Zhu et al.

Int Chin J Dent 2009; 9: 1-8.

A 3D finite element analysis of stress in the interphase ofrestoration-tooth structure due to polymerization shrinkage
Shuiwen Zhu, MS, Jianping Fan, PhD, and Cheng Wang, PhD
School of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Hubei
Key Laboratory for Engineering Structural Analysis and Safety Assessment, Wuhan, P. R. China
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to investigate the influence of interphase properties on restored tooth
structure due to polymerization shrinkage of resin-based composite.
Materials and Methods: A 3D finite element analysis was performed. The restoration-tooth interface wassimulated using solid elements of varying material properties and thicknesses. The stress within the restored
tooth structure built up from the polymerization shrinkage of the restorative composite was computed accounting
for the time-dependent and visco-elastic behavior of the composite.
Results: It was found that a correlation exists between material and geometry properties at the restoration-toothinterface and higher shrinkage stresses were located at the interphase due to polymerization shrinkage. The
development trend of residual stress from polymerization shrinkage in the restored-tooth structure was predicted.
Conclusion: The varying material and geometry properties of restoration-tooth interface seemed to have aconclusive effect on the interfacial stress system, as well as on the longevity of the restoration. From the purely
mechanical point of view, this can result in interfacial debonding. (Int Chin J Dent 2009; 9: 1-8.)
Key Words: composite restoration, finite element analysis, interphase, polymerization shrinkage.

Introduction
The demand for non-metal tooth restoration has grown considerably in recent years because of their goodworkability and esthetic appearance. Amongst the most popular alternatives to metal tooth restorations arecomposite resins and ceramic or composite inlays retained by an adhesive resin. Their main advantages are
better aesthetics, avoidance of mercury and lower cost effectiveness. Nonetheless, the stiffness of resin-based
composite restorations may vary greatly and does not fully match that of natural teeth. Some problems willappear when the teeth are under stressful conditions. Both polymerization shrinkage1-3 and cyclical loading4-6
can disorganize the restoration’s coherence.
The major drawback of these restoration techniques probably is the polymerization shrinkage of resin-based
composite during the curing process. Shrinkage associated with the polymerization of composite resins cangenerate considerable stresses in the surrounding tooth tissues. These shrinkage stresses may be confined within
the polymerized composite. It can also transfer into the bonding interphase, even the tooth structure, resulting in
unknown clinical consequences.7 When the bonding strength of the adhesive system is insufficient to resist thepolymerization shrinkage stress, a gap will develop at the bond interphase, causing marginal leakage of therestoration. On the other hand, although the bonding strength is sufficient to sustain the stress, the stress willtransmit to the tooth structure, leading to a cuspal deflection which may in turn result in postoperative
hypersensitivity or enamel fracture.8,9Shrinkage stresses are believed to develop mainly within the time periods of irradiation. Such stresses canhave a detrimental effect on the longevity of the restoration and the dentin-restoration interphase.10-13 The use of
low modulus restorative materials or the application of flexible adhesive linings has shown to render release ofsuch stresses, which can thus be adopted as a method to reduce composite restoration deterioration.2,3,14,15
However, utilization of low modulus filling materials is not always possible in stress-bearing areas, and therestoration has to be strong and wear resistant. Therefore, composites with high load-bearing capacity such as
high modulus must be used.16,17 A relatively thick bonding layer of 50-250 µm has been proven to be effective1

Zhu et al.

Int Chin J Dent 2009; 9: 1-8.

in leveling the mismatch of modulus values at the restoration-tooth interface.18,19 However, few research articles
have been found to optimize the Young's modulus and thickness of the restoration-tooth interphase, the purposeof which is to reduce shrinkage stresses.
The dimensions of the teeth differ from each other, and they exhibit large deviation from the standard meanvalues. The stress found from simplified laboratory test set-ups may not fully mimic that from the complex
clinical cases. For these reasons, different experimental measurements can hardly be compared fairly. However,
the influence of the restoration-tooth interface on the stress system generated in the tooth was of interest. The
development of tensile and/or shear stresses at the restoration-tooth interface can disrupt the adhesive bonding of
the restoration system to the cavity walls and have a detrimental effect on the longevity of the restoration. Finite
element analysis (FEA) software has been developed as a tool to investigate the magnitude and distribution ofstresses in complex geometries such as restored teeth. This clinical problem has been addressed in finite element
models, where variations in the material properties of restoration-tooth interface were investigated for theirinfluence on the stresses induced in the restoration-tooth structure.17,20 In this study, the mechanical behavior of
the enamel-dentin-composite interphase structure, subjected to polymerization shrinkage has been investigatedby means of 3D FEA.

This study aimed at optimizing the adhesive interphase thickness and flexibility(sufficient stress absorbency) using finite element method. By doing this procedure, we aim to prevent criticalinterfacial stresses that might lead to premature failure of the adhesively restored tooth due to polymerization
shrinkage.

Materials and Methods
Finite element model
The solid model of a human maxillary premolar was generated using literature data21 for dentin and enamelinternal volumes and morphologies, while the external shape of the maxillary central incisor was obtained bylaser based 3D digitizing (Cyberware Inc., Monterey, CA, USA) of a plaster cast (Tanaka Manufacturer, Tokyo,
Japan). The scanned profiles were assembled in a 3D wire frame structure using a 3D CAD (AutoCAD 2004,
Autodesk Inc., San Rafael, CA, USA). The wire frame curves were exported in a 3D parametric solid modeler(Solidworks 2008, Dassault Systemes, Paris, France). The space for the cavity preparation was also defined. It
should be pointed out that the pulp chamber of the tooth was omitted as a simplified calculation because of its
negligible stiffness. The restoration was assumed to be bulk filled in one step and fully bonded to the adjacent
tooth tissues by the interphase. Some assumptions were made in order to simply the calculations. Absolutebonding was considered among enamel, dentin, composite, and interphase.
The FEA model was obtained by importing the solid model into ANSYS rel. 10.0 FEM software (Ansys Inc.,
Houston, TX, USA) using IGES format. The volumes were redefined in the new environment and meshed with
4-node tetrahedral elements, finally resulting in a 3D FEA model (Fig. 1). All the nodes on the external surface
at the root part were constrained in all directions. Accuracy of the model was checked by convergence tests.
Particular attention was devoted to the refinement of the mesh resulting from the convergence tests at therestoration-tooth interfaces.

Different material properties were coupled with the elements and geometries

according to the volume material defined in Fig. 1 (enamel, dentin, composite, and interphase).
Material properties
All materials except the resin-based composite were considered as linear elastic behavior throughout the entire2

Zhu et al.

Int Chin J Dent 2009; 9: 1-8.

deformation, which is a reasonable assumption for brittle materials in non-failure conditions.22 Dentin is a linear
elastic and isotropic material while enamel is an elastic and anisotropic material, from a mechanical point ofview.17 However, the anisotropic enamel behavior was neglected in the present study because it has little
influence on mechanical behavior of enamel within macroscopic study. Therefore, enamel was assumed to behomogeneous and isotropic.23 Elastic modulus is 50 GPa for enamel and 18.6 GPa for dentin, whereas Poisson’s
ratio is 0.3 for enamel and 0.31 for dentin. Young’s modulus of the interphase was varied from 0.1 GPa to 50
GPa, corresponding to different clinical materials such as Adper Prompt L-Pop (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany),
Clearfil Protect Bond (Kuraray, Kurashiki, Japan), and Xeno III (Dentsply, Konstanz, Germany),24 and Poisson’s
ratio was set to 0.45 for different materials under consideration.
Enamel
2.5 mmComposite

Interphase

Dentin(a) 3D Finite element modelFig. 1.

(b) Restoration-tooth system

Three-dimensional finite element model of the restoration-tooth systems.

The polymerization shrinkage of the composite will generate stress fields within tooth structure, especiallywithin interphase. The data25 revealed that the stress-strain response is sensitive to the strain rate. Thisobservation suggests that the composite exhibits some sort of viscous behavior, coupled with elasticity. Thiskind of behavior can be described by means of a relatively simple model consisting of springs and dash-pots. It
has been shown that a generalized Maxwell-model consisting of only three sub-models is capable of reproducing
the material behavior for the restorative composite.26

Such model can be implemented easily under theframework of finite element analysis, and is therefore particularly useful for determination of the stress field
generated in tooth restoration through numerical simulation. In this study, the stress field generated by thepolymerization contraction was evaluated by a way taking the time-dependent and visco-elastic properties of thecomposite restoration into account.27,28 The curing time was sub-divided into a large number of small intervals,
while Young's modulus, the viscosity and the current polymerization shrinkage were determined for eachinterval. The properties of resin-based composite were determined as a function of time according to theprevious investigation29 for the restorative composite Clearfill P10. The model used in the present study,
together with the associated material properties, Young's modulus, viscosity and shrinkage, are listed in Table 1.
It was assumed the polymerization process of the composite finished in 900 seconds, according to theexperiment investigation.26

3

Zhu et al.

Int Chin J Dent 2009; 9: 1-8.

Table 1.

Time-dependent polymerization parameters for a chemical curing composite.

Time (s)E (MPa)η (GPa)

0
150
300
450
600
750
900

40
40
700
2140
3800
4600
5400

60
60
774
868.8
1104
2160
3222

Volume shrinkage (%)
0
1.25
1.93
2.20
2.31
2.37
2.41

Residual stresses due to polymerization
Polymerization shrinkage of resin-based composites cause residual stresses within restoration-tooth structure,
resulting in that the restored tooth is in stressed status even no applied loading after curing. The presence ofresidual stresses results in a changed behavior of the restored tooth, which may become evident for its clinicalperformance.

Clinical symptoms associated with the residual stress may include inadequate adoption,

microcrack propagation, microleakage and secondary caries.26 The residual stresses (von Mises equivalentstresses) were calculated by the FE method to account for the variations in restoration-tooth interphase material
properties and thicknesses. Here, two variations were considered: 1) Changing the material properties of theinterphase, Young's modulus Ei, while keeping the thicknesses of the interphase unchanged; and 2) Changing the
thicknesses of the interphase while fixing the material properties of the interphase, Young's modulus Ei.

Results
During the polymerization process, the development of the maximum shrinkage stress (von Mises equivalentstress) at different time obtained from the FE calculation are presented in Fig. 2 for studying the influence ofdifferent Young’s modulus of the interphase and different interphase thicknesses, respectively within 900 s,
interphase thickness was kept constant at 0.15 mm in Fig. 2a while Young’s modulus was kept unchanged at 10
GPa in Fig. 2b.
60

80
E=1.0

60

Max von Mises stress (MPa)Max von Mises stress (MPa)

E=0.1
E=10
E=20
40

20

0

D=0.1020

D=0.15
D=0.20D=0.25

0

0

300

600

900

0

t (s)

300

600

900

t (s)

(a)
Fig. 2.

40(b)Time histories of maximum von Mises stress generated in the interphase during the polymerization for(a) different Young’s modulus (D=0.15 mm), and (b) different interphase thicknesses (E=10 GPa).

These curves representing on-polymerizating processes of composite are usually S-shaped. Generally, thestress generation within the resin-based composite, the tooth and the interphase developed in three stages: 1)4

Zhu et al.

Int Chin J Dent 2009; 9: 1-8.

Initially, very little stresses were accumulated due to the viscous behavior of the composite resin (0-150 s); 2)
Subsequently, stresses increased more significantly due to polymerization, stiffening and a reduction ofvisco-elasticity of the composite (150-450 s); and 3) Finally, stresses almost kept unchanged without
consideration of stress relaxation (450-900 s). The maximum magnitudes of these stresses were between 20 and
70 MPa. Without considering occulusal loading, it was found that the stresses remain constant in the third phaseaccording to Fig. 2.
The residual stress (von Mises equivalent stress) distribution contours of the interphase for four different
Young’s modulus of the interphase: E=0.1, 1, 10, and 20 MPa, are predicted in Fig. 3, in which the thickness of
the interphase was kept unchanged at 0.15 mm, and were obtained at the time of 900 s, just after completion ofpolymerization. It is clear from Fig. 3 that the location of stress concentration resulting from polymerization of
the composite was found to occur predominantly at the interphase layer and dentin wall junction, where there
was greater curvature, thus prone to stress concentration from a purely mechanical point of view; or the uppersurface where interphase and enamel wall meet.

(a) Ei=0.1 GPa
Fig. 3.

(b) Ei=1 GPa(c) Ei=10 GPa(d) Ei=20 GPa

Residual stress distribution in the interphase with varying Young's modulus of the interphase(D=0.15 mm).

The residual stress (von Mises equivalent stress) distribution contours of the interphase are shown in Fig. 4 forinvestigating the influence of different interphase thicknesses (D=0.10, 0.15, 0.20, and 0.25 mm) also at 900 s,
while Young’s modulus of the interphase was kept unchanged at 10 GPa. It was clear from Fig. 4 that the stressconcentration resulting from polymerization of the composite was found to occur predominantly at the regions
more or less the same as those shown in Fig. 3.

(a) D=0.10 mm
Fig. 4.

(b) D=0.15 mm(c) D=0.20 mm(d) D=0.25 mm

Residual stress distribution in the interphase with varying interphase thicknesses (E=10 GPa).

It is found that high residual stresses are located at the occlusal surface along the tooth-composite joint (regionA) and line angle surrounding the pulpal wall (region B) of the interphase in the present model. Fig. 5 shows theeffects of Young’s modulus of the interphase on the residual stress in the interphase developed at the
afore-mentioned regions at 900 s. From Fig. 6, the maximum residual stress occurs in the region B when
Young’s modulus of the interphase is varied between 0.1 GPa and 10 GPa, while, when Young’s modulus of the5Zhu et al.

Int Chin J Dent 2009; 9: 1-8.

interphase increases, the maximum residual stress occurs in the region A. The residual stress in the region A andregion B of the interphase increase with increasing Young’s modulus of the interphase.

60

120

von Mises stress (MPa)von Mises stress (MPa)150
Region B
Region A

90
60
30
0
0

10

20

30

40

Fig. 6.

40
Region A

30

Region B
20
0.05

50

Young’s modulus of the interphase (GPa)Fig. 5.

50

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

thickness of interphase (mm)Residual stresses generated in the interphase with different Young’s modulus of the interphase at
900 s after curing (left).
Residual stresses generated in the interphase with different thicknesses of interphase at
900 s after curing (right).

Fig. 6 illustrates the effects of the different interphase thicknesses on the residual stress in the interphasedeveloped in the region A and region B only at 900 s. From Fig. 6, the residual stress increases firstly in theregion A when the thickness of the interphase increases, then decreases when the thickness of the interphaseincreases further, on the contrary, the residual stress decreases firstly in the region B when the thickness of theinterphase increases, then increases when the thickness of the interphase increases further. It can also be seenthat the high residual stress value in the region B is still larger than the value in the region A during the thicknessof interphase changing. When the thickness of the interphase increases up to about 0.18 mm, the maximum
residual stress value becomes lowest according to Fig. 6.

Discussion
Filling decayed teeth with restorative materials has been a conventional method for a long time.

The

polymerization shrinkage process happened within the resin-based composite at an early stage of restoration,
followed by occurrence of a more complicated process. Fig. 2 shows that the process can be divided into threedifferent phases: 1) a viscous behavior phase; 2) a reduction of visco-elasticity behavior phase; and 3) an elastic
behavior phase.

Microcracking and interfacial failure may occur due to residual stress, or as a result of

resin-based composite polymerization. A possible means of improving the mechanical performance of theinterphase is to extend the curing time of simplified interphase beyond those recommended by the manufacturers,
which can result in improved polymerization and reduced permeability.30
Figs. 3 and 4 show the residual stress distribution in the interphase in details at the moment when thepolymerization of the resin-based composite has completed. Considering the effect of only polymerization
shrinkage, the highest stresses are observed in the vicinity of the top surface and near the interface or at theinterphase layer and dentin wall junction where greatest curvature usually occurs. Some research studies haveshown that, when the residual stress in the interphase, reached a certain value, fracture and voids would occur inthis region.31

The marginal gap between the composite and tooth appears, and the integrity of therestoration-tooth structure can eventually be destroyed when the highest stresses are in the vicinity of the top

6Zhu et al.

Int Chin J Dent 2009; 9: 1-8.

surface and near the interfaces.32 Bacteria may find an opportunity to gain access to the space between thefilling and the tooth. This phenomenon is known as microleakage. When it occurs, tooth-brushing process canhardly remove these bacteria, and their metabolic activity leads to extensive decay within the tooth, which is theso-called secondary caries. Therefore, it is very crucial for a dentist to select an interphase with appropriate
stiffness and thickness so as to make sure that no interphase failure and aforesaid consequences will happen.
This study confirms that the application of the interphase with a lower elastic modulus and a higher thickness
can provide a benefit of relieving upper surface stress of the interphase arisen from the polymerization shrinkage.
But, from the findings in the present study, it is easily found that the stress at the interphase layer and dentin wall
junction increases as the thickness of interphase increasing, which may result in microleakage within the restored
teeth. Some research studies have shown that the property of the restorative composite has more influence on
the displacement while the interphase has little when considering the effect of polymerization shrinkage.33
The development trend of the residual stress with varying Young’s modulus of the interphase has been shownin Fig. 5, in which the region A and region B represent the different locations in the restored teeth with highshrinkage stress. From these results, the interphase with Young’s modulus of 10-20 GPa is a proper choice. For
the developing trend of the residual stress with varying thickness of the interphase shown in Fig. 6, theappropriate thickness of the interphase is about 0.18 mm. Hence, following the findings in the present study, aproper choice of the interphase with appropriate Young’s modulus and thickness can help minimize the residual
stress in the restorative composite.
The restoration-tooth interphase thickness and rigidity (Young’s modulus) are important for restoration-toothmechanical behavior. A 3D FE analysis has been successfully used to compute the residual stresses (von Mises
equivalent stress) in adhesively restored tooth, during polymerization and post-polymerization, respectively. It
has been demonstrated that structurally modified teeth show a complex biomechanical behavior during the earlystage of the restoration. The FE result shows that the restoration-tooth Young’s modulus has opposite effects on
the stress relief on the restored tooth: the more rigid the interphase is used in the restored-tooth, the higher thepolymerization shrinkage stress is. An appropriate way to limit the intensity of the stress transmitted to theremaining natural tooth tissue is to employ an adhesive interphase of a certain thickness and a certain Young’s
modulus, which is able to partially adsorb the composite deformations. From the current findings, a thininterphase of a more flexible adhesive (lower Young’s modulus) exhibits the same mechanical performance as athick interphase of a less flexible adhesive (lower Young’s modulus) for the restored teeth. The present study
can form a good basis for further investigation and provide some guidance for clinical application of therestorative composite and interphase materials.
Acknowledgment
The authors wish to thank the substantial support from the Research Fund for the Doctoral Programs of the Higher
Education of PRC (No. 20070487066).

References
1. Shimizu A. An in vitro investigation of the tooth strains associated with four different restorations in class II cavity. J Prosthet
Dent 1996; 76: 309-14.
2. Kinomoto Y. Comparison of polymerization contraction stresses between self- and light-curing composites. J Dent 1999; 27:
383-9.
3. Dauvillier BS. Visco-elastic parameters of dental restorative materials during setting. J Dent Res 2000; 79: 818-23.
4. Fissore B. Load fatigue of five restoration modalities in structurally compromised premolars. Int J Prosthodont 1995; 8:
213-20.
5. Fissore B. Load fatigue of teeth restored by a dentin bonding agent and a posterior composite resin. J Prosthet Dent 1991;
65: 80-5.

7Zhu et al.

Int Chin J Dent 2009; 9: 1-8.

6. Ausiello P, Davidson CL, Cascone P, De Gee AJ, Rengo S. Debonding of adhesively restored deep class II MOD restorations
after functional loading. Am J Dent 1999; 12: 84-8.
7. Sue HL, Juhea C, Jack F, In BL. Influence of instrument compliance and specimen thickness on the polymerization shrinkage
stress measurement of light-cured composites. Dent Mater 2007; 23: 1093-100.
8. Carvalho RM, Pereira JC, Yoshiyama M, Pashley DH. A review of polymerization contraction: the influence of stressdevelopment versus stress relief. Oper Dent 1996; 21: 17-24.
9. Opdam NJ, Roeters FJ, Feilzer AJ, Verdonschot EH. Marginal integrity and postoperative sensitivity in class 2 resin
composite restorations in vivo. J Dent 1998; 26: 555-62.
10. Davidson CL, De Gee AJ, Feilzer AJ. The competition between the composite-dentin bond strength and the polymerization
contraction stress. J Dent Res 1984; 63: 1396-405.
11. Ensaff H, O’Doherty DM, Jacobsen PH. Polymerization shrinkage of dental composite resins. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H] 2001;
215: 367-75.
12. Watts DC, Marouf AS, Al-Hindi AM. Photo-polymerization shrinkage-stress kinetics in resin-composites: methods
development. Dent Mater 2003; 19: 1–11.
13. Palin WM, Fleming G, Nathwani H, Burke T, Randall RC. In vitro cuspal deflection and microleakage of maxillary premolars
restored with novel low-shrink dental composites. Dent Mater 2005; 21: 324–35.
14. Kemp-Scholte CM, Davidson CL. Setting stress in composite resin in relation to configuration of restoration. J Dent Res 1987;
66: 1636-9.
15. Davidson CL, Abdalla AI. Effect of thermal and mechanical load cycling on the marginal integrity of class II resin composite
restorations. Am J Dent 1993; 6: 39-42.
16. Davidson CL. Resisting the curing contraction with adhesive composites. J Prosthet Dent 1986; 55: 446-7.
17. Peters MC. Comparison of two measurement techniques for clinical wear. J Dent 1999; 27: 479-85.
18. Davidson CL, Davidson-kaban SS. Handling of mechanical stresses in composite restorations. Dent Update 1998; 25: 274-9.
19. Magne P. Effect of luting composite shrinkage and thermal loads on the stress distribution in porcelain laminate veneers. J
Prosthet Dent 1999; 27: 383-9.
20. Ausiello P, Apicella A, Davidson CL. Effect of adhesive layer properties on stress distribution in composite restorations---a 3D
finite element analysis. Dent Mater 2002; 18: 295-303.
21. Wheeler RH. Dental anatomy, physiology and occlusion. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1974. p.151.
22. Rees JS, Jacobsen PH. Modelling the effects of enamel anisotropy with the finite element method. J Oral Rehabil 1995; 22:451-4.
23. Rees JS, Jacobsen PH. The effect of cuspal flexure on a buccal class V restoration: a finite element study. J Dent 1998; 26:
361-7.
24. Osnat F, Shlomo M, Hagay S, et al. Antibacterial properties of self-etching dental adhesive systems. J Am Dent Assoc 2007;
138: 349-54.
25. Feilzer AJ, De Gee AJ, De Gee CL. Quantitative determination of stress reduction by flow in composite restorations. Dent
Mater 1990; 6: 167-71.
26. Hubsch PF, Middleton J, Feilzer AJ. Identification of the constitutive behaviour of dental composite cements during curing.
Comput Method Biomech Biomed Eng 1999; 2: 245-56.
27. Bill K, Andrei K, Krzysztof B. Effect of material properties on stresses at the restoration-dentin interface of composite
restorations during polymerization. Dent Mater 2006; 22: 942-7.
28. Richard S, Michael G, Mario P, Vitus S. On the effect of an internal light conductor on the marginal integrity of class-II
composite fillings. Dent Mater 2007; 23: 145-52.
29. Barink M, van der Mark PCP, Fennis WMM, Kuijs RH, Kreulen CM, Verdonschot N. A three-dimensional finite element modelof the polymerization process in dental restorations.Biomaterials 2003; 24: 1427-35.
30. Lorenzo B, Annalisa M, Alessanadra R, Milena C, Roberto DL, Elettra DSD. Dental adhesion review: Aging and stability ofthe bonded interface. Dent Mater 2008; 24: 90-101.
31. Fan JP, Tang CY. The influence of shrinkage and moisture diffusion on idealized tooth structure involving debonding damage.
Acta Mech Sol Sin 2005; 18: 110-20.
32. Roberto RB, Rafael YB, Jack LF. Factors involved in the development of polymerization shrinkage stress in resin-composites:
A systematic review. Dent Mater 2005; 21: 962-70.
33. Li J, Li HY, Fok SL. A mathematical analysis of shrinkage stress development in dental composite restorations during resin
polymerization. Dent Mater 2008; 24: 925-31.

Correspondence to:
Dr. Jianping Fan
School of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, Huazhong University of Science and Technology
1037 LuoYu Road, HongShan District, Wuhan, Hubei Province 430074, P. R. China
Fax: +86-27-87543501 E-mail: jpfan@mail.hust.edu.cn
Received March 10, 2009. Accepted March 19, 2009.
Copyright ©2009 by the International Chinese Journal of Dentistry.

8