Trending topics in orthodontics research during the last three decades: A longitudinal bibliometric study on the top‐cited articles

Abstract

Objective: To perform a bibliometric analysis on the top-cited articles over the last three decades from 1989 to 2018, using a longitudinal setup , in order to analyse how articles' features have evolved over time. Setting and sample population: A sample of 312 articles divided into three subgroups of 104 top-cited articles for each decade were included. The h-index value was used to determine the sample size. Materials and Methods: The articles were identified through a search in the category "dentistry oral surgery and medicine" of the Web of Science database. The information relative to the articles was collected. Descriptive statistics was used to describe the articles and the journals; selected parameters were analysed with the Kruskal-Wallis and the Mann-Whitney U test at the 0.05 level of significance. Results: The top-cited articles were published mainly by orthodontic journals. Along the last two decades, the scientific contribution of Asian and South American countries rose significantly. The trending topics varied in each decade. Skeletal anchorage-related articles dominated the production of the decade 1999-2008 while new technologies as CBCT displayed a higher prevalence in the last decade, where new topics such as corticotomy-assisted orthodontics started to appear. The number of multi-authored articles increased while the articles from no university institutions decreased. Conclusion: The publications in the three studied decades were significantly different in terms of numbers and characteristics. A longitudinal setup allows to study the evolution of the scientific production and how the area of interest has developed over time.

International trends of orthodontic publications: A bibliometric observational study of the last decade (2011-2020)

“…However, the paper differs from earlier investigations in the fact that discrepancies in chosen journals and time periods engendered variability in the number of studies and the ranking of the publication countries. 15 , 16 , 19 Furthermore, in partial agreement with earlier work, 8 , 15 , 16 comparison between the two halves of the decade in question revealed that developing countries (e.g. China, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia) exhibited an increasing trend in the number of orthodontic studies.…”

“…Another point of consistency between this paper and earlier work is the finding that academic institutions produced most orthodontic studies. 8 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 24 According to Aura et al, 16 academic institutions generated 80% of the orthodontic studies published in the journals included in the Journal Citation Report from 2007 to 2017, while non-academic and private institutions showed a decreasing trend in orthodontic research output. 16 One explanation for such results could be the greater emphasis placed on intensification of orthodontic research programs and recruitment of well-qualified academics with ample research experience to attain the necessary funding.…”

There is still room for improvement in the completeness of abstract reporting according to the PRISMA-A checklist: a cross-sectional study on systematic reviews in periodontology

“…The journals included in the search were The Journal of Clinical Periodontology, the Journal of Periodontology, Periodontology 2000, the Journal of Periodontal Research, the Journal of Periodontal & Implant Science, and the Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry. The journals with a specific focus on periodontology were targeted by a specific search because, according to our previous experience in the bibliometric field, performing such a search can improve overall search efficiency [2,3,11].…”

“…Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) are located at the top of the scientific evidence pyramid, offering the highest level of scientific evidence on clinical protocols and diagnostic procedures [1]. They are one of the most cited published items and are used by research stakeholders to appraise, synthetize, and apply evidence [2]. Notably, SRs employ a study design that attracts more online attention and accrue great interest outside academia [3].…”

Artificial intelligence in orthodontics and orthognathic surgery: a bibliometric analysis of the 100 most-cited articles

“…This analysis encompasses parameters such as authorship, countries of origin, institutional affiliations, and other pertinent factors, aiming to shed light on the current research trends in AI for orthodontics and orthognathic surgery [ 9 ]. Previous bibliometric and citation analyses in orthodontics have focused on the most-cited articles [ 10 – 13 ], or explored various topics, including temporary anchorage devices [ 14 ], clear aligner treatments [ 15 ], and lingual orthodontics [ 16 ]. The primary aim of this study is to develop a comprehensive profile of research conducted on the application of AI in orthodontics and orthognathic surgery, providing invaluable insights for researchers, clinicians, and other stakeholders.…”