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

Van Gestel, Nicole

  • Google
  • 2
  • 8
  • 13

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (2/2 displayed)

  • 2019Resorption of the calcium phosphate layer on S53P4 bioactive glass by osteoclasts13citations
  • 2016Mechanical properties of bioactive glass putty formulationscitations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Van Rietbergen, Bert
2 / 4 shared
Ito, Keita
2 / 13 shared
Schuiringa, Gerke
1 / 1 shared
Hofmann, Sandra
2 / 4 shared
Delsing, Anneke
1 / 1 shared
Hennissen, J. H. P. H.
1 / 1 shared
Geurts, J. A. P.
1 / 2 shared
Hulsen, D. J. W.
1 / 2 shared
Chart of publication period
2019
2016

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Van Rietbergen, Bert
  • Ito, Keita
  • Schuiringa, Gerke
  • Hofmann, Sandra
  • Delsing, Anneke
  • Hennissen, J. H. P. H.
  • Geurts, J. A. P.
  • Hulsen, D. J. W.
OrganizationsLocationPeople

document

Mechanical properties of bioactive glass putty formulations

  • Van Rietbergen, Bert
  • Geurts, J. A. P.
  • Hulsen, D. J. W.
  • Ito, Keita
  • Hofmann, Sandra
  • Van Gestel, Nicole
Abstract

Introduction: Bioactive glass (BAG) has been studied widely and seems to be a very promising biomaterial in regeneration of large bone defects and osteomyelitis treatment, because of its bone bonding and antibacterial properties[1]-[5]. Its high stiffness could potentially also enable mechanical reinforcement of large defects. The loose-granular nature of this material, however, makes it difficult to handle by the surgeon. Moreover, in previous research we found only sub-optimal mechanical properties for pure BAG fillings[6]. Recently a BAG putty was developed that is easier to handle. The aim of the current study is to determine the mechanical properties of this putty and its dependence on composition.<br/>Materials and Methods: Five different compositions of S53P4 putty were tested in mechanical confined compression tests, after impaction of the samples (n=5 per group). The putty materials all consist of a synthetic binder (matrix: 20 wt% PEG 400, 40 wt% PEG 1500, 15 wt% PEG 3000 and 25 wt% glycerol), BAG granules (2.0-3.15 mm) and BAG powder (300-500 µm). <br/>Impaction was performed with the use of a custom-made impaction device (providing clinical relevant strains)[7]. After the samples were equally confined in PMMA chambers, they were subjected to 900 cycles of loading (40 – 850 N) followed by 300 s of rest. From the recorded displacement – time curves, the Young’s Modulus (elastic behaviour), plastic strains (permanent deformations) and creep strains (viscous behaviour) were determined and compared for the five compositions[7],[8].<br/>Results and discussion: The results for impactability (measure for the height difference before and after impaction), Young’s Moduli, creep and plastic strain are shown in Figure 2. Significant differences between the putty compositions were found only for impactability and plastic strain.<br/>With an increasing amount of matrix the impactability decreases significantly. It has to be noted that the overall impactability is low, compared to graft materials such as morsellized cancellous bone or porous titanium[6],[7]. However, these materials are much less mouldable than the putty materials.<br/>The Young’s moduli of all putty compositions were found to be in range of the modulus of cancellous bone (100-500 MPa), which is the desired range[9].<br/>Furthermore, creep strains were low, which indicate that viscous behaviour will not likely affect the graft layer stability. The plastic strain increases with larger matrix content. Such plastic strain can threaten the graft stability in load-bearing applications and thus should be kept low.<br/>Conclusion: For load bearing sites where the putty can be well confined in the defect, putty compositions with the low amount of matrix could be beneficial since their plastic strains are lowest. In other situations, the compositions with more matrix would be preferred because they are easier to handle.<br/><br/>

Topics
  • porous
  • impedance spectroscopy
  • polymer
  • glass
  • glass
  • laser emission spectroscopy
  • compression test
  • defect
  • titanium
  • creep