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

Adamska, Małgorzata

  • Google
  • 1
  • 9
  • 0

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (1/1 displayed)

  • 2023Comparison of the tensile modulus of three 3D-printable materials used in dentistrycitations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Laskowska, Joanna
1 / 1 shared
Weżgowiec, Joanna
1 / 4 shared
Duś-Ilnicka, Irena
1 / 1 shared
Paradowska-Stolarz, Anna
1 / 4 shared
Pollmann, Maria Cristina Figueiredo
1 / 1 shared
Mikulewicz, Marcin
1 / 10 shared
Wieckiewicz, Mieszko
1 / 5 shared
Małysa, Andrzej
1 / 4 shared
Seweryn, Piotr
1 / 1 shared
Chart of publication period
2023

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Laskowska, Joanna
  • Weżgowiec, Joanna
  • Duś-Ilnicka, Irena
  • Paradowska-Stolarz, Anna
  • Pollmann, Maria Cristina Figueiredo
  • Mikulewicz, Marcin
  • Wieckiewicz, Mieszko
  • Małysa, Andrzej
  • Seweryn, Piotr
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Comparison of the tensile modulus of three 3D-printable materials used in dentistry

  • Laskowska, Joanna
  • Weżgowiec, Joanna
  • Duś-Ilnicka, Irena
  • Paradowska-Stolarz, Anna
  • Pollmann, Maria Cristina Figueiredo
  • Adamska, Małgorzata
  • Mikulewicz, Marcin
  • Wieckiewicz, Mieszko
  • Małysa, Andrzej
  • Seweryn, Piotr
Abstract

Background. Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology has brought much innovation to medicine and has been successfully adopted in many areas of dentistry. Although 3D printing techniques are being increasingly used, their advantages and disadvantages still need to be investigated, particularly with regard to the materials used in dentistry. Dental materials should be biocompatible and non-cytotoxic, and have sufficient mechanical integrity in the oral environment in which they are intended for use.Objectives. The present work aimed to identify and compare the mechanical properties of three 3D-printable resins. The materials included IBT Resin, BioMed Amber Resin and Dental LT Clear Resin. The Formlabs Form 2 printer was used.Material and methods. A tensile strength test was performed on 10 specimens of each resin. Tensile modulus was measured on 2-millimeter-thick dumbbell-shaped specimens, 75 mm in length and 10 mm in width. The 10 specimens of each resin were mounted between the grips of a universal testing machine (Z10-X700).Results. The results showed that BioMed Amber specimens cracked easily, yet no deformation was observed. The amount of force used to test the tensility of the specimens was the lowest for IBT Resin, while it was the highest for Dental LT Clear Resin.Conclusions. IBT Resin was the weakest material, whereas Dental Clear LT Resin was the strongest.

Topics
  • strength
  • tensile strength
  • resin