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

Naraoka, T.

  • Google
  • 1
  • 5
  • 22

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (1/1 displayed)

  • 2018Biomechanical analysis of medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction: FiberTape® with knotless anchors versus a semitendinosus tendon autograft with soft anchors.22citations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Ishibashi, Y.
1 / 1 shared
Sasaki, S.
1 / 6 shared
Tsukada, H.
1 / 1 shared
Tsuda, E.
1 / 1 shared
Yamamoto, Yuji
1 / 1 shared
Chart of publication period
2018

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Ishibashi, Y.
  • Sasaki, S.
  • Tsukada, H.
  • Tsuda, E.
  • Yamamoto, Yuji
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Biomechanical analysis of medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction: FiberTape® with knotless anchors versus a semitendinosus tendon autograft with soft anchors.

  • Ishibashi, Y.
  • Sasaki, S.
  • Tsukada, H.
  • Tsuda, E.
  • Yamamoto, Yuji
  • Naraoka, T.
Abstract

BACKGROUND:With the use of synthetic materials for medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction, graft harvest is not necessary and this may facilitate post-operative rehabilitation. The purpose of this study was to compare the structural properties of MPFL reconstruction using a modern synthetic material (FiberTape® (FT), Arthrex) with knotless anchors or a semitendinosus (ST) tendon autograft with soft anchors. METHODS:Nine human fresh-frozen amputated knees were used in this study. After the tensile strength of the native MPFL was measured, the MPFLs were reconstructed using two different surgical procedures, FT with knotless anchors (group A) and a ST with soft anchors (group B). Mechanical testing to failure of the reconstructed MPFLs was performed, and the ultimate load (N), stiffness (N/mm), and failure mode were recorded. RESULTS:The mean (±standard deviation) ultimate load of the native MPFL was 130.6 ± 28.7 N, and all native MPFLs failed at the femoral insertion site. Ultimate load of group A was significantly higher than that of the native MPFL (175.9 ± 34.1 N, p < 0.05). In contrast, the ultimate load of group B was significantly lower than that of the native MPFL (102.7 ± 21.4 N, p < 0.05). The mean stiffness was significantly higher for MPFLs in group A (17.4 ± 4.3 N/mm) than in group B (8.5 ± 1.8 N/mm, p < 0.05). In group A, 5 specimens failed via a knotless anchor pullout at the femoral side, 3 via pullout of knotless anchors at the patella side and 1 via fracture (cheese cut) of the femur without breakage of knotless anchor. In group B, all specimens failed via soft anchor pullout at the patella side. There was no incidence of rupture of FT or ST. CONCLUSION:FT with knotless anchors was stronger than a ST with soft tissue anchors for MPFL reconstruction.

Topics
  • impedance spectroscopy
  • strength
  • tensile strength