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

Mathias-Santamaria, Ingrid Fernandes

  • Google
  • 1
  • 4
  • 4

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (1/1 displayed)

  • 2022Comparison of Polishing Systems on the Surface Roughness of Resin Based Composites Containing Different Monomers4citations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Jpm, Tribst
1 / 88 shared
Andrade, Guilherme Schmitt De
1 / 6 shared
Augusto, Marina Gullo
1 / 3 shared
Dal Piva, Amanda
1 / 41 shared
Chart of publication period
2022

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Jpm, Tribst
  • Andrade, Guilherme Schmitt De
  • Augusto, Marina Gullo
  • Dal Piva, Amanda
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Comparison of Polishing Systems on the Surface Roughness of Resin Based Composites Containing Different Monomers

  • Jpm, Tribst
  • Mathias-Santamaria, Ingrid Fernandes
  • Andrade, Guilherme Schmitt De
  • Augusto, Marina Gullo
  • Dal Piva, Amanda
Abstract

<p>Changes in the organic matrix of composite resins have been proposed to improve their surface properties. However, polishing systems may perform differently in different materials. This study compared the effect of polishing systems on the surface roughness of four composite resins containing different resin monomers: Admira Fusion (nanohybrid containing pure ormocer), Aura Bulkfill (nanohybrid containing Bis-GMA, UDMA), Charisma Diamond (nanohybrid containing TCD-DI-HEA) and Vittra APS (nanofilled containing UDMA). Cylinders (N = 120, n = 10) were prepared from each material and the top surface of each specimen was grounded using a diamond finishing bur. Baseline measurements of surface roughness (Ra) were recorded using a contact profilometer and the specimens of each composite were divided into three subgroups according to the polishing system: one-step, two-step, three-step. Ra measurements were recorded also after polishing. Data were analyzed using three-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (p &lt; 0.05). The baseline roughness of all composites was significantly reduced after polishing (p &lt; 0.001). The two-step polishing system provided the smoothest surface for Admira Fusion (0.0770 ± 0.0171) and Charisma (0.1091 ± 0.0090), whereas for Aura and Vittra no significantly differences were found for the three polishing systems tested. The surface smoothness seems to be more material dependent than step dependent, but all tested systems provided clinically acceptable results.</p>

Topics
  • surface
  • composite
  • resin
  • polishing
  • appearance potential spectroscopy