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

Murray, David W.

  • Google
  • 1
  • 4
  • 14

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (1/1 displayed)

  • 2013Fracture of mobile unicompartmental knee bearings14citations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Gill, H. S.
1 / 18 shared
Pandit, Hemant G.
1 / 1 shared
Oconnor, John J.
1 / 1 shared
Pegg, Elise Catherine
1 / 11 shared
Chart of publication period
2013

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Gill, H. S.
  • Pandit, Hemant G.
  • Oconnor, John J.
  • Pegg, Elise Catherine
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Fracture of mobile unicompartmental knee bearings

  • Gill, H. S.
  • Murray, David W.
  • Pandit, Hemant G.
  • Oconnor, John J.
  • Pegg, Elise Catherine
Abstract

Cases of fractured mobile unicompartmental knee bearings have recently been reported. The purpose of this study was to understand the mechanics behind these fractures and to examine the influence of different design modifications. A parametric finite element model was used to examine the influence of different geometrical factors on the stresses within the bearing. Crack initiation occurred clinically in the centre of the bearing; this correlated with the position of the maximum von Mises stress. Tensile stresses, thought to propagate the fatigue crack, were maximal at the medial-lateral sides of the bearing, and the tensile vectors were normal to the fracture direction observed clinically. Fully congruent femoral articulation on the bearing, use of a thicker bearing size, and minimising wear of the component reduced the risk of fracture. For example, an unworn 6.5-mm-thick bearing (no clinical fractures reported) had 21.6% lower medial-lateral tensile stress compared to an unworn 3.5 mm bearing (five clinical fractures reported). In turn, an unworn 3.5 mm bearing had 34.3% lower tensile stress compared to a 3.5 mm bearing after 1.9 mm wear (average linear wear reported for clinically fractured bearings). The fracture risk was also reduced when the radio-opaque marker wire was positioned further from the centre of the bearing, and when marker balls were used instead of marker wires (19% reduction in tensile stress in some regions). These results indicate the importance of minimising component wear; the data also support the current component design which uses posterior marker balls instead of marker wires, and the continuing use of a congruous femoral component.

Topics
  • crack
  • fatigue
  • wire