediatr Dent. 2002;24(5):430- 438.
[33] Kaya SK, Taran Kınay P, Bakkal M. Temporomandibular dysfunction assessment in children treated with the hall technique: A pilot study. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2020;30(4):429- 435. DOI: 10.1111/ipd.12620
[34] Abu Serdaneh S, AlHalabi M, Kowash M, Macefield V, Khamis AH, Salami A, Hussein I. Hall technique crowns and children’s masseter muscle activity: A surface electromyography pilot study. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2020;30(4):303-313. DOI: 10.1111/ ipd.12611
[35] Nair K, Chikkanarasaiah N, Poovani S, Thumati P. Digital occlusal analysis of vertical dimension and maximum intercuspal position after placement of stainless steel crown using hall technique in children. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2020;30(6):805-815. DOI: 10.1111/ipd.12647
[36] Kaya S, Kınay Taran P, Bakkal M. Hall teknik uygulamasında paslanmaz çelik kuronların neden olduğu oklüzal dikey boyut artışının takibi: Pilot çalışma. Yeditepe Dent J. 2018;14(2):37- 42. DOI: 10.5505/yeditepe.2018.25743 (Turkish).
[37] Innes NP, Evans DJ, Stirrups DR. Sealing caries in primary molars: Randomized control trial, 5-year results. J Dent Res. 2011;90(12):1405-1410. DOI: 10.1177/002.203.4511422064
[38] Burke FJ, Wilson NH, Cheung SW, Mjör IA. Influence of patient factors on age of restorations at failure and reasons for their placement and replacement. J Dent. 2001;29(5):317-324. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-5712(01)00022-7
[39] Chadwick B, Dummer P, Dunstan F. How long do fillings last? Evid Based Dent. 2002;3:96-99.
[40] Kaptan A, Korkmaz E. Evaluation of success of stainless steel crowns placed using the hall technique in children with high caries risk: A randomized clinical trial. Niger J Clin Pract. 2021;24(3):425-434. DOI: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_112_20

APA	Şen Yavuz B, kargul b (2023). Comparison of the Hall Technique and Conventional Compomer Restorations: A 60-Month Follow-up. , 541 - 548. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.1105908
Chicago	Şen Yavuz Betül,kargul betul Comparison of the Hall Technique and Conventional Compomer Restorations: A 60-Month Follow-up. (2023): 541 - 548. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.1105908
MLA	Şen Yavuz Betül,kargul betul Comparison of the Hall Technique and Conventional Compomer Restorations: A 60-Month Follow-up. , 2023, ss.541 - 548. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.1105908
AMA	Şen Yavuz B,kargul b Comparison of the Hall Technique and Conventional Compomer Restorations: A 60-Month Follow-up. . 2023; 541 - 548. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.1105908
Vancouver	Şen Yavuz B,kargul b Comparison of the Hall Technique and Conventional Compomer Restorations: A 60-Month Follow-up. . 2023; 541 - 548. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.1105908
IEEE	Şen Yavuz B,kargul b "Comparison of the Hall Technique and Conventional Compomer Restorations: A 60-Month Follow-up." , ss.541 - 548, 2023. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.1105908
ISNAD	Şen Yavuz, Betül - kargul, betul. "Comparison of the Hall Technique and Conventional Compomer Restorations: A 60-Month Follow-up". (2023), 541-548. https://doi.org/10.33808/clinexphealthsci.1105908

APA	Şen Yavuz B, kargul b (2023). Comparison of the Hall Technique and Conventional Compomer Restorations: A 60-Month Follow-up. Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences, 13(3), 541 - 548. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.1105908
Chicago	Şen Yavuz Betül,kargul betul Comparison of the Hall Technique and Conventional Compomer Restorations: A 60-Month Follow-up. Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences 13, no.3 (2023): 541 - 548. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.1105908
MLA	Şen Yavuz Betül,kargul betul Comparison of the Hall Technique and Conventional Compomer Restorations: A 60-Month Follow-up. Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences, vol.13, no.3, 2023, ss.541 - 548. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.1105908
AMA	Şen Yavuz B,kargul b Comparison of the Hall Technique and Conventional Compomer Restorations: A 60-Month Follow-up. Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences. 2023; 13(3): 541 - 548. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.1105908
Vancouver	Şen Yavuz B,kargul b Comparison of the Hall Technique and Conventional Compomer Restorations: A 60-Month Follow-up. Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences. 2023; 13(3): 541 - 548. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.1105908
IEEE	Şen Yavuz B,kargul b "Comparison of the Hall Technique and Conventional Compomer Restorations: A 60-Month Follow-up." Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences, 13, ss.541 - 548, 2023. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.1105908
ISNAD	Şen Yavuz, Betül - kargul, betul. "Comparison of the Hall Technique and Conventional Compomer Restorations: A 60-Month Follow-up". Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences 13/3 (2023), 541-548. https://doi.org/10.33808/clinexphealthsci.1105908