Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of implant locations on the stress around the two different attachment systems in mandibular two-implant overdentures.Materials and Methods: The data obtained from Visible Human Project were modified with the use of VRMESH and Rhinoceros 4.0 software to establish a 3D mandible model with 2 mm cortical bone covering the trabecular bone and 2 mm mucosae. 3D models (totally 6 models) of mandibular two-implant overdenture were designed according to different implant locations [lateral-lateral (LL), lateral-canine (LC), lateral-first premolar (LP)] and attachment systems [ball (BA), locator (LA)]. Foodstuff was used for occlusal loading (100N) and to simulate different biting configurations, foodstuff was positioned on incisors (anterior) and between the second premolar and first molar (posterior) bilaterally. The finite element analysis was performed by ALGOR FEMPRO software and von Mises stresses on attachments were evaluated.Results: For symmetric configuration (LL), there was more von Mises stress on BA compared to LA when foodstuff was positioned posteriorly. For asymmetric configurations (LC and LP), when the implant in the asymmetric side was positioned more posteriorly, von Mises stresses increased on both BA and LA of the implant positioned in the opposite side. In LC configuration, on BA higher von Mises stresses detected when compared to LA, whereas in LP configuration the higher stresses determined on LA when foodstuff was positioned posteriorly.Conclusions: In LL and LP configurations, LA showed lower stresses, which should lead the clinician to choose the appropriate attachment system according to the individual clinical situation
References
- Mericske-Stern RD, Taylor TD, Belser U. Management of the edentulous patient. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11 Suppl 1:108-125
- Allen PF, McMillan AS. A review of the functional and psychosocial outcomes of edentulousness treated with complete replacement dentures. J Can Dent Assoc 2003;69:662.
- Tomruk CÖ, Özkurt Z, Şençift K, Kazazoğlu E. İmplant destekli overdenture ve klasik tam protezlerin hasta memnuniyeti açısından karşılaştırılması. Cumhuriyet Dent J 2013;16:8-19.
- Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, Chehade A, Duncan WJ, Gizani S, et al. The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Montreal, Quebec, May 24-25, 2002. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:601-602.
- British Society for the Study of Prosthetic Dentistry. The York consensus statement on implant-supported overdentures. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2009;17:164-165.
- Bilhan H, Geckili O, Mumcu E, Bilmenoglu C. Maintenance requirements associated with mandibular implant overdentures: clinical results after first year of service. J Oral Implantol 2011;37:697-704.
- Botega DM, Mesquita MF, Henriques GE, Vaz LG. Retention force and fatigue strength of overdenture attachment systems. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31:884-889.
- Cekiç C, Akça K, Cehreli MC. Effects of attachment design on strains around implants supporting overdentures. Quintessence Int 2007;38:e291-297.
- Heckmann SM, Schrott A, Graef F, Wichmann MG, Weber HP. Mandibular two-implant telescopic overdentures. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:560-569.
- Kulak-Özkan Y. Tam protezler ve implant üstü hareketli protezlerde problemler ve çözüm yolları. İstanbul: Vestiyer Yayıncılık 2012:291-427.
- 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;12:209-218.
- Uludag B, Polat S. İmplant destekli overdenture uygulamalarında kullanılan tutucular. Türkiye Klinikleri J Dental Sci-Special Topics 2010;1:80-86.
- Geçkili O, Bural C, Bilmenoğlu Ç. İmplant destekli tam protezlerde kullanılan tutucu sistemler. EÜ Dişhek Fak Derg 2010;31:9-18.
- Petropoulos VC, Mante FK. Comparison of retention and strain energies of stud attachments for implant overdentures. J Prosthodont 2011;20:286-293.
- Misch CE. Dental Implant Prosthetics. St. Louis: Elsevier Mosby, 2005:98-256.
- Uludağ B. Hassas Tutucular İmplant Vakalarında Sorunlar ve Çözümler. İstanbul: Ada Ofset Matbaacılık, 2012:107-113
- Walton JN. A randomized clinical trial comparing two mandibular implant overdenture designs: 3-year prosthetic outcomes using a six-field protocol. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:255-60.
- Asvanund C, Morgano SM. Restoration of unfavorably positioned implants for a partially endentulous patient by using an overdenture retained with a milled bar and attachments: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91:6-10.
- Burns DR, Unger JW, Elswick RK Jr, Beck DA. Prospective clinical evaluation of mandibular implant overdentures: Part I--Retention, stability, and tissue response. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73:354-363.
- Geertman ME, van Waas MA, van 't Hof MA, Kalk W. Denture satisfaction in a comparative study of implant-retained mandibular overdentures: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:194-200.
- Hong HR, Pae A, Kim Y, Paek J, Kim HS, Kwon KR. Effect of implant position, angulation, and attachment height on peri-implant bone stress associated with mandibular two-implant overdentures: a finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:e69-76.
- Doukas D, Michelinakis G, Smith PW, Barclay CW. The influence of interimplant distance and attachment type on the retention characteristics of mandibular overdentures on 2 implants: 6-month fatigue retention values. Int J Prosthodont 2008;21:152-4.
- Daas M, Dubois G, Bonnet AS, Lipinski P, Rignon-Bret C. A complete finite element model of a mandibular implant-retained overdenture with two implants: comparison between rigid and resilient attachment configurations. Med Eng Phys 2008;30:218-225.
- Savadi RC, Goyal C. Study of biomechanics of porous coated root from implant using overdenture attachment: A 3D FEA. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2010;10:168-175
- ZEST Anchors LLC.: LOCATOR® Attachment product sheet. CA, USA, 2011
- Krennmair G, Seemann R, Fazekas A, Ewers R, Piehslinger E. Patient preference and satisfaction with implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or locator attachments: a crossover clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:1560-1568
- Vogel RC. Implant overdentures: a new standard of care for edentulous patients current concepts and techniques. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2008;29:270-276
- Osman RB, Elkhadem AH, Ma S, Swain MV. Finite element analysis of a novel implant distribution to support maxillary overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:1-10.
- Bonnet AS, Postaire M, Lipinski P. Biomechanical study of mandible bone supporting a four-implant retained bridge Finite element analysis of the influence of bone anisotropy and foodstuff position. Med Eng Phys 2009;31:806–815.
- Rutkunas V, Mizutani H, Takahashi H, Iwasaki N. Wear simulation effects on overdenture stud attachments. Dent Mater J 2011. [Epub ahead of print]
- Rutkunas V, Mizutani H, Takahashi H. Evaluation of stable retentive properties of overdenture attachments. Stomatologija 2005;7:115-20.
- Payne AG, Solomons YF. The prosthodontic maintenance requirements of mandibular mucosa-and implant-supported overdentures: a review of the literature. Int J Proshodont 2000;13:238-243.
- Akça K, Uysal S, Çehreli MC. Implant–tooth-supported fixed partial prostheses: correlations between in vivo occlusal bite forces and marginal bone reactions. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17:331-336.
- Akca K, Eser A, Eckert S, Cavusoglu Y, Cehreli MC. Immediate versus conventional loading of implant-supported maxillary overdentures: a finite element stress analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:e57-63.
- Çehreli M, Duyck J, De Cooman M, Puers R, Naert I. Implant design and interface force transfer.A photoelastic and strain-gauge analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15: 249-257.
- Eser A, Akça K, Eckert S, Cehreli MC. Nonlinear finite element analysis versus ex vivo strain gauge measurements on immediately loaded implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:439-46.
- Lang LA, Kang B, Wang RF, Lang BR. Finite element analysis to determine implant preload. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:539-546.
- Xia H, Wang M, Ma L, Zhou Y, Li Z, Wang Y. The effect of platform switching on stress in peri-implant bone in a condition of marginal bone resorption: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:e122-127.
- Ozan O ve Ramoglu S. Effect of implant height differences on different attachment types and peri-implant bone in mandibular two-implant overdentures: 3D finite element study. J Oral Implantol 2014 [Epub ahead of print].
- Menicucci G, Ceruti P, Barabino E, Screti A, Bignardi C, Preti G. A preliminary in vivo trial of load transfer in mandibular implant-retained overdentures anchored in 2 different ways: allowing and counteracting free rotation. Int J Prosthodont 2006;19:574-576.
- Liu J, Pan S, Dong J, Mo Z, Fan Y, Feng H. Influence of implant number on the biomechanical behaviour of mandibular implant-retained/supported overdentures: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Dent 2013;41:241-249.
- Hong HR, Choi DG, Baik J, Kwon KR. 3D finite element analysis of overdenture stability ans stress distribution on mandibular implant-retained overdenture. J Kor Acad Prosthodont 2007;45:633-643.
- John J, Rangarajan V, Savadi RC, Satheesh Kumar KS, Satheesh Kumar P. A finite element analysis of stress distribution in the bone, around the implant supporting a mandibular overdenture with ball/o ring and magnetic attachment. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2012;12:37-44.
- Manju V, Sreelal T. Mandibular implant-supported overdenture: an in vitro comparison of ball, bar, and magnetic attachments. J Oral Implantol 2013;39:302-307.
- Chen KW, Lin TM, Liu PR, Ramp LC, Lin HJ, Wu CT, Pan YH. An analysis of the implant-supported overdenture in the edentulous mandible. J Oral Rehabil 2013;40(1):43-50.
- Mericske-Stern R. Three-dimensional force measurements with mandibular overdentures connected to implants by ball-shaped retentive anchors. A clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:36-43.
Mandibular 2 implant destekli overdenture protezlerde ataşmanlar üzerine gelen streslerin değerlendirilmesi
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of implant locations on the stress around the two different attachment systems in mandibular two-implant overdentures.
Materials and Methods: The data obtained from Visible Human Project were modified with the use of VRMESH and Rhinoceros 4.0 software to establish a 3D mandible model with 2 mm cortical bone covering the trabecular bone and 2 mm mucosae. 3D models (totally 6 models) of mandibular two-implant overdenture were designed according to different implant locations [lateral-lateral(LL), lateral-canine(LC), lateral-first premolar(LP)] and attachment systems [ball(BA), locator(LA)]. Foodstuff was used for occlusal loading (100N) and to simulate different biting configurations, foodstuff was positioned on incisors (anterior) and between the second premolar and first molar (posterior) bilaterally. The finite element analysis was performed by ALGOR FEMPRO software and von Mises stresses on attachments were evaluated.
Results: For symmetric configuration (LL), there was more von Mises stress on BA compared to LA when foodstuff was positioned posteriorly. For asymmetric configurations (LC and LP), when the implant in the asymmetric side was positioned more posteriorly, von Mises stresses increased on both BA and LA of the implant positioned in the opposite side. In LC configuration, on BA higher von Mises stresses detected when compared to LA, whereas in LP configuration the higher stresses determined on LA when foodstuff was positioned posteriorly.
Conclusions: In LL and LP configurations, LA showed lower stresses, which should lead the clinician to choose the appropriate attachment system according to the individual clinical situation.
ÖZET
Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, mandibular 2 implant destekli overdenture protezlerde farklı lokalizasyonlarda yerleştirilmiş implant üzerindeki 2 farklı tip ataşmana gelen streslerin değerlendirilmesi.
Gereç ve Yöntem: “Visible Human Project” dataları VRMESH ve Rhinoceros 4.0 yazılımlarıyla, 2 mm mukoza ve 2 mm kortikal tarafından çevrelenmiş trabeküler kemik özelliklerine sahip 3 boyutlu (3B) mandibular modeli oluşturuldu. Mandibular 2 implant destekli overdenture protezi simüle eden 3B modeller (toplam 6 adet) farklı implant lokalizasyonları ve farklı ataşman sistemleri kullanılarak tasarlandı. Modeller üzerine oklüzal yüklemeler (100N), yarım yuvarlak sert materyal(YYSM) ile farklı fonksiyonel hareketleri (çiğneme, ısırma) simüle edebilmek için farklı konumlardan yapılmıştır. Sonlu elemanlar analizi ALGOR FEMPRO yazılımı ile yapılıp, ataşmanlara gelen stresler Von Mises değerleri ile değerlendirilmiştir..
Bulgular: Simetrik lokalizasyonlarda (LL), posterior bölgeden yapılan yüklemeler sonucunda BA’ya gelen stresler LA’ya gelen streslerden daha fazladır. Asimetrik konfigürasyonlarda (LC ve LP), sol taraftaki implant posteriora doğru konumlandıkça, diğer tarafta bulunan implant üzerindeki hem BA hem de LA’da Von Mises stresleri artmıştır. YYSM posterior yerleştirildiğinde, LC konfigürasyonunda BA’da, LA’ya göre daha yüksek Von Mises stresleri gözlenirken, LP konfigürasyonlarda LA’da daha yüksek stresler tespit edilmiştir
Sonuçlar: LL ve LP konfigürasyonlarında, LA daha düşük stres değerleri göstermiştir. Bu sonuç, klinisyenlere implant destekli overdenture protez yaparken seçecekleri ataşman türü hakkında öncülük edecektir.
References
- Mericske-Stern RD, Taylor TD, Belser U. Management of the edentulous patient. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11 Suppl 1:108-125
- Allen PF, McMillan AS. A review of the functional and psychosocial outcomes of edentulousness treated with complete replacement dentures. J Can Dent Assoc 2003;69:662.
- Tomruk CÖ, Özkurt Z, Şençift K, Kazazoğlu E. İmplant destekli overdenture ve klasik tam protezlerin hasta memnuniyeti açısından karşılaştırılması. Cumhuriyet Dent J 2013;16:8-19.
- Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, Chehade A, Duncan WJ, Gizani S, et al. The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Montreal, Quebec, May 24-25, 2002. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:601-602.
- British Society for the Study of Prosthetic Dentistry. The York consensus statement on implant-supported overdentures. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2009;17:164-165.
- Bilhan H, Geckili O, Mumcu E, Bilmenoglu C. Maintenance requirements associated with mandibular implant overdentures: clinical results after first year of service. J Oral Implantol 2011;37:697-704.
- Botega DM, Mesquita MF, Henriques GE, Vaz LG. Retention force and fatigue strength of overdenture attachment systems. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31:884-889.
- Cekiç C, Akça K, Cehreli MC. Effects of attachment design on strains around implants supporting overdentures. Quintessence Int 2007;38:e291-297.
- Heckmann SM, Schrott A, Graef F, Wichmann MG, Weber HP. Mandibular two-implant telescopic overdentures. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:560-569.
- Kulak-Özkan Y. Tam protezler ve implant üstü hareketli protezlerde problemler ve çözüm yolları. İstanbul: Vestiyer Yayıncılık 2012:291-427.
- 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;12:209-218.
- Uludag B, Polat S. İmplant destekli overdenture uygulamalarında kullanılan tutucular. Türkiye Klinikleri J Dental Sci-Special Topics 2010;1:80-86.
- Geçkili O, Bural C, Bilmenoğlu Ç. İmplant destekli tam protezlerde kullanılan tutucu sistemler. EÜ Dişhek Fak Derg 2010;31:9-18.
- Petropoulos VC, Mante FK. Comparison of retention and strain energies of stud attachments for implant overdentures. J Prosthodont 2011;20:286-293.
- Misch CE. Dental Implant Prosthetics. St. Louis: Elsevier Mosby, 2005:98-256.
- Uludağ B. Hassas Tutucular İmplant Vakalarında Sorunlar ve Çözümler. İstanbul: Ada Ofset Matbaacılık, 2012:107-113
- Walton JN. A randomized clinical trial comparing two mandibular implant overdenture designs: 3-year prosthetic outcomes using a six-field protocol. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:255-60.
- Asvanund C, Morgano SM. Restoration of unfavorably positioned implants for a partially endentulous patient by using an overdenture retained with a milled bar and attachments: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91:6-10.
- Burns DR, Unger JW, Elswick RK Jr, Beck DA. Prospective clinical evaluation of mandibular implant overdentures: Part I--Retention, stability, and tissue response. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73:354-363.
- Geertman ME, van Waas MA, van 't Hof MA, Kalk W. Denture satisfaction in a comparative study of implant-retained mandibular overdentures: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:194-200.
- Hong HR, Pae A, Kim Y, Paek J, Kim HS, Kwon KR. Effect of implant position, angulation, and attachment height on peri-implant bone stress associated with mandibular two-implant overdentures: a finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:e69-76.
- Doukas D, Michelinakis G, Smith PW, Barclay CW. The influence of interimplant distance and attachment type on the retention characteristics of mandibular overdentures on 2 implants: 6-month fatigue retention values. Int J Prosthodont 2008;21:152-4.
- Daas M, Dubois G, Bonnet AS, Lipinski P, Rignon-Bret C. A complete finite element model of a mandibular implant-retained overdenture with two implants: comparison between rigid and resilient attachment configurations. Med Eng Phys 2008;30:218-225.
- Savadi RC, Goyal C. Study of biomechanics of porous coated root from implant using overdenture attachment: A 3D FEA. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2010;10:168-175
- ZEST Anchors LLC.: LOCATOR® Attachment product sheet. CA, USA, 2011
- Krennmair G, Seemann R, Fazekas A, Ewers R, Piehslinger E. Patient preference and satisfaction with implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or locator attachments: a crossover clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:1560-1568
- Vogel RC. Implant overdentures: a new standard of care for edentulous patients current concepts and techniques. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2008;29:270-276
- Osman RB, Elkhadem AH, Ma S, Swain MV. Finite element analysis of a novel implant distribution to support maxillary overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:1-10.
- Bonnet AS, Postaire M, Lipinski P. Biomechanical study of mandible bone supporting a four-implant retained bridge Finite element analysis of the influence of bone anisotropy and foodstuff position. Med Eng Phys 2009;31:806–815.
- Rutkunas V, Mizutani H, Takahashi H, Iwasaki N. Wear simulation effects on overdenture stud attachments. Dent Mater J 2011. [Epub ahead of print]
- Rutkunas V, Mizutani H, Takahashi H. Evaluation of stable retentive properties of overdenture attachments. Stomatologija 2005;7:115-20.
- Payne AG, Solomons YF. The prosthodontic maintenance requirements of mandibular mucosa-and implant-supported overdentures: a review of the literature. Int J Proshodont 2000;13:238-243.
- Akça K, Uysal S, Çehreli MC. Implant–tooth-supported fixed partial prostheses: correlations between in vivo occlusal bite forces and marginal bone reactions. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17:331-336.
- Akca K, Eser A, Eckert S, Cavusoglu Y, Cehreli MC. Immediate versus conventional loading of implant-supported maxillary overdentures: a finite element stress analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:e57-63.
- Çehreli M, Duyck J, De Cooman M, Puers R, Naert I. Implant design and interface force transfer.A photoelastic and strain-gauge analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15: 249-257.
- Eser A, Akça K, Eckert S, Cehreli MC. Nonlinear finite element analysis versus ex vivo strain gauge measurements on immediately loaded implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:439-46.
- Lang LA, Kang B, Wang RF, Lang BR. Finite element analysis to determine implant preload. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:539-546.
- Xia H, Wang M, Ma L, Zhou Y, Li Z, Wang Y. The effect of platform switching on stress in peri-implant bone in a condition of marginal bone resorption: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:e122-127.
- Ozan O ve Ramoglu S. Effect of implant height differences on different attachment types and peri-implant bone in mandibular two-implant overdentures: 3D finite element study. J Oral Implantol 2014 [Epub ahead of print].
- Menicucci G, Ceruti P, Barabino E, Screti A, Bignardi C, Preti G. A preliminary in vivo trial of load transfer in mandibular implant-retained overdentures anchored in 2 different ways: allowing and counteracting free rotation. Int J Prosthodont 2006;19:574-576.
- Liu J, Pan S, Dong J, Mo Z, Fan Y, Feng H. Influence of implant number on the biomechanical behaviour of mandibular implant-retained/supported overdentures: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Dent 2013;41:241-249.
- Hong HR, Choi DG, Baik J, Kwon KR. 3D finite element analysis of overdenture stability ans stress distribution on mandibular implant-retained overdenture. J Kor Acad Prosthodont 2007;45:633-643.
- John J, Rangarajan V, Savadi RC, Satheesh Kumar KS, Satheesh Kumar P. A finite element analysis of stress distribution in the bone, around the implant supporting a mandibular overdenture with ball/o ring and magnetic attachment. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2012;12:37-44.
- Manju V, Sreelal T. Mandibular implant-supported overdenture: an in vitro comparison of ball, bar, and magnetic attachments. J Oral Implantol 2013;39:302-307.
- Chen KW, Lin TM, Liu PR, Ramp LC, Lin HJ, Wu CT, Pan YH. An analysis of the implant-supported overdenture in the edentulous mandible. J Oral Rehabil 2013;40(1):43-50.
- Mericske-Stern R. Three-dimensional force measurements with mandibular overdentures connected to implants by ball-shaped retentive anchors. A clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:36-43.
Details
| Primary Language | Turkish |
|---|---|
| Journal Section | Original Research Articles |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | February 28, 2014 |
| Submission Date | February 28, 2014 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2014Volume: 17 Issue: 3 |
Cumhuriyet Dental Journal (Cumhuriyet Dent J, CDJ) is the official publication of Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry. CDJ is an international journal dedicated to the latest advancement of dentistry. The aim of this journal is to provide a platform for scientists and academicians all over the world to promote, share, and discuss various new issues and developments in different areas of dentistry. First issue of the Journal of Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry was published in 1998. In 2010, journal's name was changed as Cumhuriyet Dental Journal. Journal’s publication language is English.
CDJ accepts articles in English. Submitting a paper to CDJ is free of charges. In addition, CDJ has not have article processing charges.
Frequency: Four times a year (March, June, September, and December)
IMPORTANT NOTICE
All users of Cumhuriyet Dental Journal should visit to their user's home page through the "https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/user" " or "https://dergipark.org.tr/en/user" links to update their incomplete information shown in blue or yellow warnings and update their e-mail addresses and information to the DergiPark system. Otherwise, the e-mails from the journal will not be seen or fall into the SPAM folder. Please fill in all missing part in the relevant field.
Please visit journal's AUTHOR GUIDELINE to see revised policy and submission rules to be held since 2020.