Scholarlink

Purpose <p>The conventional Hall technique (CHT) is a recognised biological caries management approach. A modified Hall technique (MHT) involving minimal proximal slicing recently emerged with limited evidence. This study aimed to compare the success of MHT with CHT and evaluate their acceptance among children and parents.</p> Methods <p>This split-mouth randomised clinical trial involved children aged 4–9 years. Procedural pain was assessed using the SEM (sound, eye and motor) and Wong–Baker FACES Pain-Rating (WBFP) scales, and treatment duration was recorded. Parents and children completed acceptance questionnaires, while clinical and radiographic success was evaluated at 6 and 12 months.</p> Results <p><i>N</i> = 116 children received treatment; 100/116 attended the 6-month follow-up, and 114/116 attended the annual follow-up. Success rates were similar per technique (96% and 95.6% at 6 and 12 months, respectively) with no significant differences in success or duration (<i>P</i> = 1.00 and 0.114, respectively). SEM scores showed no significant difference per intervention (<i>P</i> = 0.298), and most children reported no pain on the WBFP scale following either intervention (66.3%). However, children (54% vs. 30%) and parents (44.7% vs. 39.5%) favoured the CHT versus MHT.</p> Conclusion <p>Both techniques achieved similar outcomes, but CHT was more favourable. The decision to utilise interproximal slicing ultimately lies with the dentist and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Success rate and acceptability of conventional and modified hall crowns among children and parents: a randomised clinical trial

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年10月9日

查看全文
  • Areej. Alqadi,
  • Yara. Marji,
  • Ola B. Al-Batayneh

摘要

Purpose

The conventional Hall technique (CHT) is a recognised biological caries management approach. A modified Hall technique (MHT) involving minimal proximal slicing recently emerged with limited evidence. This study aimed to compare the success of MHT with CHT and evaluate their acceptance among children and parents.

Methods

This split-mouth randomised clinical trial involved children aged 4–9 years. Procedural pain was assessed using the SEM (sound, eye and motor) and Wong–Baker FACES Pain-Rating (WBFP) scales, and treatment duration was recorded. Parents and children completed acceptance questionnaires, while clinical and radiographic success was evaluated at 6 and 12 months.

Results

N = 116 children received treatment; 100/116 attended the 6-month follow-up, and 114/116 attended the annual follow-up. Success rates were similar per technique (96% and 95.6% at 6 and 12 months, respectively) with no significant differences in success or duration (P = 1.00 and 0.114, respectively). SEM scores showed no significant difference per intervention (P = 0.298), and most children reported no pain on the WBFP scale following either intervention (66.3%). However, children (54% vs. 30%) and parents (44.7% vs. 39.5%) favoured the CHT versus MHT.

Conclusion

Both techniques achieved similar outcomes, but CHT was more favourable. The decision to utilise interproximal slicing ultimately lies with the dentist and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.