ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS
ARTICLE 3
The success of stainless steel crowns
placed with the Hall technique
A retrospective study
Kevin H. Ludwig, DDS; Margherita Fontana, DDS, PhD;
LaQuia A. Vinson, DDS, MPH; Jeffrey A. Platt, DDS, MS;
Jeffrey A. Dean, DDS, MSD
S
uccessfully managing dental caries in the pedi-
atric population is a long-standing problem in-
volving a number of challenges, including access
to care, behavior management and the need for
definitive treatment until tooth exfoliation. In the United
States, dental caries is the most common unmet health
need of children.1 It is estimated that 20 percent of U.S.
children aged 2 through 5 years have untreated dental
caries, and the rate of untreated caries has not shown
improvement over the past 20 years.2 Proper treatment
of carious primary molars is of particular importance
because of the need to prevent oral infections, as well as
because of the role primary molars play in proper mas-
tication and in maintaining proper space in the arch for
the permanent premolars.
Stainless steel crowns (SSCs), also known as “pre-
formed metal crowns,” have shown significant clini-
cal success and are considered a favorable restoration
for two-surface and larger carious lesions on primary
molars.3-5 Typically, the SSC is placed after traditional
preparation, which, for the purpose of this study, we de-
fine as the following: administration of local anesthetic;
adequate removal of tooth structure from the mesial,
distal and occlusal surfaces; and complete removal of
caries before the SSC is luted with glass ionomer cement.
The clinical failure rate of SSCs is, on average, four times
lower than that of Class II amalgam restorations.5
Although less technique sensitive than the placement
of intracoronal restorations, the placement of SSCs by
means of traditional tooth preparation still requires the
administration of local anesthetic and multisurface coro-
nal reduction, in turn potentially creating problems in
managing the pediatric patient’s behavior. The behavioral
Dr. Ludwig is a pediatric dentist practicing in South Bend, Ind.
Dr. Fontana is a professor, Department of Cariology, Restorative Sciences and Endodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Dr. Vinson is a clinical assistant professor, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Indiana University, Indianapolis.
Dr. Platt is an associate professor of dental materials and Ralph W. Phillips Scholar in Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, Indiana University, Indianapolis.
Dr. Dean is the Ralph E. McDonald Professor of Pediatric Dentistry and a professor of orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Indiana University, India-
napolis, and Riley Hospital for Children, Indianapolis. Address correspondence to Dr. Dean at Riley Hospital for Children, 705 Riley Hospital Drive,
Room 4205, Indianapolis, Ind. 46202-5109, e-mail jadean1@iu.edu.
1248 JADA 145(12) http://jada.ada.org December 2014
ABSTRACT
Background. In this retrospective study, the authors evalu-
ated the clinical and radiographic success of stainless steel
crowns (SSCs) used to restore primary molars with caries
lesions, placed by means of both the traditional technique
(involving complete caries removal and tooth reduction before
placement of the SSC) and the Hall technique (involving no
caries removal, no crown preparation and no use of local anes-
thetic before placement of the SSC).
Methods. The authors conducted a retrospective chart review
by using the patient records at a private pediatric dental prac-
tice at which the Hall technique had been introduced in June
2010 as an alternative treatment to traditional SSC placement.
The inclusion criteria were caries lesions on a primary molar
with no clinical or radiographic evidence of pulpitis, necrosis
or abscess, as well as follow-up of at least six months or until
failure, whichever came first. They graded restoration success
by using a four-point scale based on presence or loss of the
SSC, and whether or not the patient needed further treatment
associated with pulpal pathology or secondary caries. They
collected and summarized patient demographic information.
They used a Kaplan-Meier survival curve along with 95 percent
confidence intervals to evaluate clinical success.
Results. The authors found that 65 (97 percent) of 67 SSCs
placed with the Hall technique (mean observation time, 15
months; range, four-37 months) and 110 (94 percent) of 117
SSCs placed with the traditional technique (mean observation
time, 53 months; range, four-119 months) were successful.
Conclusion. Findings of this study show a similar success
rate for SSCs placed with the traditional technique or the Hall
technique.
Key Words. Pediatric dentistry; caries; caries lesions;
crowns; dental care for children; dental cavity preparation;
dental restoration failure; dental restoration.
JADA 2014;145(12):1248-1253.
doi:10.14219/jada.2014.89
 ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS

problems that general dentists encounter in TABLE 1

pediatric patients during simple restorative
procedures often result in referral of the patients
Protocol for placing stainless steel crowns
to pediatric dentists, which limits access to care according to traditional preparation versus
for those in communities without a pediatric the Hall technique.
dentist.6 Some children’s uncooperative behav- STEP TRADITIONAL HALL TECHNIQUE†
ior also may require that treatment be rendered PREPARATION*
with sedation or general anesthetic, which Use of Nitrous Oxide Yes Yes
comes at an increased expense and risk to the Use of Local Yes None
patient. To better address the dental care needs Anesthetic
of the pediatric population, practitioners must Tooth Preparation 2-millimeter proximal slice, None; optional
continue to explore alternative strategies for car- 1.5- to 2-mm occlusal 1-mm proximal slice
reduction, recontouring of to allow seating in
ies management and restorative treatment. bulbous anatomy tight contacts
The Hall technique is a conservative alterna- Caries Removal Complete None; food and debris
tive treatment for carious primary molars devel- removed with air-water
oped by Dr. Norna Hall in the 1980s. The Hall syringe
technique involves the use of SSCs to seal over Crown Cementation Resin-modified glass Resin-modified glass
caries lesions on primary molars by using glass ionomer ‡ ionomer ‡
* Source: Dean and colleagues. 10
ionomer cement; it involves no caries removal,
† Source: Innes and colleagues.8
no crown preparation and no administration of ‡ During the course of the observation period, two materials were used for crown
local anesthetic.7 In a randomized, controlled cementation by the practitioner regardless of technique: Fuji II LC Light-Cured,
Resin-Reinforced Restorative and Fuji CEM #2 Resin Modified Glass Ionomer
clinical trial, investigators found that SSCs Cement, both manufactured by GC America, Alsip, Ill.
placed by means of the Hall technique outper-
formed standard Class II restorations placed by
general dentists.8 In addition to achieving comparative the period from March 2003 to March 2013. Starting in
restoration success, the Hall technique was preferred 2010, the practitioner used the Hall technique as the pri-
over traditional restorative techniques by children, mary technique unless there was a clinical requirement
caregivers and dentists.9 The Hall technique provides that warranted a traditional preparation (such as possible
dentists with a simple, definitive treatment that can be pulpal involvement). For inclusion, we required that
provided quickly to limit anxiety experienced by the pa- patients have had a caries lesion on a primary molar with
tient; however, this technique remains experimental, and no clinical or radiographic evidence of pulpitis, necrosis
there are limited clinical data to support its use. or abscess and that they have received chairside treat-
Owing to its noninvasive design, acceptance by pa- ment consisting of SSC placement by means of either
tients and rate of restoration longevity, the Hall tech- the Hall technique or a traditional preparation (Table
nique may be an improved treatment option to increase 18,10). We did not include in the study teeth treated with a
access to care, decrease rates of untreated caries and pulpotomy and those serving at any point as an abut-
provide a restoration that will allow for natural tooth ment for a space maintainer. Figure 1 shows a lesion on
exfoliation. Although it has been shown that sealing tooth no. S that was treated by using the Hall technique.
carious primary molars with SSCs and glass ionomer Figure 2 and Figure 3 show the patient’s pretreatment
cement is successful, additional studies are needed to and posttreatment intercuspation, respectively, after use
confirm the technique’s effectiveness compared with that of the Hall technique with a bite opening of approxi-
of traditional SSC placement. Our aim in this retrospec- mately 2 millimeters.
tive study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic In this dental setting, primary molars receiving SSCs
success of SSCs used to restore caries lesions in primary (regardless of the technique) had caries lesions large
molars that were placed by means of both the traditional enough that the clinician felt a Class I or II restoration
technique and the Hall technique. was unlikely to be successful for the life expectancy
of the tooth, yet not so extensive that the patient was
METHODS experiencing or clinically demonstrating any signs or
We received institutional review board approval to symptoms of irreversible pulpitis or pulp necrosis.
conduct a retrospective chart review of teeth treated with All included teeth had documentation for clinical ex-
SSCs by using the patient records of a private-practice aminations at baseline (diagnosis of carious lesion) and
board-certified pediatric dentist in Indiana (J.A.D.). We at a point at least six months after placement of the SSC.
audited the records of all patients seen between April 1, SSC placement was completed by the clinician or the
2008, and April 1, 2013 (as use of the Hall technique to
place crowns started in 2010), and we considered for the ABBREVIATION KEY. dmft: Decayed, missing and filled
study those with a history of having received an SSC in primary teeth. SSC: Stainless steel crown.

JADA 145(12) http://jada.ada.org December 2014 1249

 ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Figure 1. Caries lesion on tooth no. S treated according to the Hall
technique.
Figure 2. Pretreatment intercuspation in a patient treated according
to the Hall technique.
Figure 3. Posttreatment intercuspation in a patient treated
according to the Hall technique, with the bite opening approximately
2 millimeters.
clinician’s expanded-functions dental auxiliary, and the
clinician performed the final evaluation of the restora-
tion before discharging the patient. The inclusion criteria
were met by 184 SSCs placed in 95 participants. Ten
participants who received 12 SSCs were not included ow-
ing to inadequate follow-up time. Clinical data analyzed
included all baseline and recall intraoral examination
records and radiographs, including records from any
emergency examinations. We collected no additional
clinical or radiographic information.
1250 JADA 145(12) http://jada.ada.org December 2014
We graded restoration success on the basis of the
criteria originally defined by Innes and colleagues.7 A
successful restoration was recorded as “crown present”
(date of last examination recorded without tooth exfolia-
tion, the crown being present and no further treatment
required) or tooth exfoliation (date of last examination
recorded before recorded tooth exfoliation). A failed
restoration was recorded as “crown lost” (that is, the SSC
became uncemented) or “further treatment required”
(the tooth required further treatment besides recemen-
tation of the SSC, according to radiographic evidence
of pulpal pathology or clinical evidence of secondary
caries). Reported symptoms and discomfort that were
recorded in the chart were included in the study’s results;
however, restoration failure was defined only as whether
further treatment was required for the tooth. Radio-
graphic findings included in the charts were reanalyzed
independently of the practitioner’s documentation by a
single trained examiner (K.H.L.).
Statistical analysis. A statistician provided Kaplan-
Meier survival curves along with 95 percent confidence
intervals separately for each group (Hall technique and
traditional preparation) by using a statistical software
package (SAS 9.3, SAS Institute, Cary, N.C.). Although
some patients had multiple SSCs, we ignored this cor-
relation when calculating the confidence intervals. We
summarized the following demographic characteristics
for each group: tooth letter; number of decayed, missing
and filled primary teeth (dmft) at baseline; change in
dmft at the end of the observation period; sex; and age
in days.
RESULTS
From June 2010 through March 2013, 34 children
received a total of 67 SSCs placed according to the Hall
technique, which were followed up for an average of
15 months (range, four-37 months). From March 2003
through December 2012, 117 crowns were provided for
51 children by means of traditional preparation and were
followed up for a mean of 53 months (range, four-119
months). The mean (standard deviation [SD]) age of
these children at the time of treatment was 5.9 (0.16)
years for those treated according to the Hall technique
and 5.3 (0.15) years for those treated with a traditional
preparation (distributions shown in Figure 4). Routine
bitewing radiographs typically were obtained every 12
to 24 months. Records of radiographic follow-up were
available for two-thirds of children in the Hall technique
group. Lack of radiographic follow-up was attributed to
discontinued follow-up of three patients (nine teeth),
whereas seven patients (14 teeth) were not yet due for
radiographs. Three percent of the traditional preparation
group, consisting of four patients (four teeth), did not
have postoperative radiographs owing to discontinued
follow-up.
During the duration of the study, the examiner
 ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS

(K.H.L.) graded 97 percent of SSCs

placed according to the Hall technique 40
as successful, whereas he graded as suc-
cessful 94 percent of SSCs placed with
a traditional preparation. Table 2 shows 30

NO. OF PATIENTS
the distribution of SSC success grading.
The two observed failures of Hall-
technique crowns were the result of 20
abscesses, with one causing symptoms
at five months and the other identi-
fied during routine examination at 11 10
months. Of the SSCs placed according
to the Hall technique that were graded
as successful, none caused painful 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
symptoms according to the dental
record, and no follow-up examinations PATIENTS’ AGE, IN YEARS
were needed to evaluate symptoms. Five
SSCs placed with a traditional prepara- Traditional Preparation Hall Technique
tion failed because of abscess or infec-
tion at an average time of 17 months
(eight, eight, 21, 23 and 23 months). Two Figure 4. Patients’ age at time of treatment.
crowns placed via the traditional method TABLE 2
experienced retention failure at four and 55 months, re- Outcomes of stainless steel crown
spectively, and both teeth were treated successfully with
recementation of the SSC. Of the patients with tradition-
placement according to traditional
ally placed SSCs graded as successful, one had problems preparation and the Hall technique.
with documented postoperative pain that did not require OUTCOME NO. (%) OF STAINLESS STEEL CROWNS,
any further treatment. ACCORDING TO TREATMENT METHOD
Kaplan-Meier plots (Figure 5) show the step function Traditional Hall Technique
form of the survival function. The step function drops at Preparation (n = 117) (n = 67)

the particular time point at which a restoration is graded Ascribed Success 110 (94) 65 (97)
as a failure. Survival probability remains unchanged Crown Present 71 (61) 64 (96)
when a restoration receives a grade of success, indicated Tooth Shed 39 (33) 1 (1)
as a tick on the graph. With a majority of the restora- Ascribed Failure 7 (6) 2 (3)
tions and those with the longest follow-up being graded Crown Lost, Tooth 2 (2) 0 (0)
as a success, the survival function curve will not reach Present

zero and will remain at the probability of the previous
interval.
The survival function dropped most steeply at the
beginning of treatment for both techniques, suggesting
that the hazard rates were highest during the first two
years after restoration placement. The survival function
of the traditional preparation group stabilized after two
years with only one failure after 24 months, suggesting
that teeth treated with either SSC technique may, by
and large, remain successful after two years in service.
Owing to the infrequency of failures in both groups and
the relatively small sample size, there was no statistical
power to establish a statistically significant comparison
between the two groups.
The demographic information was comparable for
both groups. The mean (SD) number of dmft at time of
treatment was 6.2 (3.7) for the Hall-technique group and
5.6 (2.5) for the traditional-preparation group. The mean year survival rate for SSCs placed according to the Hall
(SD) change in the number of dmft was 1.0 (1.9) for the
Hall-technique group and 2.5 (2.3) for the traditional-
Tooth Extracted 5 (4) 2 (3)
preparation group, with the difference attributable to
the greater average time of observation of participants in
the traditional-preparation group. The average SSC size
was 4 for crowns placed according to the Hall technique,
whereas the SSC size was not recorded regularly for a
majority of the crowns placed with traditional prepara-
tions. Maxillary and mandibular primary first molars
were the most commonly treated teeth for both groups;
all primary molars were represented in both groups.
DISCUSSION
The results of this study are in line with those of previous
studies showing that the Hall technique can result in a
clinically sound restoration. Findings in the retrospective
study by Innes and colleagues7 showed that a three-
technique was 73.4 percent. A separate prospective study
relying on multiple clinicians showed a survival rate of

JADA 145(12) http://jada.ada.org December 2014 1251

 ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS

of many of the studies reviewed

1.00 showed that sealing caries
0.98
results in clinical and radio-
graphic signs of inactivation of
0.96
the caries lesion with tertiary
SURVIVAL PROBABILITY

0.94 dentin formation.15 The use of

0.92 glass ionomer cement placed
0.90
directly over carious dentin
during indirect pulp therapy in
0.88
primary teeth has been shown
0.86 to be 93 percent successful
0.84 after four years of follow-up.16
0.82 Investigators in another study
found the use of resin-modified
0.80
1 67 0
glass ionomer for indirect pulp
11
2 117 98 69 26 12 0 therapy in primary molars
0 2 4 6 8 10 to have a survival rate of 96
percent over three years.17 One
TIME, IN YEARS
study in which researchers
Hall Technique Traditional Preparation Censored
followed up permanent teeth
with remaining deep dentinal
caries and a sealed restoration
Figure 5. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and 95 percent confidence intervals, showing the number
of patients at risk. The blue-shaded and red-shaded areas around the survival curves represent the showed no lesion progression
95 percent pointwise confidence interval. Row 1 shows the crowns placed according to the Hall after 10 years.18 Similar success
technique (n = 67); Row 2 shows the crowns placed with traditional preparation (n = 117). of sealed caries in primary teeth
would allow for these teeth to
96.2 percent after a minimum of 23 months of follow-up8 be restored successfully until exfoliation.
and 92 percent at a minimum of 48 months of follow- Although it is impossible to evaluate the success of
up.11 The survival rate seen in this study after 15 months the seal provided by an SSC in vivo, studies of extracted
is in accord with these previous results, and it equals or primary molars have shown that SSCs luted with resin-
exceeds the success of all other materials used for restor- modified glass ionomer cement have displayed little
ing primary molars at one to two years of follow-up.12-14 microleakage, and there is no significant difference in
Investigators conducting a review of Class II restoration microleakage between intact and extensively carious pri-
longevity found mean annual failure rates of 7.6 percent mary molars restored with SSCs by means of a tradition-
for alloys, 13.9 percent for glass ionomer cement, 4.2 al preparation.19 Investigators in one study reported that
percent for resin-modified glass ionomer and 5.9 percent SSCs placed in vitro with either the Hall technique or a
for resin-based composite restorations.12 Some caution traditional preparation all displayed microleakage, with
should be used in comparing these results with those of statistically significantly greater microleakage values in
previous studies involving the Hall technique, because the Hall-technique SSC group. However, the study’s au-
in the private practice setting in our study, in the event thors noted that it was challenging to fit Hall-technique
of tight contacts, the clinician would provide a proximal SSCs in vitro without the aid of the patient’s biting force
slice to permit easier seating of the SSC. In contrast, to seat the crown, which may have affected adaptation.20
the published Hall technique recommends use of an Additional studies are needed to explore the differences
orthodontic separator to allow for physiological move- on microleakage between these two techniques further.
ment of the teeth to permit crown seating without any This study had several limitations. First, it is retro-
proximal reduction.8 However, even accounting for this spective, and the group of traditionally placed SSCs is
change, the clinician was able to render treatment in one not an ideal control group, because the majority of these
appointment, without the need for local anesthetic, and crowns were placed during an earlier period than those
with no apparent change in overall success. in the Hall technique group and patients did not receive
Although the Hall technique shows promise as an random assignment to a treatment modality. In addition,
alternative treatment modality, the question remains the difference in patients’ ages at time of treatment may
whether the caries lesions restored according to this have played a factor in this study’s results and should
technique will be sealed successfully and remain ar- be considered, because an SSC’s success decreases with
rested until the tooth exfoliates naturally. The results of increasing age at time of placement.21 A majority of
a 2013 systematic review showed that incomplete caries SSCs placed in the Hall-technique group were provided
removal can be considered advantageous, and findings to children aged 5 through 7 years, whereas a major-

1252 JADA 145(12) http://jada.ada.org December 2014

 ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS
ity of the traditionally placed SSCs were provided to
4- through 6-year-olds. Loss of participants owing to
inadequate follow-up was a limitation of this study and
had a proportionally greater effect on the patients whose
SSCs were placed according to the Hall technique. Seven
participants treated with 13 SSCs (four participants who
received four traditionally placed SSCs and three par-
ticipants who received nine SSCs placed with the Hall
technique) did not return for regular follow-up, and
this increases the uncertainty of the success of the two
techniques.
Second, our study’s focus was on the clinical success
of the crown as it related to loss or to pulpal or caries-
related problems, and we did not specifically measure
periodontal health or changes in occlusion. Though
it has been documented that gingival health and oral
hygiene will deteriorate after placement of crowns on
primary molars,22 no specific periodontal data were
available for inclusion in this study; such data should be
considered a focus for future trials. The results of one
previous study specifically focusing on the change in
occlusion observed in SSCs placed according to the Hall
technique revealed spontaneous equilibration of overbite
after approximately 30 days.23 Further evaluation of oc-
clusion with continued follow-up as a part of a prospec-
tive trial would be greatly beneficial in understanding
whether the Hall technique poses any deleterious effects.
Last, we did not achieve a statistically significant com-
parison owing to the infrequent incidence of failure rela-
tive to the sample size, which resulted in low statistical
power. A well-designed randomized controlled prospec-
tive trial between SSCs placed with traditional prepara-
tions and SSCs placed according to the Hall technique
would allow for a definitive comparison between the two
modalities.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study showed that the restoration
survival rate is high for SSCs placed with a traditional
preparation or according to the Hall technique in a
private practice setting. Even though follow-up duration
was different for both groups, a majority of failures for
both techniques were experienced in the first two years.
A large prospective randomized controlled clinical trial
will be needed to compare these two modalities ad-
equately to determine whether they result in significantly
different rates of restoration success. ■
Disclosure. None of the authors reported any disclosures.
The authors gratefully acknowledge George Eckert and Ziyi Yang for
their assistance with data analysis and interpretation. In addition, the
authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Angela Tomlin for her participa-
tion as a member of Kevin Ludwig’s graduate research committee and her
help reviewing the manuscript.
1. U.S. Public Health Service, Office of the Surgeon General; National
Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research. Oral Health in America:
A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, Md.: Department of Health
and Human Services, U.S. Public Health Service; 2000.
2. Bernstein A, Bilheimer LT, Makuc DM. Health, United States, 2009
With Special Feature on Medical Technology. Hyattsville, Md.: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics; 2010. DHHS publi-
cation 76-641496.
3. Innes NP, Ricketts DN, Evans DJ. Preformed metal crowns
for decayed primary molar teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev
2007;(1):CD005512.
4. Seale NS. The use of stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent 2002;24(5):
501-505.
5. Randall RC, Vrijhoef MM, Wilson NH. Efficacy of preformed metal
crowns vs. amalgam restorations in primary molars: a systematic review.
JADA 2000;131(3):337-343.
6. McQuistan MR, Kuthy RA, Daminano PC, Ward MM. General
dentists’ referrals of 3- to 5-year-old children to pediatric dentists. JADA
2006;137(5):653-660.
7. 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;200(8):451-454.
8. 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;7:18.
9. Innes NP, Marshman Z, Vendan RE. A group of general dental
practitioners’ views of preformed metal crowns after participation in the
Hall technique clinical trial: a mixed-method evaluation. Prim Dent Care
2010;17(1):33-37.
10. Dean JA, Avery DR, McDonald RE. McDonald and Avery’s Den-
tistry for the Child and Adolescent. 9th ed. Maryland Heights, Mo.:
Mosby/Elsevier; 2011.
11. 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.
12. Hickel R, Kaaden C, Paschos E, Buerkle V, Garcia-Godoy F, Man-
hart J. Longevity of occlusally-stressed restorations in posterior primary
teeth. Am J Dent 2005;18(3):198-211.
13. Donly KJ, Segura A, Kanellis M, Erickson RL. Clinical perform-
ance and caries inhibition of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and
amalgam restorations. JADA 1999;130(10):1459-1466.
14. dos Santos MP, Passos M, Luiz RR, Maia LC. A randomized trial of
resin-based restorations in Class I and Class II beveled preparations in
primary molars: 24-month results. JADA 2009;140(2):156-166.
15. Schwendicke F, Dorfer CE, Paris S. Incomplete caries removal: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 2013;92(4):306-314.
16. Marchi JJ, de Araujo FB, Froner AM, Straffon LH, Nor JE. Indirect
pulp capping in the primary dentition: a 4 year follow-up study. J Clin
Pediatr Dent 2006;31(2):68-71.
17. Gruythuysen RJ, van Strijp AJ, Wu MK. Long-term survival of
indirect pulp treatment performed in primary and permanent teeth with
clinically diagnosed deep carious lesions (published correction appears in
J Endod 2010;36[12]:2015). J Endod 2010;36(9):1490-1493.
18. Maltz M, de Oliveira EF, Fontanella V, Bianchi R. A clinical, micro-
biologic, and radiographic study of deep caries lesions after incomplete
caries removal. Quintessence Int 2002;33(2):151-159.
19. Seraj B, Shahrabi M, Motahari P, et al. Microleakage of stainless steel
crowns placed on intact and extensively destroyed primary first molars:
an in vitro study. Pediatr Dent 2011;33(7):525-528.
20. Erdemci ZY, Cehreli SB, Tirali RE. Hall versus conventional
stainless steel crown techniques: in vitro investigation of marginal
fit and microleakage using three different luting agents. Pediatr Dent
2014;36(4):286-290.
21. Messer LB, Levering NJ. The durability of primary molar restora-
tions, part II: observations and predictions of success of stainless steel
crowns. Pediatr Dent 1988;10(2):81-85.
22. Belduz Kara N, Yilmaz Y. Assessment of oral hygiene and peri-
odontal health around posterior primary molars after their restoration
with various crown types. Int J Paediatr Dent 2014;24(4):303-313.
23. 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.
JADA 145(12) http://jada.ada.org December 2014 1253