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

Cunha, H.

  • Google
  • 1
  • 7
  • 42

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (1/1 displayed)

  • 2019Biocompatibility of a bioceramic silicone-based sealer in subcutaneous tissue42citations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Santos, Jm
1 / 2 shared
Palma, Pj
1 / 3 shared
Sequeira, Db
1 / 2 shared
Santos, Ac
1 / 4 shared
Messias, Al
1 / 1 shared
Martins, Jb
1 / 1 shared
Pereira, S.
1 / 12 shared
Chart of publication period
2019

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Santos, Jm
  • Palma, Pj
  • Sequeira, Db
  • Santos, Ac
  • Messias, Al
  • Martins, Jb
  • Pereira, S.
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Biocompatibility of a bioceramic silicone-based sealer in subcutaneous tissue

  • Santos, Jm
  • Palma, Pj
  • Cunha, H.
  • Sequeira, Db
  • Santos, Ac
  • Messias, Al
  • Martins, Jb
  • Pereira, S.
Abstract

This study evaluated the biocompatibility of a new silicone-based sealer (GuttaFlow Bioseal) in rat subcutaneous tissue and compared the results with those for GuttaFlow2 and AH Plus. Each of 16 Wistar rats received four subcutaneous tissue implants, namely, GuttaFlow Bioseal, GuttaFlow2, AH Plus, and one empty polyethylene tube. Eight rats were euthanized at day 8 and the remaining eight at day 30. Histological sections were stained with haematoxylin and eosin and analysed with a light microscope. Scores were established for inflammatory reaction, macrophage infiltrate, thickness of the fibrous capsule, and vascular changes. Differences between groups were assessed by using the Friedman test with Bonferroni correction. Histological analysis showed that CuttaFlow Bioseal had the lowest inflammatory reaction of all tested sealers at day 8. At day 30, the silicone-based sealers had similar inflammation profiles, but inflammation scores were nonsignificantly higher for Ail Plus than for the negative control. The inflammatory reaction decreased from day 8 to day 30 in all sealers. GuttaFlow Bioseal had the most macrophage infiltrate. Under the present experimental conditions, GuttaFlow Bioseal induced limited inflammatory reactions at days 8 and 30, and initial inflammatory reactions to GuttaFlow2 and All Plus subsided within 30 days. All tested sealers exhibited satisfactory biocompatibility at day 30 after subcutaneous implantation.

Topics
  • biocompatibility