Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 332
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 19  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 30

Effect of surface treatment with laser on repair bond strength of composite resin to ceramic


1 Departments of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, International Campus, Tehran, Iran
2 Laser Research Center of Dentistry (LRCD), Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Public Health, Tehran University of medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Date of Submission04-Jul-2020
Date of Acceptance30-Sep-2021
Date of Web Publication21-Mar-2022

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Sedighe Sadat Hashemikamangar
Tehran University of Medical Sciences, International Campus, Navab St, Tehran
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.340115

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Background: Small chipping or fracture of ceramic restorations may be repaired by composite resin instead of replacing the restoration. This method is faster and cheaper compared to restoration replacement. Several strategies have been suggested to obtain a high repair shear bond strength (SBS). This study aimed to assess the efficacy of some new ceramic surface treatments (laser and universal adhesive) to enhance the repair bond strength of composite resin to ceramic compared to the conventional method.
Materials and Methods: This in vitro study evaluated 80 IPS Empress Esthetic ceramic plates in eight groups (n = 10). The ceramic surface was polished with 320-grit silicon carbide paper under running water, rinsed with water spray for 10 s and dried. The samples were then divided into two subgroups for mechanical surface preparation with hydrofluoric (HF) acid and Er: YAG laser (2 W, 200 m J, 10 Hz, 10 s). Each group was divided into two subgroups for use/no use of silane. The conventional or universal adhesive was then applied on the samples in each subgroup. Composite cylinders were bonded to the ceramic surface using plastic tubes. The samples were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 h and subjected to an SBS test. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA (P < 0.05).
Results: The interaction effect of variables on SBS was significant. Maximum SBS was noted in HF acid + silane + conventional adhesive group (mean: 12.0481 MPa). Minimum SBS was noted in the laser + conventional adhesive group (mean: 2.5766 MPa). Surface treatment with HF acid yielded significantly higher SBS than laser (P < 0.001). The interaction effect of conventional/universal adhesive and use/no use of silane on SBS was statistically significant.
Conclusion: The repair SBS was higher in groups treated with HF acid compared to laser. Ceramic surface treatment with HF plus silane plus conventional adhesive yielded a higher SBS as well as HF plus Universal adhesive. Thus, the application of silane as a separate step can be omitted in the repair of ceramic restorations with universal adhesives.

Keywords: Bond strength, ceramic, laser, resin composite


How to cite this article:
Kiomarsi N, Jarrah A, Chiniforoush N, Hashemikamangar SS, Kharazifard MJ. Effect of surface treatment with laser on repair bond strength of composite resin to ceramic. Dent Res J 2022;19:30

How to cite this URL:
Kiomarsi N, Jarrah A, Chiniforoush N, Hashemikamangar SS, Kharazifard MJ. Effect of surface treatment with laser on repair bond strength of composite resin to ceramic. Dent Res J [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 May 26];19:30. Available from: https://www.drjjournal.net/text.asp?2022/19/1/30/340115




  Introduction Top


At present, glass-ceramic restorations are highly popular due to their excellent esthetic appearance and long-term durability.[1] Nonetheless, defects, chipping, and fracture of these restorations are common. Replacement of the restoration may be required in some cases. Although restoration replacement leads to more favorable clinical and esthetic results, it is not always the best choice because it may cause pulpal damage, is costly and wastes time.[2],[3] Small chipping or fracture of ceramic restorations may be repaired by composite resin instead of replacing the restoration. This method is more conservative and cheaper than restoration replacement and can be performed within single session. The remaining part of the restoration remains intact and the tooth does not need any further preparation. Thus, pulpal irritation is prevented in restoration repair. However, achieving a durable bond between the composite resin and ceramic is challenging.[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9] A combination of techniques is often employed to prepare the glass-ceramic surface aiming to enhance the bond of composite resin to ceramic by micromechanical interlocking and chemical bonds. The suggested techniques for this purpose include sandblasting, tooth preparation, surface roughening by bur, silica coating, etching with hydrofluoric (HF) acid, laser irradiation, and application of silane and adhesives.[5] The commonly used technique for the repair of glass-ceramics involves HF acid etching and the application of silane and adhesive. Application of HF acid following surface roughening enables micromechanical retention. Furthermore, it removes the glassy matrix and reveals the crystalline structure of ceramic.[10],[11] Application of silane as primer enhances the adhesion of the resin to ceramic.[8],[9] Low-viscosity silane results in surface wetting and facilitates microscopic penetration of resin into the porous structure of ceramic and enables adhesion by creating covalent bonds.[4] Adhesives, mainly conventional adhesives, are applied following the application of silane. Recently, a new generation of adhesives, namely universal adhesives were introduced on the market, which can be used in self-etch, total-etch, and selective-etch modes. Universal adhesives can bond to the tooth structure and indirect restoration surfaces such as ceramic, resin, and metal.[8]

Kalavacharla et al. reported that silane present in the composition of universal adhesives has no significant effect on bond strength and a separate step of silane application cannot be omitted.[12] Laser irradiation is among the novel surface treatment techniques. Furthermore, the application of universal adhesives is a more recent technique compared to other methods and evidence is inconclusive regarding their efficacy in the process of ceramic repair. On the other hand, silane is present in the composition of some universal adhesives such as Single Bond Universal (3M), which questions the need for a separate silane application step. This study aimed to assess the effect of mechanical and chemical surface treatments on repair bond strength of composite to ceramic. Furthermore, the efficacy of these novel techniques was compared with that of conventional surface treatment (HF acid etching and application of conventional adhesive). The effect of different surface treatments was evaluated by measuring the repair bond strength of composite to ceramic after 24 h of immersion in distilled water. Moreover, this study aimed to assess the effect of silane application, along with universal adhesive. The null hypotheses were (a) the efficacy of different mechanical surface treatments (laser and HF acid etching) would not be significantly different, (b) application of silane would have no significant effect on repair bond strength, and (c) the effects of conventional and universal adhesives would not be significantly different on repair bond strength.


  Materials And Methods Top


It is an experimental study with the following in vitro steps

Fabrication of ceramic blocks

Eighty ceramic blocks (Lucite-reinforced glass-ceramic; IPS Empress; IvoclarVivadent, Liechtenstein) were fabricated in a laboratory. In brief, wax molds were fabricated measuring 6 mm × 6 mm with 5-mm thickness and measured with a caliper. After spruing, the molds were poured with dental stone. Ceramic ingots were heated in a furnace at 870°C for 40 min. After removal and cooling, they were sandblasted with aluminum oxide particles, measured again, and glazed. All samples were mounted in acrylic resin such that one surface of the ceramic block remained exposed with 1-mm thickness. The surface of all samples was polished with 320-grit silicon carbide abrasive paper under running water with equal hand pressure for ten times. They were then rinsed with water for 10 s and dried with air spray.

Ceramic surface treatment

The samples were randomly divided into eight groups of 10 for the assessment of three independent variables [Figure 1].
Figure 1: Flowchart of Materials and methods

Click here to view


  • Group 1: Laser irradiation (Er: YAG laser (Pluser; Dr smile; Italy) + universal adhesive (Single Bond Universal: Scotchbond Universal Adhesive; 3M ESPE; USA)
  • Group 2: Laser irradiation + conventional adhesive (AdperScotchbond Multi-Purpose adhesive: 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA)
  • Group 3: Laser irradiation + silane (Silane; Ultradent products; USA) + universal adhesive
  • Group 4: Laser irradiation + silane + conventional adhesive
  • Group 5: HF acid etching (IPS Ceramic Etching Gel; Ultradent products; USA) + universal adhesive
  • Group 6: HF acid etching + conventional adhesive
  • Group 7: HF acid etching + silane + universal adhesive
  • Group 8: HF acid etching + silane + conventional adhesive.


The surface of samples in the four groups (n = 40) was subjected to Er: YAG laser irradiation with 2 W power in pulse mode with 200 mJ energy and 10 Hz frequency for 10 s.[13] Laser was irradiated in forward and backward motion. The 600 μm tip of the laser handpiece had 1 mm distance from the surface and laser was irradiated under water spray perpendicular to the ceramic surface. The surfaces of samples in the remaining four groups (n = 40) were etched with 90% buffered HF acid for 60 seconds,[14] rinsed with water for 10 s and dried. Silane was applied on the surface of half of the samples in HF and laser subgroups. Silane coupling agent was applied on the surface of samples by a microbrush for 60 s and dried. Subsequently, one of the two adhesives was applied on the ceramic surface. In the use of conventional adhesive, two layers of AdperScotchbond Multi-Purpose adhesive were applied and air-thinned for 5 s followed by 10 s of curing (1000 mW/cm2, Valo, Uitradent, USA). In the application of Single Bond Universal, which contains silane monomer, two layers of the adhesive were applied on the surface, air-thinned for 5 s and cured for 10 s. Next, Z250 composite resin (Z250 composite resin 3M ESPE, USA) was applied into transparent plastic tubes with an internal diameter of 3 mm and 3 mm height, which were placed vertically at the center of the ceramic surfaces and light-cured for 40 s. The plastic tube was then cut with a scalpel (with no pressure to composite) and separated. The composite sample was cured again for 20 s. The entire procedure was performed according to the manufacturer's instructions. Next, all bonded samples were immersed in distilled water at 37°C for 24 h. They were then transferred to a universal testing machine (ZwichRoell, Ulm, Germany) and mounted such that the blade applied load at the bonding interface perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the samples at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute until fracture. The load at fracture was recorded. The shear bond strength (SBS) data were converted to megapascals and analyzed using one-way ANOVA. The study was approved in the ethics committee of Tehran University of Medical Sciences.


  Results Top


One-way ANOVA revealed that the interaction effect of study variables on SBS was statistically significant. [Table 1] shows the SBS in different groups.
Table 1: Mean±standard deviation shear bond strength (MPa) in the study groups (n=10)

Click here to view


Comparison of groups revealed that application of HF acid, compared to laser irradiation (irrespective of the type of adhesive and use/no use of silane), significantly increased the SBS (P < 0.001). The highest SBS was noted in “HF acid + universal adhesive” and “HF acid + silane + conventional adhesive” groups (P < 0.5). In application of HF acid and universal adhesive, the group without silane yielded higher SBS (P = 0.003). The lowest SBS was noted in “laser + universal adhesive” and “laser + conventional adhesive” groups [Figure 2].
Figure 2: Shear bond strength (MPa) of study groups

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


This study aimed to assess the effect of different ceramic surface treatments on repair bond strength of composite to ceramic. Comparison of HF acid and laser for surface treatment of ceramic revealed that application of HF acid yielded a higher bond strength between the composite and ceramic. Some researchers have reported that HF acid etching is the most effective method for ceramic surface treatment because it increases surface roughness and micromechanical retention.[13],[14] In fact, HF acid creates the highest irregularities on the surface. It reinforces the siloxane bonds and creates the best microstructure for micromechanical bonding (which is the main reason for the superiority of HF acid to laser).[15],[16] These results were in line with those of Özdemir et al.[17] The reduction in repair bond strength of ceramics treated with laser, compared to those treated with HF acid, can be attributed to the unequal and lower microscopic depth of porosities created and excessive destruction of the matrix phase and crystals or layers damaged by high temperature.[7] Ebrahimi Chaharom et al.[18] showed that the bond strength was not significantly different in HF and laser groups, which was different from our findings. It might be related to the type of composite they had used which were silorane-based composite.

Comparison of use and no use of silane in all groups, except for the universal adhesive group (which contains silane in its composition), revealed superior SBS in silane groups. Thus, it may be stated that the highest SBS is achieved when silane is applied. Similarly, Ozden et al., in 1994 indicated that the highest SBS was noted after using silane in combination with a mechanical preparation method.[19] Goracci et al.,[20] Albaladejo et al.,[21] and Perdigão et al.[22] reported that silane application is an effective method to increase the bond strength. This can be due to the ability of silane in increasing surface wetting and creating covalent bonds. Silane enhances the adhesion in the presence of epoxy resin polymers; it increases both the chemical bonds between the inorganic substrate and polymer and the surface wettability.[23] The surface modifiers such as silane have excellent properties for the bond of organic and inorganic materials and organic-inorganic hybrid components which contain silicon-carbon bonds. In resin-based composites, silane can change the filler surface as a coupling agent for bonding of composite to composite and provide a strong chemical bond between them.[24] Kim et al.,[8] also concluded that separate application of silane improves the repair bond strength. Kupiec et al.[25] pointed to the key role of silane in the process of repair and stated that the highest bond strength was noted in air abrasion plus HF acid group. In this group, silane was applied before the use of adhesive. Sattabanasuk et al.[4] demonstrated that silane significantly increased the bond strength in un-etched samples, which was in agreement with our results.

In contrast to our study, Cho et al.,[26] and Celik et al.[27] stated that the application of silane had no significant effect on bond strength. The reason can be the difference in the concentration and type of materials used in different studies. Thus, it may be concluded that in most studies, irrespective of the concentration of materials and other factors, the highest SBS is achieved when compounds containing silane are used. This finding highlights the ability of silane to increase surface wetting and create covalent bonds between the OH-groups of inorganic substrates such as glass. In general, silane enhances the adhesion in the presence of epoxy resin polymers. It enhances the chemical bond between inorganic substrates and polymer and increases the surface wettability.[23] The chemical bond of silane depends on the presence of silica in the ceramic surface, which is rare in the composition of aluminum ceramics and complicates achieving a chemical bond to them.[28]

The current findings revealed that in the application of HF acid and silane, the SBS results were superior in the group where the conventional adhesive was used because universal adhesive can decrease water evaporation or surface wetting and prevent the bonding of silane to glass ceramic.[12] Furthermore, in the application of HF acid without silane in our study, universal adhesive yielded higher SBS values. Sattabanasuk et al. evaluated the efficacy of universal and conventional adhesives for the repair process and showed that the application of universal adhesive containing silane could not yield a higher SBS, especially when compared to separate applications of silane.[4] Both the aforementioned studies confirmed the optimal efficacy of silane in universal adhesives. However, Yoshihara et al. showed that the silane present in the composition of universal adhesives was not much stable.[6]

The current results showed that the efficacy of conventional and universal adhesives was not significantly different and “HF acid + universal adhesive” and “HF acid + silane + conventional adhesive” yielded the best results with regard to SBS. On the other hand, using universal adhesive simplify the repairing procedure (by omitting the silanization procedure of ceramic). Obtaining a strong bond by the use of universal adhesives is related to their inherent properties since they contain methacryloyloxy decyldihydrogen phosphate (MDP) monomer in their composition. They form chemical bonds due to the presence of MDP monomer in their composition,[29] which justifies their optimal etching and bonding ability. The MDP monomer is a phosphate monomer, which enhances the bond between ceramic and composite. The MDP monomer forms highly resistant bonds to metal oxides and silane, and can also bond to SiO2-based ceramics.[2],[5],[30],[31] In fact, MDP is a bifunctional adhesive monomer, which bonds to oxides with its hydrophilic phosphate end and bonds to resin monomers with its hydrophobic methacrylate end.[8],[32]

Considering the current findings, favorable SBS between composite resin and glass ceramics requires micromechanical (HF) and chemical retention (silane). So, for repairing glass-ceramics by conventional adhesives we need HF and silane ceramic treatment but by universal adhesives, just HF treatment.


  Conclusion Top


Under the limitation of this study we can conclude that the repair SBS was higher in groups treated with HF acid compared to laser. Ceramic surface treatment with HF plus silane plus conventional adhesive yielded a higher SBS as well as HF plus Universal adhesive. Thus, the application of silane as a separate step can be omitted in repair of ceramic restorations with universal adhesives.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Tehran University of Medical Sciences, International Campus for financial support.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

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.
Rekow ED, Silva NR, Coelho PG, Zhang Y, Guess P, Thompson VP. Performance of dental ceramics: Challenges for improvements. J Dent Res 2011;90:937-52.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Ghavam M, Soleimanpour M, Hashemikamangar SS, Ebrahimi H, Kharazifard MJ. Micro shear bond strength of self-adhesive composite to ceramic after mechanical, chemical and laser surface treatments. Laser Ther 2017;26:297-304.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Halil MH, Zainol IZ, Adam KB, Rosman WN, Ahmad SZ. Comparison of bond strength between selected orthodontic adhesives versus anterior restorative materials. J Int Dent Med Res 2019;12:1274-9.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Sattabanasuk V, Charnchairerk P, Punsukumtana L, Burrow MF. Effects of mechanical and chemical surface treatments on the resin-glass ceramic adhesion properties. J Investig Clin Dent 2017;8: e12220  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Seabra B, Arantes-Oliveira S, Portugal J. Influence of multimode universal adhesives and zirconia primer application techniques on zirconia repair. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:182-7.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Yoshihara K, Nagaoka N, Sonoda A, Maruo Y, Makita Y, Okihara T, et al. Effectiveness and stability of silane coupling agent incorporated in 'universal' adhesives. Dent Mater 2016;32:1218-25.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Gökçe B, Ozpinar B, Dündar M, Cömlekoglu E, Sen BH, Güngör MA. Bond strengths of all-ceramics: Acid vs. laser etching. Oper Dent 2007;32:173-8.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Kim RJ, Woo JS, Lee IB, Yi YA, Hwang JY, Seo DG. Performance of universal adhesives on bonding to leucite-reinforced ceramic. Biomater Res 2015;19:11.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Kiomarsi N, Espahbodi M, Chiniforush N, Karazifard MJ, Kamangar SS. In vitro evaluation of repair bond strength of composite: Effect of surface treatments with bur and laser and application of universal adhesive. Laser Ther 2017;26:173-80.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Chen JH, Matsumura H, Atsuta M. Effect of different etching periods on the bond strength of a composite resin to a machinable porcelain. J Dent 1998;26:53-8.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Chen JH, Matsumura H, Atsuta M. Effect of etchant, etching period, and silane priming on bond strength to porcelain of composite resin. Oper Dent 1998;23:250-7.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Kalavacharla VK, Lawson NC, Ramp LC, Burgess JO. Influence of etching protocol and silane treatment with a universal adhesive on lithium disilicate bond strength. Oper Dent 2015;40:372-8.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Arami S, Hasani Tabatabaei M, Namdar F, Safavi N, Chiniforush N. Shear bond strength of the repair composite resin to zirconia ceramic by different surface treatment. J Lasers Med Sci 2014;5:171-5.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Veríssimo AH, Moura DM, Tribst JP, Araújo AM, Leite FP, Souza RO. Effect of hydrofluoric acid concentration and etching time on resin-bond strength to different glass ceramics. Braz Oral Res 2019;33:e041.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Roulet JF, Söderholm KJ, Longmate J. Effects of treatment and storage conditions on ceramic/composite bond strength. J Dent Res 1995;74:381-7.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Stangel I, Nathanson D, Hsu CS. Shear strength of the composite bond to etched porcelain. J Dent Res 1987;66:1460-5.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Özdemir H, Aladağ Lİ. Effect of different surface treatments on bond strength of different resin cements to lithium disilicate glass ceramic: An in vitro study. Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip 2017;31:820-5.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Ebrahimi Chaharom ME, Pournaghi Azar F, Mohammadi N, Nasiri R. Effect of surface preparation with Nd: YAG and Er, Cr: YSGG lasers on the repair bond strength of lithium disilicate glass ceramic to a silorane-based composite resin. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2018;12:12-7.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Ozden AN, Akaltan F, Can G. Effect of surface treatments of porcelain on the shear bond strength of applied dual-cured cement. J Prosthet Dent 1994;72:85-8.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Goracci C, Raffaelli O, Monticelli F, Balleri B, Bertelli E, Ferrari M. The adhesion between prefabricated FRC posts and composite resin cores: Microtensile bond strength with and without post-silanization. Dent Mater 2005;21:437-44.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Albaladejo A, Osorio R, Aguilera FS, Toledano M. Effect of cyclic loading on bonding of fiber posts to root canal dentin. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2008;86:264-9.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Perdigão J, Gomes G, Lee IK. The effect of silane on the bond strengths of fiber posts. Dent Mater 2006;22:752-8.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Monticelli F, Osorio R, Sadek FT, Radovic I, Toledano M, Ferrari M. Surface treatments for improving bond strength to prefabricated fiber posts: A literature review. Oper Dent 2008;33:346-55.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
D'Arcangelo C, Vanini L. Effect of three surface treatments on the adhesive properties of indirect composite restorations. J Adhes Dent 2007;9:319-26.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Kupiec KA, Wuertz KM, Barkmeier WW, Wilwerding TM. Evaluation of porcelain surface treatments and agents for composite-to-porcelain repair. J Prosthet Dent 1996;76:119-24.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Cho SD, Rajitrangson P, Matis BA, Platt JA. Effect of Er, Cr: YSGG laser, air abrasion, and silane application on repaired shear bond strength of composites. Oper Dent 2013;38:E1-9.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Celik EU, Ergücü Z, Türkün LS, Ercan UK. Tensile bond strength of an aged resin composite repaired with different protocols. J Adhes Dent 2011;13:359-66.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Soares CJ, Soares PV, Pereira JC, Fonseca RB. Surface treatment protocols in the cementation process of ceramic and laboratory-processed composite restorations: A literature review. J Esthet Restor Dent 2005;17:224-35.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Teshima I. Degradation of 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate. J Dent Res 2010;89:1281-6.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Shahverdi S, Canay S, Sahin E, Bilge A. Effects of different surface treatment methods on the bond strength of composite resin to porcelain. J Oral Rehabil 1998;25:699-705.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Carlos EP, Geraldo AP, Simone K, Aline BG, Elimario VR, Sergio CD. Influence of the surface treatment on shear bond strength of coating ceramics of zirconia. J Int Dent Med Res 2017;10:193-7.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Kermanshah H, Omrani LR, Hemati O, Pedram P, Ahmadi E. Modified microtensile bond strength of glass ionomer to composite resin using universal adhesive in self-etch and total-etch modes. Open Dent J 2020;14:390-5.  Back to cited text no. 32
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]



 

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
    Viewed276    
    Printed14    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded55    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal