332 - A Prevention Strategy for Children Receiving FMDR Under GA

Purpose: This two-arm, parallel-group randomized controlled trial aims to compare the effectiveness of a new prevention strategy versus traditional verbal education and post-operative instructions in increasing caregivers’ compliance to follow-up of their children who have had full mouth dental rehabilitation (FMDR) under general anesthesia (GA).

Methods: Caregivers of children who presented for FMDR under GA were recruited and randomly assigned to either the control or treatment groups. Caregivers in the treatment arm received oral health anticipatory guidance through a combination of motivational interviewing, individualized goal setting, visual aids, and verbal education. Caregivers in the control arm received the same information in the form of verbal and written education. Both groups were evaluated at 2-week follow up and a 3-month-recall. A questionnaire was used to measure oral health knowledge, parental readiness to change, and parental self-efficacy (PSE). Return to follow up and recall rate was also assessed. Differences in attendance, oral health knowledge, readiness to change, and PSE scores were compared between both groups at both return visits. Significance level was set at 0.05.

Results: A total of 74 participants were enrolled with 36 (49%) randomized to receive the intervention and 38 randomized to the control group (51%). In total 22 (61%) and 13 (38%) from the intervention group and 21 (55%) and 16 (46%) from the control group attended the 2-week, and 3-month follow up respectively. At the 2-week follow-up appointment, respondents in both groups found the appointment and the information provided useful. Readiness to change dietary habits did not differ between the two groups at the GA visit, however, it was higher for the intervention group at the follow up visits. The average PSE for subjects in the intervention was significantly higher than that of the control group at the follow up visit (p-value=0.0050). Changes in knowledge did not differ significantly among those who attended the follow up visit (p=0.5597). Attendance at the follow up visit was not a predictor of attendance at the recall appointment (p-value=0.5058).

Conclusion: No difference in oral health knowledge was observed between the control group and intervention groups at the follow up visit, however, readiness to change was higher for those in the intervention group. The average PSE for subjects in the intervention group was significantly higher than that of the control group and among participants.