Materials Map

Discover the materials research landscape. Find experts, partners, networks.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Notice
  • Contact

The Materials Map is an open tool for improving networking and interdisciplinary exchange within materials research. It enables cross-database search for cooperation and network partners and discovering of the research landscape.

The dashboard provides detailed information about the selected scientist, e.g. publications. The dashboard can be filtered and shows the relationship to co-authors in different diagrams. In addition, a link is provided to find contact information.

×

Materials Map under construction

The Materials Map is still under development. In its current state, it is only based on one single data source and, thus, incomplete and contains duplicates. We are working on incorporating new open data sources like ORCID to improve the quality and the timeliness of our data. We will update Materials Map as soon as possible and kindly ask for your patience.

To Graph

1.080 Topics available

To Map

977 Locations available

693.932 PEOPLE
693.932 People People

693.932 People

Show results for 693.932 people that are selected by your search filters.

←

Page 1 of 27758

→
←

Page 1 of 0

→
PeopleLocationsStatistics
Naji, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 3
  • 2025
Motta, Antonella
  • 8
  • 52
  • 159
  • 2025
Aletan, Dirar
  • 1
  • 1
  • 0
  • 2025
Mohamed, Tarek
  • 1
  • 7
  • 2
  • 2025
Ertürk, Emre
  • 2
  • 3
  • 0
  • 2025
Taccardi, Nicola
  • 9
  • 81
  • 75
  • 2025
Kononenko, Denys
  • 1
  • 8
  • 2
  • 2025
Petrov, R. H.Madrid
  • 46
  • 125
  • 1k
  • 2025
Alshaaer, MazenBrussels
  • 17
  • 31
  • 172
  • 2025
Bih, L.
  • 15
  • 44
  • 145
  • 2025
Casati, R.
  • 31
  • 86
  • 661
  • 2025
Muller, Hermance
  • 1
  • 11
  • 0
  • 2025
Kočí, JanPrague
  • 28
  • 34
  • 209
  • 2025
Šuljagić, Marija
  • 10
  • 33
  • 43
  • 2025
Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-ArtemiBrussels
  • 14
  • 22
  • 158
  • 2025
Azam, Siraj
  • 1
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2025
Ospanova, Alyiya
  • 1
  • 6
  • 0
  • 2025
Blanpain, Bart
  • 568
  • 653
  • 13k
  • 2025
Ali, M. A.
  • 7
  • 75
  • 187
  • 2025
Popa, V.
  • 5
  • 12
  • 45
  • 2025
Rančić, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 0
  • 2025
Ollier, Nadège
  • 28
  • 75
  • 239
  • 2025
Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro
  • 4
  • 8
  • 25
  • 2025
Landes, Michael
  • 1
  • 9
  • 2
  • 2025
Rignanese, Gian-Marco
  • 15
  • 98
  • 805
  • 2025

Zippelius, T.

  • Google
  • 1
  • 4
  • 7

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (1/1 displayed)

  • 2019[Safety and efficacy of an electron beam melting technique-manufactured titanium mesh cage for lumbar interbody fusion].7citations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Putzier, Michael
1 / 1 shared
Hölzl, A.
1 / 1 shared
Strube, P.
1 / 3 shared
Suleymanov, F.
1 / 1 shared
Chart of publication period
2019

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Putzier, Michael
  • Hölzl, A.
  • Strube, P.
  • Suleymanov, F.
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

[Safety and efficacy of an electron beam melting technique-manufactured titanium mesh cage for lumbar interbody fusion].

  • Putzier, Michael
  • Hölzl, A.
  • Strube, P.
  • Suleymanov, F.
  • Zippelius, T.
Abstract

BACKGROUND:Electron beam melting (EBM) technique enables cage design changes such as the integration of guide rails on the cage surface or a 3D matrix for osseointegration. A change in manufacturing technique or design can lead to a decreased fusion rate or impaired applicability. OBJECTIVE:The aim of the present study was to evaluate cage handling, lordosis reconstruction capability, and fusion rate 1 year after surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS:In this study, 50 patients who had undergone minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) or open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) using an EBM-manufactured cage were retrospectively included. Fusion evaluation was based on routinely performed CTs and flexion-extension radiographs 12 months postoperatively. Lumbar and segmental lordosis were compared between pre-, post, and 1‑year follow-up. Postoperative cage position was used for evaluation of cage handling. RESULTS:The radiological fusion rate was 97% at the 1‑year follow-up. Two cages were placed into the endplates during surgery without an effect on fusion. In 31% of the cages, placement at the anterior third of the disk space was possible. Lumbar lordosis was improved by a mean of 5° and segmental lordosis by a mean of 4°. At final follow-up, 1° was lost in both parameters. No implant-associated complications were registered. CONCLUSION:The implant is safe and leads to a very high fusion rate. A learning curve results from the fact that the cage follows a defined radius dictated by the guide rails. Addressing this, exact placement at the anterior endplate can be achieved.

Topics
  • impedance spectroscopy
  • surface
  • titanium
  • electron beam melting