Table 2.
Characteristics of the included studies
| Study Id | Authors (year) | Study place | Study design | Participant's age (children) | Sample size (initial/last follow-up) | No. of sessions | Duration of sessions | Follow-up period | Method and outcome assessment measurement | Dental caries | Plaque score | Gingival score | Change in toothbrushing frequency | In-between snacking score | Author's conclusion | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MI | Traditional Education | MI | Traditional Education | MI | Traditional Education | Pre | Post | Pre | Post | Pre | Post | Pre | Post | Pre | Post | ||||||||
| 1 | Mohammadi et al. (2015)22* | Iran | Community trial | 4–6 years | 111/108 | 111/105 | 7 | 1 | 45 minutes | 45 minutes | 6 months | Mean ± SD of ICDAS score, PI, GI (frequency %) | 4.87 ± 4.1 (MI) | 4.79 ± 4.39 (MI) | 111 (100%) | 108 (97.3%) | 111 (100%) | 108 (97.3%) | Using MI as an oral health education model was significantly more effective than the traditional model. | ||||
| 2 | Gonzalez et al. (2014)17 | Mexico | Randomized clinical trial | 6–10 years | 50/49 | 50/47 | 7 | 1 | 45 minutes | 45 minutes | 6 and 12 months | Mean, SD of ICDAS score, PI (mean SD), questionnaire for in-between snacking (mean) | 9.98 (3.60)–traditional 9.80 (3.91)–MI | 3.15 (0.97)–traditional 2.12 (0.85)–MI | 62.4 (16.5)–traditional 51.4 (17.4)–MI | 41.8 (23.2)–traditional) 17.1 (11.3)—MI | 1.55–traditional 1.61–MI | MI is an effective and promising technique for establishing preventive behaviors | |||||
| 3 | Nomaire et al. (2020)21 * | Egypt | Randomized controlled clinical trial (parallel arms) | 4–6 years | 58/52 | 58/55 | 4 | 1 | 15–30 minutes | 15 minutes | 6 months | The mean and standard deviation of the questionnaire score | 7.64 ± 2.26– conventional, 7.04 ± 1.98– MI | 8.58 ± 2.64–conventional, 9.75 ± 2.05–MI | Using MI as an oral health education tool was significantly more effective in promoting preschool children's oral hygiene | ||||||||
| 4 | Weinstein et al. (2006)9 * | Columbia, USA | Randomized clinical trial | 6–18 months | 220/205 | 220/200 | 7 | 1 | 45 minutes | 11 minutes | 2 years | New caries in % using (modif Radike criteria) | 52.0%–traditional, 35.2%–MI | An MI intervention enhanced the preventive behavior of mothers of young children at high risk of developing caries. | |||||||||
| 5 | Manchanda et al. (2014)18 | Bengaluru | Randomized controlled clinical trial (parallel arms) | 6–18 months | 160/137 | 160/128 | 5 | 1 | Not given | Not given | 8 months | Mean, SD (WHO + Initial lesions), mean ± SD score of questionnaire used for in-between snacking and frequency of toothbrushing. | 0.39 + 0.79–traditional, 0.23 + 0.58– MI | 3.90%– traditional, 2.92%–MI | 21.88%-traditional, 59.12%–MI | 104 (81.25 %)–traditional, 91 (66.42 %)–MI | 106 (82.81%)–traditional, 109 (80.15 %)–MI | The motivational intervention was more effective in reducing dental decay in the children as compared to the other two groups. | |||||
| 6 | Colvara et al. (2018)16 | Brazil | Community trial | Children born in the year 2013 | 245/175 | 224/145 | 1 | 1 | 20–40 minutes | 20–40 minutes | 3 years | Mean (95% CI) of score ICDAS | 1.91, (1.18–2.64) conventional, 0.86, (0.56–1.16)–MI | An intervention based on the principles of MI style was more effective in reducing the number of surfaces affected by early childhood caries compared with conventional oral health education intervention. | |||||||||
| 7 | Naidu et al. (2015)19 | Trinidad | Cluster randomized controlled trial | 5–6 years | 25/21 | 54/20 | 4 | 1 | 30 minutes | 30 minutes | 4 months | Mean and SD of the questionnaire used for in-between snacking and frequency of toothbrushing | 10.55 (4.07)–traditional, 13.09 (1.44)–MI | 25/54 (46.3%)–traditional, 7/25 (28.0 %)–MI | 9/20 (45.0 %)–traditional, 9/21 (42.9 %)–MI | There was evidence that using an MI approach when delivering oral health information had a positive effect on parent/ caregiver, oral health knowledge, toothbrushing behavior, and oral health fatalism compared to traditional DHE. | |||||||
| 8 | Ismail et al. (2011)15 | Michigan, United States of America | Community trial | 0–5 years | 506/299 | 515/300 | 3 | 1 | 40 minutes | 40 minutes | 6 months and 2 years | ICDAS (IRR), questionnaire (OR) | 4.57–MI | 4.07–MI | 168/300 (56%)–traditional 183/299 (61.20%) | This study found that a single MI intervention may change some reported oral health behaviors, it failed to reduce the number of new untreated carious lesions. | |||||||
| 9 | Saengtipbovorn et al. (2017)20 * | Thailand | Randomized controlled trial | 6 months–5 years | 107/98 | 107/98 | 3 | 1 | 15 minutes | 10 minutes | 3 and 6 months | The mean difference between a cavitated and noncavitated, mean difference of plaque score | 0.184 (0.285) | 1.041 (0.383) | 0.160 (0.116) | 0.665 (0.097) | The combination of MI and caries risk assessment in one program decreased early childhood caries in preschool children. | ||||||
Intervention, MI (oral health education, through the specific goal of the importance of child's oral health and toothbrushing, and openly discussing concerns and obstacles in changing behavior and giving reinforcements at particular time intervals through posters, pamphlets, audio-visual aids, telephone, e-mails, letters); traditional oral health education (oral health instruction using posters, pamphlets, or any other aids without any reinforcement); outcomes assessed, PI (plaque index), GI (gingival index), DMFS (decayed, missed, filled permanent tooth surface); dmfs (decayed, missed, filled primary tooth surface); DMFT (decayed, missed, filled permanent tooth), ICDAS, Modified Radike criteria, etc., change in frequency of toothbrushing and in-between snacking using the questionnaire; * excluded from the meta-analysis