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

De Kuijper, Maurits

  • Google
  • 1
  • 5
  • 0

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (1/1 displayed)

  • 2020Breuksterkte van verschillende types directe en indirecte restauraties bij het functioneel herstel van endodontisch behandelde molarencitations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Houten, M. Van Den
1 / 1 shared
Schepke, Ulf
1 / 5 shared
Haumahu, D.
1 / 1 shared
Gresnigt, Marco
1 / 7 shared
Cune, Marco S.
1 / 9 shared
Chart of publication period
2020

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Houten, M. Van Den
  • Schepke, Ulf
  • Haumahu, D.
  • Gresnigt, Marco
  • Cune, Marco S.
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Breuksterkte van verschillende types directe en indirecte restauraties bij het functioneel herstel van endodontisch behandelde molaren

  • Houten, M. Van Den
  • Schepke, Ulf
  • Haumahu, D.
  • De Kuijper, Maurits
  • Gresnigt, Marco
  • Cune, Marco S.
Abstract

<p>The fracture strength of endodontically treated molars restored by means of various types of direct and indirect materials was studied in vitro. 105 sound molars were endodontically treated and randomly assigned to 1 control group (endodontic access cavity only) and 6 experimental groups (n = 15) with restorations of the following materials: glass fibre reinforced composite (GFRC); microhybrid composite (C); microhybrid composite restoration with glass fiber post (CP); full-contour lithium disilicate crown (LDS); full-contour lithium disilicate crown with glass fiber post (P-LDS); and an endocrown (EC). Specimens were thermo-mechanically aged and axially loaded until failure. Data were analysed using ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test (α = 0.05). Fracture strength was significantly affected by the type of restoration (p = 0.000). LDS had significantly higher fracture strength than the control group and GFRC, C and CP groups. Groups EC, LDS and P-LDS were not statistically different from each other in fracture strength. This was also the case with EC, P-LDS and all composite groups. The glass fibre strength of composite restoration resulted in significantly fewer fatal fractures.</p>

Topics
  • glass
  • glass
  • strength
  • composite
  • Lithium