Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need scored on plaster and digital models

The aim of this study was to compare standard plaster models with their digital counterparts for the applicability of the Index of Complexity, Outcome, and Need (ICON). Generated study models of 30 randomly selected patients: 30 pre- (T(0)) and 30 post- (T(1)) treatment. Two examiners, calibrated in the ICON, scored the digital and plaster models. The overall ICON scores were evaluated for reliability and reproducibility using kappa statistics and reliability coefficients. The values for reliability of the total and weighted ICON scores were generally high for the T(0) sample (range 0.83-0.95) but less high for the T(1) sample (range 0.55-0.85). Differences in total ICON score between plaster and digital models resulted in mostly statistically insignificant values (P values ranging from 0.07 to 0.19), except for observer 1 in the T(1) sample. No statistically different values were found for the total ICON score on either plaster or digital models. ICON scores performed on computer-based models appear to be as accurate and reliable as ICON scores on plaster models.

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.

Comparison of actual surgical outcomes and 3-dimensional surgical simulations

PURPOSE: The advent of imaging software programs has proved to be useful for diagnosis, treatment planning, and outcome measurement, but precision of 3-dimensional (3D) surgical simulation still needs to be tested. This study was conducted to determine whether the virtual surgery performed on 3D models constructed from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) can correctly simulate the actual surgical outcome and to validate the ability of this emerging technology to recreate the orthognathic surgery hard tissue movements in 3 translational and 3 rotational planes of space. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Construction of pre- and postsurgery 3D models from CBCTs of 14 patients who had combined maxillary advancement and mandibular setback surgery and 6 patients who had 1-piece maxillary advancement surgery was performed. The postsurgery and virtually simulated surgery 3D models were registered at the cranial base to quantify differences between simulated and actual surgery models. Hotelling t tests were used to assess the differences between simulated and actual surgical outcomes. RESULTS: For all anatomic regions of interest, there was no statistically significant difference between the simulated and the actual surgical models. The right lateral ramus was the only region that showed a statistically significant, but small difference when comparing 2- and 1-jaw surgeries. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual surgical methods were reliably reproduced. Oral surgery residents could benefit from virtual surgical training. Computer simulation has the potential to increase predictability in the operating room.