The management of carious lesions in primary molars has evolved toward minimally invasive dentistry, emphasizing the preservation of tooth structure and the reduction of unnecessary operative procedures.
📌 Recommended Article :
Video 🔽 Stainless Steel Crowns: Adaptation and installation - Step by step ... Steel crowns are the most used for their easy adaptation, installation and low cost. Currently, the Hall technique is used, which simplifies the procedure for installing metal crowns.Two approaches commonly used in pediatric dentistry are the Hall Technique (HT) and the conventional restorative technique (CT).
Advertisement
Although both aim to manage dental caries and preserve primary teeth until their natural exfoliation, they differ considerably in caries management, cavity preparation, restoration placement, and clinical requirements.
Understanding these differences is essential for selecting the most appropriate treatment according to caries activity, lesion characteristics, pulpal status, and patient cooperation.
📌 Recommended Article :
PDF 🔽 Hall Technique Procedure Manual: Advantages, Disadvantages, Step-by-Step Procedure ... The Hall technique is a safe and effective procedure that prevents the advance of dental caries in primary teeth. One of its great advantages is its low cost and little prior preparation.✅ Main Differences Between the Hall Technique and Conventional Technique
The Hall Technique is a minimally invasive approach in which a preformed metal crown (PMC) is cemented over a carious primary molar without removing carious tissue, preparing the tooth, or administering local anesthesia.
In contrast, the conventional restorative technique generally involves caries removal, cavity preparation, and placement of a direct restorative material, such as composite resin or glass ionomer cement.
When conventional preformed metal crowns are used, tooth reduction and caries management are performed before crown placement.
Comparative clinical characteristics
| Clinical Feature | Hall Technique | Conventional Technique |
|---|---|---|
| Caries removal | No carious tissue removal | Carious tissue removal is performed according to the selected approach |
| Tooth preparation | No tooth reduction | Cavity preparation or tooth reduction, depending on restoration |
| Local anesthesia | Usually unnecessary | May be required, depending on the procedure |
| Restorative material | Preformed metal crown (PMC) | Composite resin, glass ionomer cement, or preformed metal crown |
| Treatment duration | Generally shorter | Generally longer |
| Pulpal management | Does not involve pulp therapy | May include pulp therapy when clinically indicated |
| Tooth structure | Preserves existing tooth structure | Some tooth structure may be removed |
| Caries management | Seals the carious lesion beneath the crown | Manages carious tissue and restores the cavity |
| Patient cooperation | Often better tolerated by young or anxious children | May require greater cooperation, depending on the procedure |
📌 Recommended Article :
Video 🔽 Tooth Preparation for Stainless Steel Crown - Step by step ... Steel crowns in pediatric dentistry are used to restore a tooth that has lost a lot of structure due to decay or trauma. Returns the chewing and occlusion functions necessary for the patient's oral health.✅ Clinical Procedure: How Do They Differ?
1. Hall Technique
The procedure involves:
1. Assessing the primary molar and confirming the absence of signs of irreversible pulpitis or infection.
2. Selecting an appropriately sized preformed metal crown.
3. Applying glass ionomer luting cement inside the crown.
4. Seating the crown over the tooth, allowing it to engage the proximal contacts.
5. Removing excess cement and checking the occlusion.
Key principle: The carious lesion remains beneath the crown, while the restoration creates a durable seal that restricts the supply of nutrients to the cariogenic biofilm.
2. Conventional Restorative Technique
The conventional procedure generally involves:
1. Clinical and radiographic assessment of the affected tooth.
2. Local anesthesia when indicated.
3. Removal of carious tissue according to the selected caries-removal strategy.
4. Cavity preparation and restoration with an appropriate material.
5. Evaluation of marginal integrity and occlusion.
Key principle: The restoration replaces lost tooth structure and provides a seal after the selected caries-removal procedure.
📌 Recommended Article :
Video 🔽 Preparation of stainless steel crown for the rehabilitation of primary molars ... Proper tooth preparation is essential to ensure optimal fit, retention, and long-term success while preserving remaining tooth structure.✅ Indications and Limitations
1. Hall Technique
Clinical indications:
▪️ Vital primary molars with moderate or advanced dentinal caries.
▪️ Proximal or multisurface lesions.
▪️ Teeth with sufficient remaining structure to retain a preformed metal crown.
▪️ Children in whom conventional operative procedures may be difficult.
Limitations and contraindications:
▪️ Clinical or radiographic evidence of irreversible pulpitis or dental infection.
▪️ Spontaneous or persistent pain suggestive of pulpal disease.
▪️ Periapical or furcation pathology.
▪️ Insufficient tooth structure for crown retention.
▪️ Cases in which the crown cannot be appropriately seated.
2. Conventional Technique
Clinical indications:
▪️ Small or moderate lesions suitable for direct restoration.
▪️ Cavities where adequate isolation and restorative access are achievable.
▪️ Teeth requiring selective caries removal and direct restoration.
▪️ Cases requiring conventional preformed metal crowns or pulp therapy when clinically indicated.
Limitations:
▪️ Greater technical sensitivity for adhesive restorations.
▪️ Potential need for local anesthesia.
▪️ Greater treatment time and cooperation requirements in some cases.
▪️ Direct restorations may have a higher risk of failure in extensive multisurface lesions.
📌 Recommended Article :
PDF 🔽 Modified Hall technique in hypomineralized molar ... Molars with hypomineralized enamel are susceptible to erosion and caries. The rehabilitation of the molars is necessary to avoid early tooth loss, and in this case a steel crown was placed with the modified Hall technique.✅ Clinical Evidence: Which Technique Has Better Outcomes?
Current evidence generally supports the Hall Technique as an effective treatment option for carious primary molars.
A systematic review and meta-analysis by Hu et al. (2022) found that the Hall Technique was 49% more likely to succeed than the comparison techniques overall. When compared specifically with direct restorations, its likelihood of success was approximately 80% higher. However, outcomes were similar when Hall crowns were compared with conventionally placed preformed metal crowns.
A subsequent systematic review and meta-analysis by Chua et al. (2023) found that both Hall and conventional preformed metal crowns achieved success and survival rates above 85% at 12 and 24 months, without statistically significant differences between the techniques. The Hall Technique required less treatment time and was associated with greater cost-effectiveness and parental acceptability.
More recent evidence from Tedesco et al. (2025) reported a pooled Hall Technique success rate of 98% at 12 months in randomized clinical trials (95% CI: 97–99%). Nevertheless, the authors identified moderate-to-low certainty of evidence across the available studies.
📌 Recommended Article :
Dental Article🔽 Hall Technique vs Pulpotomy: Decision-Making in Deep Caries ... Deep caries management in primary teeth remains a clinical challenge, requiring a balance between biological preservation and long-term success.💬 Discussion
The main difference between these approaches is their philosophy of caries management. The conventional technique focuses on removing carious tissue and restoring the resulting cavity, whereas the Hall Technique relies on biological management through lesion sealing.
The evidence suggests that the Hall Technique offers advantages in terms of restoration longevity, treatment time, and patient acceptance, particularly for proximal and multisurface lesions.
However, these findings should not be interpreted as evidence that the Hall Technique is universally superior. Its effectiveness depends on appropriate case selection, correct crown placement, and the absence of pulpal pathology.
An additional consideration is the temporary increase in occlusal vertical dimension following crown placement. This generally resolves through occlusal adaptation over time, but clinicians should inform parents about this expected effect.
Importantly, Hall Technique and conventional preformed metal crowns should not be considered equivalent to Hall Technique versus direct restorations. Evidence comparing these two crown-placement approaches indicates similar clinical success.
✍️ Conclusion
The Hall Technique represents an effective minimally invasive alternative for managing carious primary molars, particularly when lesions involve multiple surfaces and the pulp remains clinically healthy.
Compared with conventional direct restorations, it generally provides better restoration survival and reduces the need for operative intervention. Nevertheless, conventional restorative procedures remain appropriate for smaller lesions and cases in which direct restoration is clinically indicated.
The choice of treatment should be based on pulpal diagnosis, lesion characteristics, tooth restorability, patient cooperation, and expected tooth longevity, rather than on the restorative technique alone.
🎯 Clinical Recommendations
▪️ Prioritize the Hall Technique for appropriately selected vital primary molars with proximal or multisurface dentinal lesions.
▪️ Confirm pulpal health through clinical assessment and appropriate radiographic examination before treatment.
▪️ Ensure adequate crown seating and proximal contact engagement to achieve an effective seal.
▪️ Do not use the Hall Technique when clinical or radiographic findings indicate irreversible pulpitis, necrosis, or infection.
▪️ Maintain regular clinical and radiographic follow-up according to individual caries risk and clinical findings.
📚 References
✔ Hu, S., BaniHani, A., Nevitt, S., Maden, M., Santamaria, R. M., & Albadri, S. (2022). Hall technique for primary teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Japanese Dental Science Review, 58, 286–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdsr.2022.09.003
✔ Chua, D. R., Tan, B. L., Nazzal, H., Srinivasan, N., Duggal, M. S., & Tong, H. J. (2023). Outcomes of preformed metal crowns placed with the conventional and Hall techniques: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, 33(2), 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/ipd.13029
✔ Tedesco, T. K., Innes, N. P., Lopez Gallegos, C., Seabra Silva, G., Gimenez, T., Minatel Braga, M., Pinheiro Araujo, M., Jayaraman, J., Al-Yaseen, W., & Prócida Raggio, D. (2025). Success rate of Hall Technique for restoring carious primary molars: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Evidence-Based Dentistry, 26(1), 65–66. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-024-01044-0
✔ Innes, N. P., Evans, D. J. P., & Stirrups, D. R. (2011). Sealing caries in primary molars: Randomized control trial, 5-year results. Journal of Dental Research, 90(12), 1405–1410. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034511422064
📌 More Recommended Items
► Molar-Incisor Hypomineralization and Enamel Hypoplasia: Updated Clinical Approaches in Pediatric Dentistry
► Stainless Steel Crowns for Kids: When and Why They’re the Best Option
► Why Is the Hall Technique Recommended in Pediatric Dentistry?




