Traditional and novel methods for occlusal caries detection: performance on primary teeth

This study aimed to assess the performance of International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS), radiographic examination, and fluorescence-based methods for detecting occlusal caries in primary teeth. One occlusal site on each of 79 primary molars was assessed twice by two examiners using ICDAS, bitewing radiography (BW), DIAGNOdent 2095 (LF), DIAGNOdent 2190 (LFpen), and VistaProof fluorescence camera (FC). The teeth were histologically prepared and assessed for caries extent. Optimal cutoff limits were calculated for LF, LFpen, and FC. At the D (1) threshold (enamel and dentin lesions), ICDAS and FC presented higher sensitivity values (0.75 and 0.73, respectively), while BW showed higher specificity (1.00). At the D (2) threshold (inner enamel and dentin lesions), ICDAS presented higher sensitivity (0.83) and statistically significantly lower specificity (0.70). At the D(3) threshold (dentin lesions), LFpen and FC showed higher sensitivity (1.00 and 0.91, respectively), while higher specificity was presented by FC (0.95), ICDAS (0.94), BW (0.94), and LF (0.92). The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (Az) varied from 0.780 (BW) to 0.941 (LF). Spearman correlation coefficients with histology were 0.72 (ICDAS), 0.64 (BW), 0.71 (LF), 0.65 (LFpen), and 0.74 (FC). Inter- and intraexaminer intraclass correlation values varied from 0.772 to 0.963 and unweighted kappa values ranged from 0.462 to 0.750. In conclusion, ICDAS and FC exhibited better accuracy in detecting enamel and dentin caries lesions, whereas ICDAS, LF, LFpen, and FC were more appropriate for detecting dentin lesions on occlusal surfaces in primary teeth, with no statistically significant difference among them. All methods presented good to excellent reproducibility.

Information Integration Theory and the Construction of Individually Perceived Group Efficacy

According to Bandura (1997) efficacy beliefs are a primary determinant of motivation. Still, very little is known about the processes through which people integrate situational factors to form efficacy beliefs (Myers & Feltz, 2007). The aim of this study was to gain insight into the cognitive construction of subjective group-efficacy beliefs. Only with a sound understanding of those processes is there a sufficient base to derive psychological interventions aimed at group-efficacy beliefs. According to cognitive theories (e.g., Miller, Galanter, & Pribram, 1973) individual group-efficacy beliefs can be seen as the result of a comparison between the demands of a group task and the resources of the performing group. At the center of this comparison are internally represented structures of the group task and plans to perform it. The empirical plausibility of this notion was tested using functional measurement theory (Anderson, 1981). Twenty-three students (M = 23.30 years; SD = 3.39; 35 % females) of the University of Bern repeatedly judged the efficacy of groups in different group tasks. The groups consisted of the subjects and another one to two fictive group members. The latter were manipulated by their value (low, medium, high) in task-relevant abilities. Data obtained from multiple full factorial designs were structured with individuals as second level units and analyzed using mixed linear models. The task-relevant abilities of group members, specified as fixed factors, all had highly significant effects on subjects’ group-efficacy judgments. The effect sizes of the ability factors showed to be dependent on the respective abilities’ importance in a given task. In additive tasks (Steiner, 1972) group resources were integrated in a linear fashion whereas significant interaction between factors was obtained in interdependent tasks. The results also showed that people take into account other group members’ efficacy beliefs when forming their own group-efficacy beliefs. The results support the notion that personal group-efficacy beliefs are obtained by comparing the demands of a task with the performing groups’ resources. Psychological factors such as other team members’ efficacy beliefs are thereby being considered task relevant resources and affect subjective group-efficacy beliefs. This latter finding underlines the adequacy of multidimensional measures. While the validity of collective efficacy measures is usually estimated by how well they predict performances, the results of this study allow for a somewhat internal validity criterion. It is concluded that Information Integration Theory holds potential to further help understand people’s cognitive functioning in sport relevant situations.