Objectives This umbrella review assessed systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing the success and survival rates of Hall versus conventional techniques for primary teeth restored with preformed metal crowns.

Methods A comprehensive literature search identified eligible reviews using PRISMA guidelines. Reviews were qualitatively assessed with AMSTAR 2 and quantitatively analyzed using RevMan meta-analysis. Certainty of evidence was evaluated with GRADE methodology.

Results Of 116 articles screened, two reviews met inclusion criteria for quantitative analysis. Both had moderate AMSTAR 2 ratings. Meta-analysis found no significant difference between Hall and conventional techniques in pooled success and survival rates. Relative risk estimates were 0.99 (favoring conventional technique) and 1.01 (favoring Hall technique), with zero percent heterogeneity and low risk for publication bias. The GRADE assessment indicated moderate confidence, suggesting Hall technique may slightly reduce success rates while slightly increasing survival rates compared to conventional technique.

Conclusions Hall and conventional techniques show comparable success and survival rates for primary molars with normal pulps or reversible pulpitis. With moderate confidence, dentists can consider Hall technique an alternative to conventional technique without additional benefit or harm related to success and survival. The Hall technique aligns with American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry guidelines as a secondary prevention method for arresting caries in children with moderate-to-high caries risk, poor cooperation, or barriers to care.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This study was funded by the Hansjorg Wyss Department of Plastic Surgery, NYU Langone Hospitals, New York, NY, USA

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

N/A

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.