WITHDRAWN: Effect of post space conditioning and luting resin on the retentive strength of fiber-reinforced composite resin posts

Saker, Samah; Elkholany, Naglaa Rizk; Elgendy, Abeer; Fadhil, Omar N; Maria, Ola M.

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.07.030

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Author misconduct resulted to be the most common reason for retraction (117 articles; 65.0%), followed by honest scientific errors (22 articles; 12.2%) and publisher‐related issues (19 articles; 10.6%). The reasons for the retraction of 12 articles (6.7%) were not explained in the retraction notice (Abou‐Madina, Ozcan, & Abdelaziz, ; Al‐Sukhun, Helenius, Lindqvist, & Thoren, ; El Fadl et al, ; Jin, Patil, & Sharma, ; Lan, Hadj‐Said, Foletti, Massereau, & Chossegros, ; Panaite, Klokkevold, & Charles, ; Pavel & Pavel, ; Saker, El‐Kholany, El‐Gendy, Fadhil, & Maria, ; Saker, El‐Kholany, Sakrana, & Maria, ; Sumanth, Boaz, & Shetty, ; Velleuer et al, ; Wang et al, ). Detailed description of the reasons for retraction of the included articles is provided in Table .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retracted publications and their citation in dental literature: A systematic review

Rapani

Lombardi

Berton

et al. 2020

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The present systematic review aimed to perform an in‐depth analysis of the different features of retracted publications in the dental field. Material and methods This review has been recorded in the PROSPERO database (CRD42017075634). Two independent reviewers performed an electronic search (Pubmed, Retraction Watch) for retracted articles in dental literature up to December 31, 2018. Results 180 retracted papers were identified, the first published in 2001. Retractions increased by 47% in the last four‐year period (2014–2018), when compared with 2009–2013 (94 and 64 retracted publications, respectively). Author misconduct was the most common reason for retraction (65.0%), followed by honest scientific errors (12.2%) and publisher‐related issues (10.6%). The majority of retracted research was conducted in Asia (55.6%), with 49 papers written in India (27.2%). 552 researchers (89%) are listed as authors in only one retracted article, while 10 researchers (1.6%) are present in five or more retracted publications. Retracted articles were cited 530 times after retraction: the great majority of these citations (89.6%) did not consider the existence of the retraction notice and treated data from retracted articles as reliable. Conclusions Retractions in dental literature have constantly increased in recent years, with the majority of them due to misconduct and fraud. The publication of unreliable research has many negative consequences. Studies derived from such material are designed on potentially incorrect bases, waste funds and resources, and most importantly, increase risk of incorrect treatment for patients. Citation of retracted papers represents a major issue for the scientific community.

show abstract