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

Bristela, Margit

  • Google
  • 1
  • 7
  • 91

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (1/1 displayed)

  • 2009Cytotoxicity of four categories of dental cements91citations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Piehslinger, Eva
1 / 2 shared
Lucas, Trevor
1 / 3 shared
Franz, Alexander
1 / 4 shared
König, Franz
1 / 4 shared
Schedle, Andreas
1 / 9 shared
Schmid-Schwap, Martina
1 / 2 shared
Watts, Dc.
1 / 116 shared
Chart of publication period
2009

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Piehslinger, Eva
  • Lucas, Trevor
  • Franz, Alexander
  • König, Franz
  • Schedle, Andreas
  • Schmid-Schwap, Martina
  • Watts, Dc.
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Cytotoxicity of four categories of dental cements

  • Piehslinger, Eva
  • Bristela, Margit
  • Lucas, Trevor
  • Franz, Alexander
  • König, Franz
  • Schedle, Andreas
  • Schmid-Schwap, Martina
  • Watts, Dc.
Abstract

Objectives: Assessment of dental material biocompatibility is gaining increasing importance for both patients and dentists. Dental cements may be in contact with oral soft tissues for prolonged periods of time and play an important role in prosthetic rehabilitation. The aim of the present study was to evaluate eight dental cements using a standardized L929-fibroblast cell culture test. Methods: For each material, fresh specimens (added to the cultures immediately after preparation) and specimens preincubated for 7 days in cell culture medium were prepared according to the manufacturers' recommendations. After exposure to test specimens, cell numbers were compared to glass controls. The main outcome was a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the mean value of the standardized cell number for each substance investigated. Results: Fresh specimens of all tested cements showed significant cytotoxicity, which diminished after 7 days preincubation. Cytotoxicity of fresh adhesive and self-adhesive resin cements was lower when specimens were dual-cured compared to self-cured. A rank order of cytotoxicity was established based on mean values: Nexus 2 (dual-cured) showed least cytotoxicity, followed by Variolink II (dual-cured), Nexus 2 (self-cured), Harvard, RelyxUnicem (dual-cured), Panavia 21, Fujicem, Durelon, Variolink II (self-cured), RelyxUnicem (self-cured), Maxcem (dual-cured) and Maxcem (self-cured). When bondings were added to Nexus 2 or Variolink II specimens, a slight increase in cytotoxicity was observed. Significance: Adhesive resin cements showed less cytotoxicity than self-adhesive and chemically setting cements. Bonding only slightly influenced cytotoxicity of the adhesive resin cements. Dual-cured specimens of adhesive and self-adhesive resin cements showed significantly less toxicity than self-cured specimens. © 2008.

Topics
  • impedance spectroscopy
  • glass
  • glass
  • laser emission spectroscopy
  • cement
  • resin
  • toxicity
  • biocompatibility