Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 1762
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 18  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 101

How the initial retentive force of implant-supported overdentures can be affected with splinted and unsplinted attachments systems


1 Dental Materials Research Center, School of Dentistry, Dental Research Institute, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences; Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2 Dental Research Center, School of Dentistry, Dental Research Institute, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
3 Dental Materials Research Center, School of Dentistry, Dental Research Institute, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
4 Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA

Date of Submission04-Feb-2021
Date of Acceptance26-Jun-2021
Date of Web Publication10-Dec-2021

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Omid Savabi
#400, Sheikhsadoogh Shomali St., Sheikhsadoogh Cross Road, Dental Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan 81648.13315
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.332095

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the retention of implant-supported overdentures with different attachment systems.
Materials and Methods: In this in vitro study edentulous model with 2 Straumann implant in symphyseal region was used to make an overdenture with different attachment systems. (Dolder bar with 1 and 3 metal clips, Hader bar with 1 and 3 plastic clips, ball on bar with 2 and 4 plastic caps, Locator, Rhein plastic caps and Eleptical matrix). Retention values were recorded by universal testing machine with a cross speed of 50.8 mm/min in vertical, posteroanterior, and lateral direction. Repeated measure ANOVA and Duncan tests were used for the data analysis (α =0.05).
Results: There was a statistically significant difference between the retention values of studied attachments in different dislodgment directions (P < 0.05). The highest and lowest retention were recorded for 4 balls on bar (56.71 N) and Rhein pink caps (27.89 N) in the vertical direction. Three metal clips (61.43 N) and Rhein pink cap (24.77 had the highest and lowest retention force in the posteroanterior direction. In the lateral direction, 4 balls on bar (62.68 N) and 1 plastic clip (32.27 N) showed the highest and lowest retention, respectively.
Conclusion: If the higher retention force has been considered for implant-supported overdenture attachment selection, the clinician can use splinted bar or ball on bar superstructure.

Keywords: Dental implants, dental prosthesis-implant-supported, denture design, denture retention/instrumentation


How to cite this article:
Nejatidanesh F, Savabi O, Savabi G, Razavi M. How the initial retentive force of implant-supported overdentures can be affected with splinted and unsplinted attachments systems. Dent Res J 2021;18:101

How to cite this URL:
Nejatidanesh F, Savabi O, Savabi G, Razavi M. How the initial retentive force of implant-supported overdentures can be affected with splinted and unsplinted attachments systems. Dent Res J [serial online] 2021 [cited 2022 Dec 6];18:101. Available from: https://www.drjjournal.net/text.asp?2021/18/1/101/332095




  Introduction Top


Over the past decade, edentulism has become a serious health problem due to the increase in number of aging edentulous patients.[1] Since these patients need greater retention for chewing and psychological reasons,[2],[3] conventional dentures as a common treatment, usually fail to fulfill patient satisfaction.[4]

Problems such as residual ridge resorption, excess salivary flow and muscle tone reduction that affect the retention, make the treatment of fully edentulous patients more complicated. Nowadays, the treatment of choice to restore complete edentulism is implant-supported overdentures. Dental implants are used to improve support, retention, stability, and function of complete dentures. Location and number of implants for implant-supported overdenture as well as type of attachment systems depends on clinician preference and expert opinion.[5]

The attachment systems are classified into bar (splinted) or stud types (unsplinted).[6] Degree of retentive force, available space, maintenance requirements, and load distribution to the mucosa and implants should be considered in selection of the attachments.[7] Unsplinted attachment systems are recommended when there are limited inter-arch distances. Other advantages of stud attachments include the ease of fabrication, less initial treatment cost, and improved oral hygiene maintenance. If implants are improperly positioned or their angulations has some discrepancies, it is recommended to use bar attachments.[8],[9] Advanced atrophy of the alveolar crest is another indication for bar attachments because of providing stabilization against horizontal force.[10]

A retentive force that can prevent displacement of overdenture during function is essential for success of an attachment system. It is suggested that a minimum of 4 N retentive force is needed for a single individual unsplinted attachment.[11] On the other hand, a retentive force of 20 N has been proposed for mandibular overdenture supported with two implants.[12] The retentive force is the result of mechanical, frictional magnetic forces between the patrix and matrix of attachment systems.[13] Different values of retention forces from 1N to 85 N have been reported for splinted and unsplinted attachment systems.[2],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29] With introduction of new attachment systems, it is important to investigate and compare the retentive force of different attachment systems. The aim of this study was to evaluate the retention of implant-supported overdentures with different attachment systems. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between initial retention force of different splinted and unsplinted implant-supported overdenture attachments.


  Materials and Methods Top


This study this in vitro study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (IR.MUI.REC: 1395.2.096.). An edentulous mandibular model (140-032 Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) with no undercut and two implants (4.1 mm × 10 mm, 043.032, Straumann AG) in the symphyseal region was used. Six splinted bar and seven single stud attachment designs with corresponding abutments and superstructures were evaluated (n = 5 in each group). No power analysis was performed, and sample size was determined according previous work.[2] The splinted superstructures were: Dolder bar with one and three metal clips (048.414, regular Dolder bar matrix, Straumann AG), Hader bar with one and three plastic clips (Preci-Horix, Alphadent NV, Waregem, Belgium), ball on bar with two and four pink plastic caps (Rhein 83Srl, Bologna, Italy) [Figure 1]a, [Figure 1]b, [Figure 1]c. Single unsplinted abutments were: Locator abutment with attachments (white, pink, and blue) (Locator; Zest anchors, Escondido, CA), Sphero block abutment with Rhein plastic caps (green, white and pink) (Rhein 83Srl) and retentive anchor with Elliptical matrix (048.456, Straumann AG) [Figure 2]a, [Figure 2]b, [Figure 2]c.
Figure 1: Studied splinted attachments. (a) Dolder bar (b) Hader bar (c) Ball on bar.

Click here to view
Figure 2: Studied unsplinted attachments. (a) Rhine sphere block (b) Retentive anchor (c) Locator.

Click here to view


Superstructures preparation

For making the bars, castable rotating abutments (108 BFT, Rhein Srl 83) were screwed into the implants. Regular plastic bar (048.460, Straumann AG) for metal clips, plastic bar pattern (Preci-Horix, Alphadent NV) for plastic clips, and castable presectioned bar containing balls (150BPN, Rhein 83Srl) for ball on bar were fitted between the two abutments and 1 cm length at the distal of the abutments as the cantilever (for balls on bar groups) with Pattern resin (GC America, Alsip, IL). Superstructures were invested and casted (Degobond 4, DeguDent, Hanau, Germany). The castings were divested, finished, and transferred to the model. Locators, retentive anchors, Sphero block abutments, and/or bars systems were screwed into the implants and their counterparts attachments were positioned on them with the spacers. The method for making overdenture base and special acrylic housing for incorporating each attachments have been previously described and validated in our pervious article.[2] Three withdrawal hooks were attached to the overdenture base (one in the anterior and two in the first molar areas) with autopolymerizing acrylic resin (Meliodent, Heraeus Kulzer, Hanau, Germany) [Figure 3].
Figure 3: The overdenture with 3 hooks.

Click here to view


Retention test

The model and overdenture with each of the studied attachments were secured in a universal testing machine (Instron Corp, Canton, Mass). The hooks were connected by three 10 cm metal chains to the movable head of the universal testing machine. The chains were adjusted to reduce slack to a minimum. The universal testing machine was set at a constant cross head speed of 50.8 mm/min, which has been reported to approximate the speed of the movement of the denture away from the ridge during mastication.[22] Dislodging forces were applied in vertical, posteroanterior (by disconnection of anterior chain), and lateral (by disconnection of right chain) directions to simulate function. After 12 pulls, the plastic clips and caps were renewed and the metal clips and Elliptical matrix were reactivated.

The vertical, posteroanterior, and lateral peak loads were analyzed. Mean retention values (N) were subjected to repeated measure analysis of variance and Duncan tests to determine differences (α =0.05).


  Results Top


The mean retention values of the studied attachments in different removal directions are presented in [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]. In the vertical direction, the highest and lowest retention was recorded for 4 balls on bar (56.71 N) and Rhein pink caps (27.89 N), respectively. Results showed that there were significant differences between the retentive values of the studied groups [P < 0.001; [Table 4]]. However, no significant difference between retention of attachments and number of vertical pulls (P = 0.27) as well as interaction between type of attachments and number of vertical pulls was observed (P = 0.77).
Table 1: The mean (Se) retention (N) of the studied attachments and Duncan's groups in vertical direction

Click here to view
Table 2: The mean (Se) retention (N) of the studied attachments and Duncan's group in posteroanterior direction

Click here to view
Table 3: The mean (Se) retention (N) of the studied attachments and Duncan's group in lateral direction

Click here to view
Table 4: Two-way repeated measure ANOVA of vertical, posteroanterior, and lateral retention values for the experimental groups

Click here to view


In posteroanterior direction, Dolder bar with 3 metal clips (61.43 N) and Rhein pink cap (24.77 N) showed the highest and lowest retentive values, respectively [Table 3]. Results showed a significant difference between the retention values of the studied attachments (P < 0.001). There was a significant difference between retention of attachments and number of postroanterior pulls (P = 0.04) with no difference in interaction between type of attachments and number of vertical pulls (P = 0.42).

Four balls on bar attachment (62.68 N) showed the highest retention when lateral dislodging force applied to the studied attachments. Hader bar with 1 plastic clip showed the least retention value in lateral dislodging force (32.27 N). There was significant difference between only the studied attachments in the lateral direction dislodging force (P < 0.001) while the number of pulls had no significant difference (P = 0.43).


  Discussion Top


In this study, the retention of the studied attachments was significantly different in vertical, posteroanterior and lateral directions. Thus, the null hypothesis was rejected. The retentive force of overdenture attachments is provided by friction or magnetic forces between the patrices and matrices of various attachment systems. An ideal overdenture contains an attachment system that provides sufficient retentive forces to oppose dislodging forces.[12],[13] However, to the best of our knowledge, there is no any published research introducing a retentive force value as a commonly accepted worldwide. There is several in vitro[2],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21] and in vivo[14] studies on mandibular overdentures which have used two or more implants with a wide range of retentive forces for various attachment systems, including bars, balls, studs, and magnetic attachment systems (from 1N to 85N). Some decided that a retentive force of 20 N is sufficient.[12] Thus, mean retentive forces of attachments (24.77–62.68 N) found in this study appear sufficient to ensure patient acceptance. On the other hand, easy placement and removal of prosthesis may be preferred for hygienic purpose in elderly patients.[20]

Three direction of dislodgment was used in this study. The vertical direction simulated retentive force of overdenture.[2],[29] Posteroanterior tests simulated a posterior dislodging force which lift off the denture from tissue such as biting hard foods.[29] Lateral and horizontal stability of mandibular overdenture can be tested by lateral direction dislodgment.[29] According to the result of current study, Ball on bar with 4 Rhine pink caps, Dolder bar with 3 metal clips showed the highest retention in vertical (56.71, 54.41 N, respectively); however, in posteroanterior direction, 4 balls on bar had the highest retention (61.43 N). Rhine pink caps had the lowest retention in vertical and posteroanterior directions (27.89 and 24.77 N, respectively). In lateral direction, 4 balls on bar and bar with one plastic clip showed the highest and least retention, respectively (62.68 and 32.27 N). The retention of bar with 4 Rhein caps was significantly higher than bar with 2 Rhien caps in vertical and lateral directions (P < 0.05). Thus, a greater number of these attachments resulted in increase the retention. The bar with two Rhein pink caps showed significant more retention in the vertical and posteroanterior directions (P = 0.05) than two unsplinted Rhein pink caps. It seems that bar was effective in retention of the implant-supported overdentures, although it was not involved in the intaglio of the denture. Bar with four Rhein pink caps showed the highest retention value, but there were not significant differences between these attachments and three metal clips with Dolder bar in the vertical and lateral directions. Thus, the use of ball on bar should be justified especially when the space for attachments are limited.

The results of this study were similar with our previous study that three metal clips and Elliptical matrix showed the highest retention in the vertical direction.[2] The higher retention of these attachments in the current study compare to previous study may relevant to adjustment ability of these attachment by the clinician.[2] In contrast, the nonmetallic attachments cannot be adjusted. The prefabricated nonmetallic matrices exhibit different shape even before usage which shows that the manufacturers cannot maintain the same retentive forces during their production [Figure 4].
Figure 4: Two prefabricated same pink color plastic caps exhibit different shape before usage.

Click here to view


Difference in material and design of metal clips may be the reason for more retention of these attachments than plastic clips in the different directions. Particularly, the modulus of elasticity of attachments alloys can influence the retention force and also the wear characteristics of these attachments. On the contrary, polymeric (plastic, nylon, and rubber) components can be more susceptible to wear.[23]

Some of the studies also exhibited that bar and clip design provide the most retention values for the overdentures.[2],[14],[17] The retention values of three metal clips were significantly higher than 1 metal clip in both vertical and posteroanterior directions (P < 0.05). It means that increasing the number of metal clips affected the retention values of these attachments. This finding does not apply to the number of plastic clips, because the retention values of 3 and 1 plastic clips were not significantly different in all directions of dislodgment. These findings agreed with previous studies[2],[15] and may be related to the position of the retentive clips on the bar.[23] However, Breeding et al.[25] reported significantly more retention with increasing of plastic clips.

The retention of the studied attachments significantly decreased only in the posteroanterior direction over consecutive pulls [Table 4]. The reason for this finding can be explained by the difference between inserted attachment and the posteroanterior force applied to remove the dentures. In a study by Gamborena et al.[23] reported that even after 1500 pulling cycles, the retention of ERA attachments was not significantly reduced. In addition, in a clinical study on IMZ system bar attachments was shown that loss of retention was not significant in the range of 12.8 months.[26] It was suggested that retention of the ball and socket attachments decrease after approximately 500 cycles of repeated insertion-removal and even 80% from the initial retention values after 2000 cycles depend on their morphological characteristics.[23] Loss of retention in bar attachments did not occur even after more than 5500 cycles according to Pigozzo et al.[27]

Locator attachments have dual retention with retentive areas on both external and internal surfaces. This provides more contact surface for increasing retention in short vertical space. Kleis et al.[28] found that some patients with overdentures retained by two locator attachments had complaints of excessive retention force at post insertion appointments. However, most of their patients needed to replace nylon components after 1 year.

Size of ball attachments can affect the retention force. Larger patrices provide more surface area and higher retentive forces compared to attachments with smaller dimensions.[6],[19],[20] The diameter of Rhein abutment (Rhein 83Srl) is 2.5 mm compare to 2.25 mm of Retentive anchor (Straumann AG). Despite the slightly smaller size of Retentive anchor, this attachment provides more or equal retention compare with Sphere block abutment [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]. The metal matrix of Retentive anchor may be the reason for this result.

The ball attachments are recommended for mandible overdentures because of more movement freedom in function and less complicated clinical and laboratory procedures compare to bar attachments. On the other hand, bars can simplify the attachment placement in the favorable position and splinting can increase the stability of implants and provide more vertical support.[2],[15]

Several factors should be considered for implant-supported overdenture attachment systems selection such as interocclusal space, load distribution between mucosa and implants, the amount of retention force, jaw shape, prosthetic maintenance possibilities, and patient compliance.[29]

The findings of this study should be interpreted carefully. During mastication, the overdentures are submitted to three-dimensional movements which are more complex than three tested directions in this study. In addition, the properties of attachments may alter in the presence of saliva and other substances in the oral cavity.[19] Thermal cycling, using variable fluid environments and multidirectional force application can provide more realistic results.[30]


  Conclusion Top


Within the limitation of this study following can be drawn:

  1. Four balls on bar showed the highest retention in both vertical and lateral directions
  2. In posteroanterior direction 3 metal clips had the highest retention
  3. Rhein pink caps provide the lowest retention in vertical and posteroanterior direction and 1 plastic clip was the lowest in lateral direction.


Acknowledgment

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (IR.MUI.REC: 1395.2.096) and supported by Dental Materials Research Center of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (Research Grant# 295096).

Financial support and sponsorship

The work was supported by Dental Materials Research Center of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (Research Grant# 295096).

Conflicts of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare that they have no conflicts of interest, real or perceived, financial or nonfinancial in this article.



 
  References Top

1.
Carlsson GE, Omar R. The future of complete dentures in oral rehabilitation. A critical review. J Oral Rehabil 2010;37:143-56.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Savabi O, Nejatidanesh F, Yordshahian F. Retention of implant-supported overdenture with bar/clip and stud attachment designs. J Oral Implantol 2013;39:140-7.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Awad MA, Lund JP, Shapiro SH, Locker D, Klemetti E, Chehade A, et al. Oral health status and treatment satisfaction with mandibular implant overdentures and conventional dentures: A randomized clinical trial in a senior population. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:390-6.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Burns DR, Unger JW, Elswick RK Jr., Giglio JA. Prospective clinical evaluation of mandibular implant overdentures: Part II – Patient satisfaction and preference. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73:364-9.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Salehi R, Shayegh SS, Johnston WM, Hakimaneh SM. Effects of interimplant distance and cyclic dislodgement on retention of LOCATOR and ball attachments: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2019;122:550-6.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Alsabeeha NH, Payne AG, Swain MV. Attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures: A review of in vitro investigations on retention and wear features. Int J Prosthodont 2009;22:429-40.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Petropoulos VC, Mante FK. Comparison of retention and strain energies of stud attachments for implant overdentures. J Prosthodont 2011;20:286-93.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
ELsyad MA, Dayekh MA, Khalifa AK. Locator versus bar attachment effect on the retention and stability of implant-retained maxillary overdenture: An in vitro study. J Prosthodont 2019;28:e627-36.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Yilmaz B, Ozkir E, Johnston WM, McGlumphy E. Dislodgement force analysis of an overdenture attachment system. J Prosthet Dent 2020;123:291-8.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Andreiotelli M, Att W, Strub JR. Prosthodontic complications with implant overdentures: A systematic literature review. Int J Prosthodont 2010;23:195-203.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Stewart BL, Edwards RO. Retention and wear of precision-type attachments. J Prosthet Dent 1983;49:28-34.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Setz I, Lee SH, Engel E. Retention of prefabricated attachments for implant stabilized overdentures in the edentulous mandible: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:323-9.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Alsabeeha N, Atieh M, Swain MV, Payne AG. Attachment systems for mandibular single-implant overdentures: An in vitro retention force investigation on different designs. Int J Prosthodont 2010;23:160-6.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Naert I, Gizani S, Vuylsteke M, Van Steenberghe D. A 5-year prospective randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining a mandibular overdenture: Prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction. J Oral Rehabil 1999;26:195-202.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Williams BH, Ochiai KT, Hojo S, Nishimura R, Caputo AA. Retention of maxillary implant overdenture bars of different designs. J Prosthet Dent 2001;86:603-7.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Petropoulos VC, Smith W. Maximum dislodging forces of implant overdenture stud attachments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:526-35.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Petropoulos VC, Smith W, Kousvelari E. Comparison of retention and release periods for implant overdenture attachments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12:176-85.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Svetlize CA, Bodereau EF Jr. Comparative study of retentive anchor systems for overdentures. Quintessence Int 2004;35:443-8.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Botega DM, Mesquita MF, Henriques GE, Vaz LG. Retention force and fatigue strength of overdenture attachment systems. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31:884-9.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Chung KH, Chung CY, Cagna DR, Cronin RJ Jr. Retention characteristics of attachment systems for implant overdentures. J Prosthodont 2004;13:221-6.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Chung KH, Whiting D, Kronstrom M, Chan D, Wataha J. Retentive characteristics of overdenture attachments during repeated dislodging and cyclic loading. Int J Prosthodont 2011;24:127-9.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Jefferies SR, Boston DW, Damrow MP, Galbraith CT. Comparison of detachment forces of two implant overdenture attachment types: Effect of detachment speed. Am J Dent 2008;21:244-50.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Gamborena JI, Hazelton LR, NaBadalung D, Brudvik J. Retention of ERA direct overdenture attachments before and after fatigue loading. Int J Prosthodont 1997;10:123-30.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Uludag B, Polat S. Retention characteristics of different attachment systems of mandibular overdentures retained by two or three implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:1509-13.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Breeding LC, Dixon DL, Schmitt S. The effect of simulated function on the retention of bar-clip retained removable prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1996;75:570-3.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Chan MF, Johnston C, Howell RA, Cawood JI. Prosthetic management of the atrophic mandible using endosseous implants and overdentures: A six year review. Br Dent J 1995;179:329-37.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Pigozzo MN, Mesquita MF, Henriques GE, Vaz LG. The service life of implant-retained overdenture attachment systems. J Prosthet Dent 2009;102:74-80.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Kleis WK, Kämmerer PW, Hartmann S, Al-Nawas B, Wagner W. A comparison of three different attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures: One-year report. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010;12:209-18.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Scherer MD, McGlumphy EA, Seghi RR, Campagni WV. Comparison of retention and stability of implant-retained overdentures based upon implant number and distribution. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:1619-28.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Tehini G, Baba NZ, Berberi A, Majzoub Z, Bassal H, Rifai K. Effect of simulated mastication on the retention of locator attachments for implant-supported overdentures: An in vitro pilot study. J Prosthodont 2020;29:74-9.  Back to cited text no. 30
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
 
 
Search
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1701    
    Printed26    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded296    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal