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

Grzebieluch, Wojciech

  • Google
  • 2
  • 7
  • 82

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (2/2 displayed)

  • 2023Comparative analysis of fused deposition modeling and digital light processing techniques for dimensional accuracy in clear aligner manufacturing3citations
  • 2021Printable and Machinable Dental Restorative Composites for CAD/CAM Application - Comparison of Mechanical Properties, Fractographic, Texture and Fractal Dimension Analysis79citations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Grajzer, Magdalena
1 / 1 shared
Mikulewicz, Marcin
1 / 10 shared
Kozakiewicz, Marcin
1 / 3 shared
Kowalewski, Piotr
1 / 6 shared
Jurczyszyn, Kamil
1 / 1 shared
Grygier, Dominika
1 / 3 shared
Rutkowska-Gorczyca, Małgorzata
1 / 3 shared
Chart of publication period
2023
2021

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Grajzer, Magdalena
  • Mikulewicz, Marcin
  • Kozakiewicz, Marcin
  • Kowalewski, Piotr
  • Jurczyszyn, Kamil
  • Grygier, Dominika
  • Rutkowska-Gorczyca, Małgorzata
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Comparative analysis of fused deposition modeling and digital light processing techniques for dimensional accuracy in clear aligner manufacturing

  • Grajzer, Magdalena
  • Grzebieluch, Wojciech
  • Mikulewicz, Marcin
Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare fused deposition modeling (FDM) and digital light processing (DLP) techniques in terms of dimensional accuracy for printing dental models used for the manufacture of clear dental aligners.MATERIAL AND METHODS: Based on the intraoral scan of an adult patient, a sequence of 10 aligner models was created using BlueSkyPlan4. The test models (n=30) were fabricated with 2 desktop 3D printers: (DLP) and (FDM) printers. Two groups of samples were created (digitized using a desktop optical scanner). To calculate trueness (n=20) and precision (n=10), printed models were compared to the source files (REF). REF, DLP, and FDM files were superimposed and converted to point clouds. The cloud-to-cloud distances were calculated using CloudCompare software. Using the same algorithm, distortions of models were measured. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test.RESULTS: Significant differences were found between the trueness and precision of DLP and FDM groups. The average calculated trueness of DLP and FDM was 0.096 mm (0.021) (P<0.001) and 0.063 mm (0.024) (P<0.001), respectively. The average calculated precision of DLP and FDM was 0.027 mm (0.003) (P<0.001) and 0.036 mm (0.003) (P<0.001), respectively. A widening (0.158 mmfor DLP and 0.093 mmfor FDM, P=0.05) and twisting (0.03 mmfor DLP and 0.043 mmfor FDM, P=0.05) of the printed models was observed.CONCLUSIONS: Both printers had sufficient precision for aligner models manufacturing. FDM showed a higher trueness and this device can be applied as an alternative to DLP. Polymerization shrinkage is a significant factor in decreasing the trueness of DLP printers.

Topics
  • Deposition
  • impedance spectroscopy