Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 421
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 16  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 413-420

Comparison of the accuracy of open-tray and snap-on impression techniques of implants with different angulations


1 Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Sadoughi University Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
2 Dental Implant Research Center, Department of Prosthodontic, Dental Research Institute, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Date of Web Publication12-Nov-2019

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Foroughsadat Razavi
Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Sadoughi University Medical Sciences, Yazd
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.270785

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Background: A precise transfer of the position of an implant to the working cast is particularly important to achieve an optimal fit of the final restoration. Different variables affect the accuracy of implant impression. The purpose of the present study is to compare the accuracy of open-tray and snap-on impression techniques in implants with different angulations.
Materials and Methods: In this experimental study: A reference acrylic resin model of the mandible was fabricated. Four implants were positioned with the angles of 0°, 10°, 15°, and 25° in the model. Ten impressions were prepared with open-tray technique and ten impressions were made using snap-on technique. All impressions were made from vinyl polysiloxane impression material. Linear (Δx, Δy, and Δr) and angular displacements (Δθ) of implants were evaluated using a coordinate measuring machine. Measured data were then analyzed using two-way analysis of variance and Tukey's test (α = 0.05).
Results: The results showed that the accuracy of open-tray impression technique is significantly different from snap-on technique in Δx (P = 0.003), Δy (P = 0.000), Δr (P = 0.000), and Δθ (P = 0.000). Implants with 25° angulation are significantly less accurate than 0°, 10°, and 15° implants in Δx, Δy, Δr, and Δθ. Fifteen-degree implants are less accurate than 0° and 10° ones in Δθ.
Conclusion: Regarding the findings of this study, it can be concluded that snap-on technique is less accurate than open-tray technique, and the accuracy of 25° implant is less than that of 0°, 10°, and 15° implants.

Keywords: Accuracy, dental implants, dental impression techniques


How to cite this article:
Tafti AF, Hatami M, Razavi F, Ebadian B. Comparison of the accuracy of open-tray and snap-on impression techniques of implants with different angulations. Dent Res J 2019;16:413-20

How to cite this URL:
Tafti AF, Hatami M, Razavi F, Ebadian B. Comparison of the accuracy of open-tray and snap-on impression techniques of implants with different angulations. Dent Res J [serial online] 2019 [cited 2019 Dec 8];16:413-20. Available from: http://www.drjjournal.net/text.asp?2019/16/6/413/270785




  Introduction Top


A critical requirement for a long-term implant success is an accurate and passively fitting prosthesis in dental implant prosthesis. The first step in achieving a passive fit is transforming the intraoral relationship of implants through impression procedures.[1]

Many factors affect the accuracy of the implant impression including impression methods, impression materials, impression trays, implant angulation and depth, impression coping modification, and implant connection.[2]

Two different impression techniques are traditionally used for transferring the impression copings from the implant to the impression: direct (open tray) technique and indirect (closed tray) technique.[3]

The open-tray technique removes the concern for replacing the coping back into its respective space in the impression. Disadvantages of this technique are some movements of the impression coping when securing the implant analog. On the other hand, blind attachment of the implant analog to the impression coping may result in a misfit of components.[1],[4],[5]

If it is too difficult to access in the posterior region of the mouth, or when the patient has limited interarch space or tendency to gag, the closed tray technique is used. Advantages of this technique are time saving, easier for the operator, and more comfortable for the patient compared to the direct technique. The worst disadvantage of the indirect technique is discrepancy in returning the coping to the original position.[1],[4]

Both techniques may be uncomfortable for the patient and the clinician while the impression copings are being screwed and unscrewed intraorally. Slight movement of the copings may result in deformation of the impression material while unscrewing the guide pins from the impression copings during tray removal or replacing the coping-analog assemblies in the impression tray.[6]

The International Team for Implantology (ITI) dental implant system has introduced the snap-on (press fit) impression technique. This technique combines the advantages of both open-tray and closed tray impression techniques. Although it is similar to open-tray technique, there is no need for large tray holes and long guide screws that are difficult to use in mouths with opening restrictions or in posterior areas.[7]

There are a few investigations that compare snap-on and open-tray techniques.[7],[8],[9],[10],[11] Two studies reported no differences of impression accuracy between the snap-on and open-tray techniques.[7],[9] Two other studies stated that the open-tray technique is more accurate than the snap-on technique.[10],[11] Conversely, Cehreli and Akça [8] concluded that the accuracy of snap-on technique is better than that of the open-tray technique.

Since the coping is connected to the implant by pressing instead of screwing in the snap-on impression coping, it is easier to manipulate, time saving, and more comfortable for both the clinician and patient.[6] Furthermore, some issues such as attaching the implant analog to the impression coping or some errors such as distortion of plastic caps may affect the accuracy of this technique.[12] Therefore, further researches are necessary for its accuracy.

Another factor contributing to the misfit is implant angulations. Some studies that used four or more implants reported that the impression of angulated implants is less accurate than that of parallel implants.[1],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17] Meanwhile, other studies that used two or three implants reported no angulation effect on the accuracy of impressions.[18],[19],[20]

Since controversial conclusions have been reported in different studies for the effects of impression techniques and implant angulations on the accuracy of implant impression, the main purpose of the present study is to compare the accuracy of open-tray and snap-on techniques for four implants with different angulations. The first null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the accuracy of implant impression techniques. The second null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the accuracy of implant impressions with different angulations.


  Materials and Methods Top


In this experimental study, a reference acrylic resin model of the mandible was prepared with bilateral edentulism from the first premolar to the first molar. Using a milling machine (Dentium, South Korea), four holes with diameter of 4.8 mm and depth of 12 mm were drilled. The first hole was perpendicular to the occlusal plane at the right first premolar while the second one was at the left first premolar with lingually inclination of 10°. The third hole was at the right first molar with lingually inclination of 15° and the fourth one was at the left first molar with lingually inclination of 25°. The reference model is shown in [Figure 1].
Figure 1: The reference model.

Click here to view


Four tissue-level implants (synOcta ITI solid screw implants, SP 4.1 mm × 12 mm RN) were fixed in the holes using auto-polymerized acrylic resin. A steel cylinder which was accurately machined with the diameter of 5 mm was put at the reference model precisely perpendicular to the horizontal plane; its axis was in z-direction. This cylinder was used as a reference in the measurements. The top plane of the reference cylinder was 3 mm out of the model.

Considering the significance level of 5%, the test power of 80%, the standard deviation of 0.11, and the minimum difference of 0.15 for mean deviations of methods, 10 samples were considered in each group. To make custom trays, after putting two layers of spacer wax on the reference model, 10 open trays and 10 closed trays were made from light-polymerized acrylic resin (Mega-Light Tray, Germany) 24 h before making the impression.

Interior surface of the trays was covered by an adhesive layer of polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) 15 min before making the impression. Afterward, two techniques were employed to make the impression with vinyl polysiloxane (Panasil, Kettenbach, Eschenburg, Germany) using the putty and light body simultaneously. In the first technique (open tray), square impression copings were tightened on the implants using 10 N.cm torque, and ten impressions were made by the open custom tray. The screws of the impression copings were loosened after 10 min, and the impressions were picked up with the impression copings. In the second technique (snap-on), the impression caps were snapped onto the necks of the implants and synOcta plastic positioning cylinders were placed in the impression caps, and ten impressions were made by the closed custom tray. After 10 min, the impression was picked up with the impression cap and the positioning cylinder. Impression copings of the open-tray and snap-on techniques are shown in [Figure 2] and [Figure 3], respectively.
Figure 2: Impression copings of the open-tray technique.

Click here to view
Figure 3: Impression copings of the snap-on technique.

Click here to view


During polymerization of impression materials, a 2-kg mass was put on the trays at both techniques. After removing the trays, the analogs were connected to the impression copings. The impressions were poured using Type IV dental stone (SH-074, Germany) and mixed according to the manufacturers' recommendation in a vacuum mixer. All casts were separated from the impressions after 60 min and trimmed.

To determine the position of implants, four impression coping screws were tightened on four analogs with a torque of 35 N.cm in each cast. Afterward, the position of each implant was measured by a coordinate-measuring machine (CMM) (Poli, Italy) with 0.001-mm resolution. All casts were positioned on the CMM table using a special fixture to align the mediolateral direction with the x-axis and the anteroposterior direction with the y-axis. This is shown in [Figure 4].
Figure 4: Using a coordinate measuring machine for measuring position and direction of implants.

Click here to view


To find a reference point for each cast, the reference cylinder axis was intersected with its top plane. To find the axis of the reference cylinder, CMM probe was touched with six arbitrary points on the cylinder lateral surface. These points were used to produce a virtual cylinder whose axis was the reference cylinder axis. This procedure was also used to determine the axis of each implant in each cast. The reference cylinder axis was considered as z-axis of the cast. By measuring the axis of each implant, it was possible to calculate its angle with z-axis (θ). For finding the top plane of the reference cylinder, the CMM probe was touched with its three arbitrary points. This plane was considered as the reference xy plane for the cast. In each cast, the position of each implant in xy plane (x and y) was determined by intersecting its axis with the reference xy plane. The above procedure is shown schematically in [Figure 5].
Figure 5: A schematic of determining implant position and axis.

Click here to view


To evaluate the effects of impression technique and implant angulation on the impression accuracy, absolute difference of coordinates of ith implant in x- and y-axes (xi and yi) in each studied cast was calculated with respect to the corresponding implant ones (xi0 and yi0) in the reference model (Equations 1 and 2). i can change from 1 to 4. This study was also performed by considering absolute difference of direct distance of each implant relative to the reference point (ri) with respect to the corresponding implant one (ri0) of the reference model in xy plane (Equation 3). This distance is actually a resultant value of distances in x- and y-axes (Equation 4).









Another criterion for the above study was an absolute difference of each implant angulation (θi) with respect to that of the corresponding implant (θ0) in the reference model [Equation 3].



A schematic of xi, yi, ri, and θi for the ith implant is shown in [Figure 6].
Figure 6: A schematic of xi, yi, ri, and θi for the ith implant.

Click here to view


In this study, Δx, Δy, and Δr were used to discuss the linear displacements of implants while Δθ was used as a measure of implant angular displacement with respect to z-direction.

Statistical analyses

Evaluation of normality of the data was performed by employing Shapiro–Wilk test. The test results showed that the data were distributed normally. Descriptive statistics were calculated for angular and linear measurements. The effects of impression technique (open tray vs. snap-on) and implant angulation on the impression accuracy were assessed using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc Tukey's test (α = 0.05).


  Results Top


[Table 1] gives mean and standard deviation of linear displacements in x-, y-, and r-directions as well as those of angular displacement of four analogs in ten casts with respect to those of the reference model for two studied impression methods.
Table 1: Mean and standard deviation of linear (Δx, Δy, and Δr) and angular (Δθ) displacements

Click here to view


Results of two-way ANOVA are given in [Table 2]. It is observed that the accuracy of open-tray impression technique is significantly higher than that of snap-on technique in Δx (P = 0.002), Δy (P = 0.000), Δr (P = 0.000), and Δθ (P = 0.000). Further study of [Table 2] suggests that implant angulation affects the impression accuracy significantly in Δx (P = 0.006), Δy (P = 0.001), Δr (P = 0.000), and Δθ (P = 0.000). Therefore, to find the effect of implant angulation on the accuracy of impression, Tukey's honestly significant difference test was performed and its results are given in [Table 3]. Although no significant difference is observed for 0°, 10°, and 15° implants in Δx, Δy, and Δr, respectively, 25° implant is significantly less accurate than the others. Moreover, the results of Tukey's test show that 15° and 25° implants are less accurate than 0° and 10° ones in Δθ.
Table 2: Results of two-way analysis of variance for linear (∆x, ∆y, and ∆r) and angular (∆θ) displacements


Click here to view
Table 3: Tukey's honestly significant difference test results for linear (Δx, Δy, and Δr) and angular (Δθ) displacements

Click here to view


[Table 2] also shows that the interaction of technique and implant angulation is not significant in Δx (P = 0.057), Δy (P = 0.172), Δr (P = 0.16), and Δθ (P = 0.477).


  Discussion Top


The first null hypothesis was rejected because the accuracy of open-tray impression technique was significantly different from that of the snap-on technique. Since implant angulations significantly affect the impression accuracy, the second null hypothesis was also rejected. The initial step to a passive fit of implant framework is to transfer implants from the mouth to the master cast precisely with an impression.[21] Any horizontal or vertical error can lead to some kinds of inaccuracy. Horizontal fit discrepancy which results in binding of the screws produces bending stresses in implant system. If a vertical fit discrepancy is present, a preload is used to bring the mating surfaces closer together. In this case, the screw is susceptible to fatigue fractures and loosening.[22]

In this study, comparing the open-tray and snap-on techniques showed that the later has a lower accuracy than the open-tray technique in Δx, Δy, Δr, and Δθ.

A few papers have evaluated the snap-on technique; all of them examined parallel implants. Balamurugan and Manimaran [10] reported that the open-tray technique is more accurate than the snap-on technique. Akça and Cehreli [7] and Nakhaei et al.[9] reported no significant difference between open-tray and snap-on techniques. This is in contrast with the results of the present study, and they used edentulous mandibular model with parallel implants.

Akça and Cehreli [7] showed that the accuracy of impression of the snap-on technique with stock tray and PVS is similar to that of the open-tray technique with custom tray and polyether. They concluded that the bulk of impression material surrounding the plastic impression cap is thicker in stock tray, and the impression material can easily withstand pull-out forces.

Cehreli and Akça [8] reported that the accuracy of suprastructures fabricated by the open-tray technique was lower than those obtained by the snap-on technique for four implant-supported suprastructures. In contrast, similar amounts of accuracy were observed for two implant-supported suprastructures produced by both techniques.

Fernandez et al.[11] concluded that the open-tray technique with metal impression copings was more accurate than snap-on technique with plastic copings when using the Straumann system. However, there was no difference between open-tray and snap-on techniques for the NobelReplace system.

Machining errors of plastic impression copings may be a reason for lower accuracy of snap-on technique in this study.[23] Other factors that can play a major role in the accuracy of snap-on technique are tactile sensation and the snap mechanism that indicate proper seating of impression coping. In some cases, the dentist feels no snap and improperly assumes that the impression coping is properly seated.[24] Connection of the analog to the plastic coping with snap mechanism may result in movement of coping into the impression material.

In this study, four implants were used with 0°, 10°, 15°, and 25° of angulation. The results showed that 25° implant has less accuracy than 0°, 10°, and 15° implants in Δx, Δy, Δr, and Δθ, respectively. Similar results were also reported by Filho et al.[25] and Assunção et al.[26] They found that the accuracy of impression with 25° implant is less than parallel implant. Assuncao et al.[13] observed a lower accuracy for implants with 25° of angulation in comparison with implants whose angulations were 0°, 10°, and 15°.

In the present study, the accuracy of implant impression with 15° angulation was less than 0° and 10° in Δθ. Therefore, it can be concluded that vertical discrepancy of implant impression is more than horizontal discrepancy.[22]

Sorrentino et al.[16] concluded that the implant angulation increases undercuts and may produce strains of impressions due to higher forces required for the impression removal.

Alexander Hazboun et al.[27] reported no significant difference in the accuracy of implants with 15° and 30° of angulation. Geramipanah et al.[28] reported that the accuracy of 20° and 30° implants is similar. These results are in contrast with the results of the present study.

This study showed no significant difference between the accuracy of impressions with 0°, 10°, and 15° implants in Δx, Δy, and Δr. This is similar to findings of Carr,[4] Conrad et al.,[19] and Reddy et al.[29] that reported an increase of angulation up to 15° has no effect on the impression accuracy. However, Choi et al.[18] reported no angulation effect on the accuracy of impressions with divergence up to 8°. Jo et al.[20] concluded that the accuracy of the implant cast is not different for the parallel and 10° angulated implants.

A significant difference was not observed for the interaction of impression technique and angulation in this study. This is in agreement with Conrad et al.[19] and Alexander Hazboun et al.[27]

As an advantage of this study, a reference model with teeth was used. This increased the generalizability to clinical situations that undercut teeth may affect the accuracy of impression. Furthermore, a sufficient number of implants were examined, and asymmetrical angles of implants were used on two sides of the arch. Another advantage was using an accurate method of three-dimensional measurement (the CMM).

The authors suggest to perform a similar study by preparing the casts at conditions similar to human mouth temperature and moisture as a future research.


  Conclusion Top


Within the limitations of this study, it was concluded that:

  1. The snap-on technique is less accurate than the open-tray technique in linear and angular displacements
  2. In linear (Δx, Δy, and Δr) directions, since the accuracy of 25° angulated implant is significantly lower than that of implants with 0°, 10°, and 15° angulation, up to 15° difference of implant angulation has no effect on implant impression accuracy
  3. In angular (Δx, Δy, and Δr) direction, because the accuracy of 15° and 25° angulated implants are significantly less than the accuracy of 0° and 10° angulated implants, an implant angulation difference of up to 10° does not affect the implant impression accuracy.


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 non-financial in this article.



 
  References Top

1.
Carr AB. Comparison of impression techniques for a five-implant mandibular model. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991;6:448-55.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Lee H, So JS, Hochstedler JL, Ercoli C. The accuracy of implant impressions: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2008;100:285-91.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Wenz HJ, Hertrampf K. Accuracy of impressions and casts using different implant impression techniques in a multi-implant system with an internal hex connection. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:39-47.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Carr AB. Comparison of impression techniques for a two-implant 15-degree divergent model. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7:468-75.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Ebadian B, Rismanchian M, Dastgheib B, Bajoghli F. Effect of different impression materials and techniques on the dimensional accuracy of implant definitive casts. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2015;12:136-43.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Nissan J, Ghelfan O. The press-fit implant impression coping technique. J Prosthet Dent 2009;101:413-4.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Akça K, Cehreli MC. Accuracy of 2 impression techniques for ITI implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19:517-23.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Cehreli MC, Akça K. Impression techniques and misfit-induced strains on implant-supported superstructures: An in vitro study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2006;26:379-85.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Nakhaei M, Madani AS, Moraditalab A, Haghi HR. Three-dimensional accuracy of different impression techniques for dental implants. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2015;12:431-7.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Balamurugan T, Manimaran P. Evaluation of accuracy of direct transfer snapon impression coping closed tray impression technique and direct transfer open tray impression technique: An in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2013;13:226-32.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Fernandez MA, Paez de Mendoza CY, Platt JA, Levon JA, Hovijitra ST, Nimmo A, et al. A comparative study of the accuracy between plastic and metal impression transfer copings for implant restorations. J Prosthodont 2013;22:367-76.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Walker MP, Ries D, Borello B. Implant cast accuracy as a function of impression techniques and impression material viscosity. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:669-74.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Assuncao WG, Filho HG, Zaniquelli O. Evaluation of transfer impressions for osseointegrated implants at various angulations. Implant Dent 2004;13:358-66.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Mpikos P, Kafantaris N, Tortopidis D, Galanis C, Kaisarlis G, Koidis P, et al. The effect of impression technique and implant angulation on the impression accuracy of external- and internal-connection implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:1422-8.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Akalin ZF, Ozkan YK, Ekerim A. Effects of implant angulation, impression material, and variation in arch curvature width on implant transfer model accuracy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:149-57.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Sorrentino R, Gherlone EF, Calesini G, Zarone F. Effect of implant angulation, connection length, and impression material on the dimensional accuracy of implant impressions: An in vitro comparative study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010;12 Suppl 1:e63-76.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Jang HK, Kim S, Shim JS, Lee KW, Moon HS. Accuracy of impressions for internal-connection implant prostheses with various divergent angles. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:1011-5.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Choi JH, Lim YJ, Yim SH, Kim CW. Evaluation of the accuracy of implant-level impression techniques for internal-connection implant prostheses in parallel and divergent models. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22:761-8.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Conrad HJ, Pesun IJ, DeLong R, Hodges JS. Accuracy of two impression techniques with angulated implants. J Prosthet Dent 2007;97:349-56.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Jo SH, Kim KI, Seo JM, Song KY, Park JM, Ahn SG, et al. Effect of impression coping and implant angulation on the accuracy of implant impressions: An in vitro study. J Adv Prosthodont 2010;2:128-33.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Lee SJ, Cho SB. Accuracy of five implant impression technique: Effect of splinting materials and methods. J Adv Prosthodont 2011;3:177-85.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Jemt T, Book K. Prosthesis misfit and marginal bone loss in edentulous implant patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:620-5.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Ma T, Nicholls JI, Rubenstein JE. Tolerance measurements of various implant components. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12:371-5.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Alikhasi M, Siadat H, Monzavi A, Momen-Heravi F. Three-dimensional accuracy of implant and abutment level impression techniques: Effect on marginal discrepancy. J Oral Implantol 2011;37:649-57.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Filho HG, Mazaro JV, Vedovatto E, Assunção WG, dos Santos PH. Accuracy of impression techniques for implants. Part 2 - comparison of splinting techniques. J Prosthodont 2009;18:172-6.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Assunção WG, Tabata LF, Cardoso A, Rocha EP, Gomes EA. Prosthetic transfer impression accuracy evaluation for osseointegrated implants. Implant Dent 2008;17:248-56.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Alexander Hazboun GB, Masri R, Romberg E, Kempler J, Driscoll CF. Effect of implant angulation and impression technique on impressions of nobelActive implants. J Prosthet Dent 2015;113:425-31.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Geramipanah F, Sahebi M, Davari M, Hajimahmoudi M, Rakhshan V. Effects of impression levels and trays on the accuracy of impressions taken from angulated implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:1098-105.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Reddy S, Prasad K, Vakil H, Jain A, Chowdhary R. Accuracy of impressions with different impression materials in angulated implants. Niger J Clin Pract 2013;16:279-84.  Back to cited text no. 29
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 3], [Table 2]



 

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
    Viewed72    
    Printed4    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded22    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal