The title of the article directly addresses what it sets out to achieve, which is to review literature surrounding Hall's technique in a specific case for primary carious molars.

The aim of the article is clearly stated to update the effectiveness and definition of hall's technique through a broad range of categories such as cost effectiveness, contraindications, outcomes versus traditional/conventional therapy standards and more for primary carious molars.

However the abstract does not indicate the article's findings clearly or specify the methods they were going to use to achieve their objective. The title on the other hand would inform the reader that this article would be reviewing existing literature surrounding hall's technique related for primary carious molar specifically.

References are a mix of recent literature and literature dating back to earliest 1991. Key and appropriate studies related to the field of restorative dentistry have been cited such as "How clean must a cavity be before restoration" with correct referencing.

The introduction explains in great length behind the history of hall's technique and the modern day relevance of caries as well as its significance to the target population, children, in great detail. The research question is implied to be addressing the controversial beliefs and theories surrounding hall's technique as a mainstream procedure, this is brought up in the form of the article's aim as well. This research question is justified as the introduction indicates that there is still on-going debate with regards to this topic within restorative dentistry and therefore implies that much more needs to be learned and tested before hall's technique is accepted as a mainstream idea.

The methodology is clearly stated, concise with clear repeatability. The study method is reliable and valid but could expand on more search options and keywords used for literature review to enhance the search quality. The inclusion criteria was broad with no indication of date range or even assuring that all articles focus purely on the pediatric dentistry. Variables were stated but missed out on some terms such as 'cost effectiveness' in the aims was never translated into methods but which was subsequently mentioned in the article thereafter.

Data and results are presented in a very detailed manner with some tables to summarize results of the literature reviewed. Text results adds up to the data reported and I understood the practical and meaningful data within the results

The results were discussed with appropriate interpretation and suggestions regarding areas that need to be further studied, examples includes the author's explanation that the lack of hall's technique adoption is possibly influenced heavily by the conventional school of thought instilled into dentist from a long time ago. The conclusion answers the research question/article aim set out by the author, which is supported by the results obtained within the article and not from references. The limitations of this study is the quality of paper selected might be act as a double edged sword. Higher quality papers that produce that can be easily replicated with consistency would enhance the opportunities present to inform further research, but low quality papers that are cited might mislead other researchers on future researching opportunities.