Atormac
Home  -  About us  -  Editorial board  -  Search  -  Ahead of print  -  Current issue  -  Archives  -  Instructions  -  Subscribe  -  Contacts  -  Advertise - Login 
 
 
     

 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 77-81

Routine removal of the plate after surgical treatment for mandibular angle fracture with a third molar in relation to the fracture line


Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-cho, Kashihara, Nara 634-8522, Japan

Date of Web Publication20-Jul-2015

Correspondence Address:
Kazuhiko Yamamoto
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-cho, Kashihara, Nara 634-8522
Japan
Login to access the Email id


DOI: 10.4103/2231-0746.161077

PMID: 26389039

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

Purpose: The purpose was to analyze the clinical course of surgically treated mandibular angle fractures from the viewpoint of routine removal of the plate because these fractures are associated with high rates of complications and plate removal. Subjects and Methods: The subjects were 40 patients with unilateral mandibular angle fracture, which was intraorally reduced and principally fixed with a single miniplate on the external oblique ridge. The third molar in relation to the fracture line was extracted in seven patients during the surgery. Clinical course was evaluated in terms of removal of the plate, preservation of the third molar and complications. Results: One patient showed a wound infection postoperatively, and two patients developed pericoronitis during the follow-up. These were managed with medication and local irrigation. One patient with a preserved third molar did not make a required visit and was lost from the follow-up. Removal of the plates was performed in 39 patients after confirmation of good fracture healing, mostly within a year. Twenty-four of 32 preserved third molars were simultaneously extracted. These procedures were generally performed under local anesthesia on an outpatient basis, and they did not cause any complications. Conclusions: Routine removal of the plate after surgical treatment for mandibular angle fractures, simultaneously with extraction of the third molar if indicated, may be beneficial to avoid complications related to the plate and the third molar later in life.

Keywords: Fixation, fracture, mandibular angle, miniplate, third molar


How to cite this article:
Yamamoto K, Matsusue Y, Horita S, Murakami K, Sugiura T, Kirita T. Routine removal of the plate after surgical treatment for mandibular angle fracture with a third molar in relation to the fracture line. Ann Maxillofac Surg 2015;5:77-81

How to cite this URL:
Yamamoto K, Matsusue Y, Horita S, Murakami K, Sugiura T, Kirita T. Routine removal of the plate after surgical treatment for mandibular angle fracture with a third molar in relation to the fracture line. Ann Maxillofac Surg [serial online] 2015 [cited 2019 Oct 22];5:77-81. Available from: http://www.amsjournal.com/text.asp?2015/5/1/77/161077


  Introduction Top


Mandibular angle fractures are commonly encountered in the practice of oral and maxillofacial surgery. Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is one of the treatments of choice. Simple (linear) mandibular angle fractures are primarily treated via an intraoral approach. Fixation by miniplate is generally made on the external oblique ridge along the ideal osteosynthesis line proposed by Champy et al. [1] This technique provides stable fixation with minimum intervention and results in good postoperative healing. The plate used for fixation is usually left after surgery because it has been previously thought that these plates seldom cause complications requiring surgical intervention. [2],[3] However, a plate left in this area could be exposed or could be a focus of infection because the external oblique ridge is covered with mobile mucosa close to the molar teeth, which lack an adequate width of attached gingiva. In addition, a third molar present in this area is known to develop pathologic conditions like pericoronitis. [4],[5] If pericoronitis occurs after surgery, the plate is definitely involved and can be an obstacle in managing the condition. Therefore, we routinely remove the plates after healing of the fracture. This procedure is principally performed under local anesthesia. A third molar preserved at the surgery can be removed simultaneously with the plate.

In this report, we presented our experiences with the routine removal of the plate after surgical treatment for mandibular angle fractures with a third molar in relation with the fracture line, and we discussed the benefits of this procedure.


  Subjects and Methods Top


Forty patients treated with ORIF for mandibular angle fractures at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery were the subjects of the study. Data from these patients were obtained from their clinical records and radiographs, and records were retrospectively analyzed. The criteria for inclusion of the subjects were patients who had simple mandibular angle fractures with a third molar in relation to the fracture line. Patients with associated fractures at the symphyseal or body region of the mandible, which were also treated with ORIF, were included. However, patients with condylar or ramal fractures and bilateral or comminuted angle fractures, as well as those without stable occlusion or using a removable denture, were excluded. This study protocol was approved by the university's institutional review board, in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Fractures were treated under general anesthesia via nasal intubation. A preadapted arch bar was secured first in the maxillary arch. In cases with a single mandibular angle fracture, a preadapted arch bar was then secured in the mandibular arch. If there were any fractures in the symphyseal or body region, these were reduced and fixed with miniplates, as previously described. [6] Then, the fracture of the mandibular angle was exposed and reduced properly. A single titanium miniplate was placed on the external oblique ridge of the mandible and fixed with miniscrews under maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) after confirmation of appropriate occlusion. If fixation with single miniplate was not stable enough, another plate was placed on the lateral aspect of the superior border. Third molars were typically preserved unless they were an obstacle to reduction or in a pathologic state. After the release of MMF, occlusion and mandibular movements were checked. The wounds were then closed by suture.

After surgery, MMF was not performed principally, and only elastics were used for occlusal guidance if necessary. Oral hygiene was checked twice a day until the discharge of the patients. Rehabilitation for active mandibular movements was started 2 weeks after the surgery. The patients were clinically and radiologically checked with regular follow-ups. Unfavorable events, such as infection of the surgical wound, plate exposure and pathology related to the plates and/or the third molar were monitored. Removal of the plates was scheduled after confirmation of bone healing and was principally performed between 6 months and a year, under local anesthesia, on an outpatient basis. Third molars preserved at the surgery sites were removed simultaneously with the plates if they were likely to be involved in pathologic conditions, like pericoronitis, later in life.


  Results Top


The patient pool included 31 males and nine females. Their ages ranged from 15 to 44 years, with an average age of 22.5 years. Causes of the fractures included traffic accidents in 16 patients, assault in 13 patients, sports in eight patients, and falls in three. Fifteen patients had isolated mandibular angle fractures, and 25 had accompanying fractures at the symphysis or body of the mandible. The third molar was impacted or covered with mucosa in 34 patients and erupted in six patients. ORIF was performed under general anesthesia, as described above. The duration between the injury and the surgery ranged from four to 18 days, with the average of 10.1 days. Single miniplate was used for fixation in 34 patients (85.0%), and two miniplates were used in six patients (15.0%). The third molar in relation to the fracture line was preserved in 33 patients (82.5%) and extracted in seven patients (17.5%). Postoperative courses were uneventful without dehiscence or infection of the surgical wound in most patients. One patient had a minor postoperative infection and was managed by medication and local irrigation. At the regular follow-up, no complications requiring surgical intervention had developed in any patients. One patient with a preserved third molar did not make a required visit 2 months after surgery and was lost from regular follow-up. Pericoronitis developed in the third molar in relation to the fracture line in two patients. Both cases were not severe and controlled by medication and local irrigation. Osteosynthesis of the fracture was confirmed by panoramic X-ray examination. Removal of the plates was performed in 39 patients from 5 months to 16 months after surgery, with the average removal time of 8.9 months. The plates fixed for fractures at the body and the symphysis were also removed together with those at the angle fracture. Twenty-eight patients were treated under local anesthesia with sedation. Eleven patients were treated under general anesthesia at their request or for other reasons. All plates were removed without difficulty. The third molar in relation to the fracture line was present in 32 patients at the time of plate removal. Twenty-four of these molars (75.0%) were extracted simultaneously with the plate. The preserved third molars in eight patients were functionally or asymptomatically impacted. Clinical course after removal of the plate and simultaneous extraction of the third molar was uneventful, with no complications.


  Discussion Top


Several factors should be considered in the surgical treatment for mandibular angle fractures, such as the route of approach, the choice of osteosynthesis materials and the number and site of their placement. In addition, a determination must be made whether the third molar is to be extracted or preserved, according to the condition, if it is present in relation to the fracture line. [7],[8],[9] However, removal of the plate after bone healing has not been a primary focus of debate. In the present study, we evaluated the clinical course of routine removal of the plate after surgical treatment for mandibular angle fracture with a third molar in relation to the fracture line, and we discussed the benefits of this procedure, considering the anatomical and physiological characteristics of the mandibular angle region.

There have been many studies concerned with the fixation method used for mandibular angle fractures. [8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19] Some researchers have advocated the use of two miniplates, one on the external oblique ridge and the other on the lower border of the mandible, to obtain stable fixation based on biomechanical studies. [20],[21],[22] However, Ellis and Walker reported high complication rates in cases intraorally fixed with two miniplates. [23] Since then, several studies have been conducted. [8],[10],[11],[24] Recent studies have shown that fixation by single miniplate is superior to that by two miniplates, with a lower rate of complications. [8],[25],[26],[27],[28] We used a single miniplate fixation on the external oblique ridge in accordance with this principle. This fixation is stable enough with minimum intervention.

Removal of the third molar in relation to the fracture line is sometimes necessary at the time of surgery. [29] Criteria for removal are indicated by Ellis [7] as the following: Fractured teeth, pericoronal/periodontal infection, gross caries, tooth mobility, exposure of the apical half or more of the root (including the apex), and inability to reduce the fracture without tooth removal. Our criteria are principally the same. However, in the present study, only seven out of 40 third molars were extracted at the time of surgery, a rate much smaller than in previous studies. [7],[9] This result, in part, is attributed to the relatively good conditions of the third molars in our patients. Although most of the third molars, in relation to the fracture line, were nonfunctional and indicative for removal at surgery, preservation of the third molar may have contributed to the stability of the bone fragment and reduced the dead space susceptible to infection. [30] Therefore, preservation may have been favorable for fracture healing. On the other hand, preserved third molars may develop pathologic conditions, like pericoronitis, later in life, even though the conditions of these same molar were outside the criteria for removal at the time of surgery. Therefore, some authors recommend a vigilant follow-up to monitor such potentially unfavorable events. [2],[31]

There have been several studies as to the removal of the plates after healing of the mandibular fractures. [2],[3],[32],[33],[34],[35],[36],[37],[38],[39] Most of these studies have concluded that routine removal of the plates is not necessary because complication rates are relatively low. These studies have suggested the removal of symptomatic plates only. [3],[33],[35],[39] However, postoperative complications are higher in mandibular angle fracture compared with those in a fracture at other sites of the mandible. [2],[11],[29],[30],[40],[41],[42] Therefore, removal of the plates is performed at higher rates in the mandibular angle region [2],[32],[33],[34],[35] because most of these plates are involved and/or related to the complications. [2],[8],[10],[43] Relatively higher rates of complications in this area are ascribed, in part, to the anatomical and physiological characteristics of the mandibular angle region. In mandibular fractures of the symphyseal or body region, plates are fixed below the mucogingival fold, with a broad width of attached gingiva. In such cases, rates of complications, including exposure and infection, related to the plates are considered low, unless there are unmanaged periapical and/or marginal periodontal lesions adjacent to the plates. However, the retromolar region is covered with mobile mucosa and is close to molar teeth lacking an adequate width of attached gingiva. [17],[28] Because of these characteristics, there may be a greater chance of complications such as plate exposure or infection. Therefore, it is reasonable to remove the plate, which becomes a foreign body after healing of the fracture and a possible cause of further trouble.

The third molar is known to be involved in pathologic conditions like pericoronitis at higher rates than other teeth; therefore, most of these are removed later in life, especially in the twenties and thirties, although there are no definite criteria for the removal. [4],[5] A third molar exposed in the surgical field of the fracture is considered more vulnerable to pathologic conditions because of damage to the periodontal tissue. If a third molar present at the time of plate removal is likely to be involved in pathologic conditions later in life, it is beneficial to remove it simultaneously with the plates, unless the procedure causes undue risk to the patient. [33]

In the present cases, all patients except one were followed-up with good compliance and underwent removal of their plate. Twenty-four of 32 third molars were simultaneously extracted at the time of plate removal because of the episode or possible involvement in pathologic conditions later in life. These procedures were minimally invasive and mostly performed under local anesthesia on an outpatient basis without high costs in time and morbidity [Figure 1]. Therefore, we consider that routine removal of the plate, simultaneously with extraction of the third molar if indicated, should be justified as a reasonable procedure and may be beneficial, taking into consideration the relatively high rate of plate-related complications in mandibular angle fractures, as well as the high extraction rates for the third molar due to pathologic conditions. However, it is difficult to determine how much these procedures contribute to the prevention of complications related to the plate and the third molar; therefore, further study is required to clarify the usefulness of these procedures.
Figure 1: Clinical and radiological findings of the representative case. Left: Before reduction. Middle: After reduction and fixation with two miniplates. Right: After removal of the plates and extraction of the third molar. Mandibular angle fracture was reduced and fixed with two miniplates preserving the third molar. The plates were removed simultaneously with extraction of the third molar 10 months later under local anesthesia

Click here to view


In summary, routine removal of the plate after surgical treatment for mandibular angle fractures was accomplished in 39 of 40 patients with good compliance. Twenty-four of 32 third molars present at the plate removal were simultaneously extracted. These procedures were minimally invasive and had low costs in time and morbidity. Therefore, routine removal of the plate after surgical treatment for mandibular angle fractures, simultaneously with extraction of the third molar if indicated, may be beneficial to avoid complications related to the plate and the third molar later in life.

 
  References Top

1.
Champy M, Loddé JP, Schmitt R, Jaeger JH, Muster D. Mandibular osteosynthesis by miniature screwed plates via a buccal approach. J Maxillofac Surg 1978;6:14-21.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Thorén H, Snäll J, Hallermann W, Kormi E, Törnwall J. Policy of routine titanium miniplate removal after maxillofacial trauma. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;66:1901-4.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
O'Connell J, Murphy C, Ikeagwuani O, Adley C, Kearns G. The fate of titanium miniplates and screws used in maxillofacial surgery: A 10 year retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;38:731-5.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Ventä I. How often do asymptomatic, disease-free third molars need to be removed? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;70:S41-7.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Offenbacher S, Beck JD, Moss KL, Barros S, Mendoza L, White RP Jr. What are the local and systemic implications of third molar retention? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;70:S58-65.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Yamamoto K, Matsusue Y, Horita S, Kirita T. Pre-adapted arch bar revisited for open reduction and internal fixation in mandibular fractures at tooth-bearing sites. Trauma Mon 2014;19:e18169.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Ellis E 3 rd . Outcomes of patients with teeth in the line of mandibular angle fractures treated with stable internal fixation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002;60:863-5.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Siddiqui A, Markose G, Moos KF, McMahon J, Ayoub AF. One miniplate versus two in the management of mandibular angle fractures: A prospective randomised study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;45:223-5.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Barry CP, Kearns GJ. Superior border plating technique in the management of isolated mandibular angle fractures: A retrospective study of 50 consecutive patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65:1544-9.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Ellis E 3 rd . Treatment methods for fractures of the mandibular angle. J Craniomaxillofac Trauma 1996;2:28-36.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Ellis E 3 rd . Treatment methods for fractures of the mandibular angle. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999;28:243-52.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Höfer SH, Ha L, Ballon A, Sader R, Landes C. Treatment of mandibular angle fractures-Linea obliqua plate versus grid plate. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2012;40:807-11.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Kang DR, Zide M. The 7-hole angle plate for mandibular angle fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013;71:327-34.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Khiabani KS, Mehmandoost MK. Transoral miniplate fixation of mandibular angle fracture with and without 2 weeks of maxillomandibular fixation: A clinical trial study. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 2013;6:107-14.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Pal US, Singh RK, Dhasmana S, Das S, Das SK. Use of 3-d plate in displaced angle fracture of mandible. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 2013;6:25-30.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Vineeth K, Lalitha RM, Prasad K, Ranganath K, Shwetha V, Singh J. A comparative evaluation between single noncompression titanium miniplate and three dimensional titanium miniplate in treatment of mandibular angle fracture - A randomized prospective study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2013;41:103-9.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Wan K, Williamson RA, Gebauer D, Hird K. Open reduction and internal fixation of mandibular angle fractures: Does the transbuccal technique produce fewer complications after treatment than the transoral technique? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;70:2620-8.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Xue AS, Koshy JC, Wolfswinkel EM, Weathers WM, Marsack KP, Hollier LH Jr. A prospective study of strut versus miniplate for fractures of mandibular angle. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 2013;6:191-6.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Mehra P, Murad H. Internal fixation of mandibular angle fractures: A comparison of 2 techniques. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;66:2254-60.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Choi BH, Yoo JH, Kim KN, Kang HS. Stability testing of a two miniplate fixation technique for mandibular angle fractures. An in vitro study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1995;23:123-5.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Kroon FH, Mathisson M, Cordey JR, Rahn BA. The use of miniplates in mandibular fractures. An in vitro study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1991;19:199-204.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Choi BH, Kim KN, Kang HS. Clinical and in vitro evaluation of mandibular angle fracture fixation with the two-miniplate system. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1995;79:692-5.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Ellis E 3 rd , Walker L. Treatment of mandibular angle fractures using two noncompression miniplates. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1994;52:1032-6.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Schierle HP, Schmelzeisen R, Rahn B, Pytlik C. One- or two-plate fixation of mandibular angle fractures? J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1997;25:162-8.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Gear AJ, Apasova E, Schmitz JP, Schubert W. Treatment modalities for mandibular angle fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005;63:655-63.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Regev E, Shiff JS, Kiss A, Fialkov JA. Internal fixation of mandibular angle fractures: A meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010;125:1753-60.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Danda AK. Comparison of a single noncompression miniplate versus 2 noncompression miniplates in the treatment of mandibular angle fractures: A prospective, randomized clinical trial. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;68:1565-7.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Al-Moraissi EA, Ellis E 3 rd . What method for management of unilateral mandibular angle fractures has the lowest rate of postoperative complications? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014;72:2197-211.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Bui P, Demian N, Beetar P. Infection rate in mandibular angle fractures treated with a 2.0-mm 8-hole curved strut plate. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;67:804-8.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Fox AJ, Kellman RM. Mandibular angle fractures: Two-miniplate fixation and complications. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2003;5:464-9.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Murthy AS, Lehman JA Jr. Symptomatic plate removal in maxillofacial trauma: A review of 76 cases. Ann Plast Surg 2005;55:603-7.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Bakathir AA, Margasahayam MV, Al-Ismaily MI. Removal of bone plates in patients with maxillofacial trauma: A retrospective study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;105:e32-7.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Rallis G, Mourouzis C, Papakosta V, Papanastasiou G, Zachariades N. Reasons for miniplate removal following maxillofacial trauma: A 4-year study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2006;34:435-9.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Chaushu G, Manor Y, Shoshani Y, Taicher S. Risk factors contributing to symptomatic plate removal in maxillofacial trauma patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000;105:521-5.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Bhatt V, Chhabra P, Dover MS. Removal of miniplates in maxillofacial surgery: A follow-up study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005;63:756-60.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Thorén H, Snäll J, Kormi E, Lindqvist C, Suominen-Taipale L, Törnwall J. Symptomatic plate removal after treatment of facial fractures. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2010;38:505-10.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Moore E, Bayrak S, Moody M, Key JM, Vural E. Hardware removal rates for mandibular angle fractures: Comparing the 8-hole strut and Champy plates. J Craniofac Surg 2013;24:163-5.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Nagase DY, Courtemanche DJ, Peters DA. Plate removal in traumatic facial fractures: 13-year practice review. Ann Plast Surg 2005;55:608-11.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Rauso R, Tartaro G, Stea S, Tozzi U, Biondi P. Plates removal in orthognathic surgery and facial fractures: When and why. J Craniofac Surg 2011;22:252-4.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Lamphier J, Ziccardi V, Ruvo A, Janel M. Complications of mandibular fractures in an urban teaching center. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003;61:745-9.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Feller KU, Schneider M, Hlawitschka M, Pfeifer G, Lauer G, Eckelt U. Analysis of complications in fractures of the mandibular angle - A study with finite element computation and evaluation of data of 277 patients. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2003;31:290-5.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Seemann R, Schicho K, Wutzl A, Koinig G, Poeschl WP, Krennmair G, et al. Complication rates in the operative treatment of mandibular angle fractures: A 10-year retrospective. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;68:647-50.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Choi BH, Kim HJ, Kim MK, Han SG, Huh JY, Kim BY, et al. Management of mandibular angle fractures using the mandibular angle reduction forceps. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005;34:257-61.  Back to cited text no. 43
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]


This article has been cited by
1 In vivo degradation of a new concept of magnesium-based rivet-screws in the minipig mandibular bone
Benoit Schaller,Nikola Saulacic,Stefan Beck,Thomas Imwinkelried,Bee Tin Goh,Ken Nakahara,Willy Hofstetter,Tateyuki Iizuka
Materials Science and Engineering: C. 2016; 69: 247
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

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
  Subjects and Methods
  Results
  Discussion
   References
   Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1581    
    Printed57    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded261    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal