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

Ferreira, Afonso Pinhão

  • Google
  • 2
  • 12
  • 29

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (2/2 displayed)

  • 2020Bond strength of metallic or ceramic orthodontic brackets to enamel, acrylic, or porcelain surfaces29citations
  • 2017Damage on tooth enamel after removal of orthodontic adhesive by Arkansas' stone and tungsten carbide burscitations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Henriques, Bruno
2 / 64 shared
Carvalho, Óscar
1 / 10 shared
Matias De Souza, Júlio César
2 / 75 shared
Pinho, Mónica
1 / 1 shared
Manso, Maria C.
1 / 1 shared
Silva, Filipe
1 / 19 shared
Almeida, Ricardo Faria
1 / 1 shared
Martin, Conchita
1 / 1 shared
Mesquita, Pedro
1 / 3 shared
Silva, Filipe S.
1 / 36 shared
Pinto, Gustavo F. V.
1 / 1 shared
Pinho, Mónica Morado
1 / 1 shared
Chart of publication period
2020
2017

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Henriques, Bruno
  • Carvalho, Óscar
  • Matias De Souza, Júlio César
  • Pinho, Mónica
  • Manso, Maria C.
  • Silva, Filipe
  • Almeida, Ricardo Faria
  • Martin, Conchita
  • Mesquita, Pedro
  • Silva, Filipe S.
  • Pinto, Gustavo F. V.
  • Pinho, Mónica Morado
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Damage on tooth enamel after removal of orthodontic adhesive by Arkansas' stone and tungsten carbide burs

  • Mesquita, Pedro
  • Henriques, Bruno
  • Silva, Filipe S.
  • Ferreira, Afonso Pinhão
  • Matias De Souza, Júlio César
  • Pinto, Gustavo F. V.
  • Pinho, Mónica Morado
Abstract

<p>Objectives: The main aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of two different methods to remove orthodontic composite adhesives from enamel concerning the surface damage and remnant composite adhesive on the surfaces. Methods: Human molars were stored in buffer solution at room temperature before bonding the brackets. Teeth were ultrasonically cleaned in distilled water before bonding procedure. Ninety two brackets were randomly bonded to the buccal surface of twenty three molars using a composite-based adhesive system. After 15 days, the orthodontic composite adhesives were removed by using Arkansas' stone or multi-blade tungsten burs. After debonding process, the remnant composite adhered to the tooth as well as the teeth surfaces were analyzed by photographic images at x40 magnification concerning the (ARI) adhesive remnant or (SRI) surface roughness index. Also, enamel surfaces were inspected by field emission guns scanning electron microscopy (FEGSEM) before bonding and after bracket detachment. The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS® Statistics vs.18.0, considering a significance level of 0.05 to one-way ANOVA. Tukey's test was used for multiple comparisons and Chi-square tests were used to analyze the association between categorical variables. Results: ARI results revealed no statistically significant differences between the two methods of bracket removal (p=0.283). Considering SRI, statistically significant differences were detected between the two procedures (p &lt; 0 . 001) considering all worn surfaces revealed lower surface roughness after removal of adhesive by Arkansas stone than that recorded on worn surfaces after removal using tungsten carbide burs. Conclusion: The removal of orthodontic adhesive promoted less damage on enamel surfaces by using Arkansas stone at low rotation. Nevertheless, finishing procedures can decrease the roughness on enamel without additional damage.</p>

Topics
  • surface
  • scanning electron microscopy
  • laser emission spectroscopy
  • carbide
  • composite
  • tungsten