Motivational interviewing versus conventional caries prevention strategies in high-caries-risk children and families: a non-randomised trial.

Abstract

Background This study compared the effectiveness of motivational interviewing (MI) and conventional caries prevention (CCP) for primary (caries increment) and secondary outcomes (caries intensity, gingival health, caregiver-reported oral health-related knowledge, behaviours and attitudes) over 12 months.Methods High-caries-risk children and caregivers received CCP or MI with comprehensive dental care. Fidelity was monitored using MI treatment integrity code 4.2.1. Caries increment, intensity and gingival health were measured at baseline, six and twelve months. Readiness Assessment of Parents Concerning Infant Dental Decay questionnaires recorded oral health-related knowledge, behaviours and attitudes.Results In total, 86 caregiver-child dyads (CCP = 51; MI = 35) were recruited. The mean difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) in caries increment (ΔdICDAS1-6mfs + DICDAS1-6MFS) was significantly higher with MI compared to CCP at six (MI 2.3 [1.2, 3.5] vs CCP 0.6 [0.1, 1.0]; p <0.001) and twelve (MI 4.3 [2.5, 6.0] vs CCP 1.2 [0.6, 1.8]; p <0.001) months. Multivariate analysis with CCP as reference group, odds ratio (95% CI) for new/progressed caries (Δdecayed, missing and filled surface score [permanent] + decayed, missing and filled surface score [primary] >0) at six and twelve months were 18.2 (4.0, 81.7); p <0.001 and 12.6 (3.3, 47.8); p <0.001, respectively. The MI group reported positive behaviours and attitudes.Conclusions CCP was more effective in reducing caries increment when behaviour change technique was incorporated into the preventative strategies as per current paediatric dentistry guidelines.