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

Carneiro, Er

  • Google
  • 2
  • 11
  • 16

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (2/2 displayed)

  • 2021Mechanical and Tribological Characterization of a Bioactive Composite Resin9citations
  • 2021Aesthetic restoration of posterior teeth using different occlusal matrix techniques7citations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Ramalho, A.
1 / 8 shared
Carrilho, E.
2 / 16 shared
Coelho, As
1 / 2 shared
Amaro, I.
2 / 7 shared
Paula, Ab
1 / 6 shared
Marto, Cm
2 / 12 shared
Saraiva, J.
2 / 7 shared
Ferreira, Mm
2 / 10 shared
Vilhena, L.
1 / 2 shared
Coelho, A.
1 / 8 shared
Paula, A.
1 / 9 shared
Chart of publication period
2021

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Ramalho, A.
  • Carrilho, E.
  • Coelho, As
  • Amaro, I.
  • Paula, Ab
  • Marto, Cm
  • Saraiva, J.
  • Ferreira, Mm
  • Vilhena, L.
  • Coelho, A.
  • Paula, A.
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Mechanical and Tribological Characterization of a Bioactive Composite Resin

  • Ramalho, A.
  • Carrilho, E.
  • Carneiro, Er
  • Coelho, As
  • Amaro, I.
  • Paula, Ab
  • Marto, Cm
  • Saraiva, J.
  • Ferreira, Mm
  • Vilhena, L.
Abstract

Despite developments and advances in dental materials which allow for greater restorative performance, there are still challenges and questions regarding the formulation of new compositions and chemical reactions of materials used in restorative dentistry. The aim of this study was to assess and compare the mechanical and tribological characteristics of a bioactive resin, a composite resin, and a glass ionomer. Twenty specimens of each material were divided into two groups: one control group (n = 10), not subjected to thermocycling, and one test group (n = 10) submitted to thermocycling. The Vickers microhardness test was carried out and surface roughness was evaluated. The tribological sliding indentation test was chosen. The bioactive resin had the lowest hardness, followed by the composite resin, and the glass ionomer. The bioactive resin also showed greater resistance to fracture. For the tribological test, the wear rate was lower for the bioactive resin, followed by the composite resin, and the glass ionomer. The bioactive resin presented a smooth surface without visible cracks, while the other materials presented a brittle peeling of great portions of material. Thus, the bioactive resin performs better in relation to fracture toughness, wear rate and impact absorption than the composite resin and much better than the glass ionomer.

Topics
  • surface
  • glass
  • glass
  • crack
  • composite
  • hardness
  • resin
  • fracture toughness