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

Labrom, Robert D.

  • Google
  • 6
  • 10
  • 3

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (6/6 displayed)

  • 2020The effect of vertebral body stapling on spine biomechanics and structure using a bovine model3citations
  • 2015The vertebral venous system in healthy and scoliotic adolescent spines - a 3D MRI investigationcitations
  • 2014Gravity-induced coronal plane joint moments in the adolescent scoliotic spinecitations
  • 2014The effect of intervertebral staple insertion on bovine spine segment stiffnesscitations
  • 2014Intervertebral staple grading system with micro-CTcitations
  • 2010Fusionless scoliosis correction using shape memory alloy staplescitations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Adam, Clayton
5 / 13 shared
Askin, Geoffrey
5 / 10 shared
Sunni, Nabeel
3 / 5 shared
Newell, Nicolas
1 / 1 shared
Keenan, Bethany E.
2 / 2 shared
Bennett, Damon D.
1 / 1 shared
Grant, Caroline
1 / 1 shared
Askin, Geoffrey N.
1 / 1 shared
Pettet, Graeme J.
1 / 1 shared
Verzin, Eugene J.
1 / 1 shared
Chart of publication period
2020
2015
2014
2010

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Adam, Clayton
  • Askin, Geoffrey
  • Sunni, Nabeel
  • Newell, Nicolas
  • Keenan, Bethany E.
  • Bennett, Damon D.
  • Grant, Caroline
  • Askin, Geoffrey N.
  • Pettet, Graeme J.
  • Verzin, Eugene J.
OrganizationsLocationPeople

document

Intervertebral staple grading system with micro-CT

  • Labrom, Robert D.
  • Adam, Clayton
  • Askin, Geoffrey
  • Sunni, Nabeel
Abstract

IntroductionIntervertebral stapling is a leading method of fusionless scoliosis treatment which attempts to control growth by applying pressure to the convex side of a scoliotic curve in accordance with the Hueter-Volkmann principle. In addition to that, staples have the potential to damage surrounding bone during insertion and subsequent loading. The aim of this study was to assess the extent of bony structural damage including epiphyseal injury as a result of intervertebral stapling using an in vitro bovine model.Materials and MethodsThoracic spines from 6-8 week old calves were dissected and divided into motion segments including levels T4-T11 (n=14). Each segment was potted in polymethylemethacrylate. An Instron Biaxial materials testing machine with a custom made jig was used for testing. The segments were tested in flexion/extension, lateral bending and axial rotation at 37⁰C and 100% humidity, using moment control to a maximum 1.75 Nm with a loading rate of 0.3 Nm per second for 10 cycles. The segments were initially tested uninstrumented with data collected from the tenth load cycle. Next an anterolateral 4-prong Shape Memory Alloy (SMA) staple (Medtronic Sofamor Danek, USA) was inserted into each segment. Biomechanical testing was repeated as before. The staples were cut in half with a diamond saw and carefully removed. Micro-CT scans were performed and sagittal, transverse and coronal reformatted images were produced using ImageJ (NIH, USA).The specimens were divided into 3 grades (0, 1 and 2) according to the number of epiphyses damaged by the staple prongs.Results:There were 9 (65%) segments with grade 1 staple insertions and 5 (35%) segments with grade 2 insertions. There were no grade 0 staples. Grade 2 spines had a higher stiffness level than grade 1 spines, in all axes of movement, by 28% (p=0.004). This was most noted in flexion/extension with an increase of 49% (p=0.042), followed by non-significant change in lateral bending 19% (p=0.129) and axial rotation 8% (p=0.456) stiffness. The cross sectional area of bone destruction from the prongs was only 0.4% larger in the grade 2 group compared to the grade 1 group (p=0.961).ConclusionIntervertebral staples cause epiphyseal damage. There is a difference in stiffness between grade 1 and grade 2 staple insertion segments in flexion/extension only. There is no difference in the cross section of bone destruction as a result of prong insertion and segment motion.

Topics
  • impedance spectroscopy
  • computed tomography scan