Is orthodontic research falling prey to obscure and predatory journals? A bibliometric study.

AIMS: To evaluate where orthodontic research papers are published and to explore potential relationships between the journal of publication and the characteristics of the research study and authorship. METHODS: An online literature search of seven research databases was undertaken to identify orthodontic articles published in English language over a 12-month period (1 January-31 December 2022) (last search: 12 June 2023). Data extracted included journal, article, and author characteristics. Journal legitimacy was assessed using a ternary classification scheme including available blacklists and whitelists, cross-checking of indexing claims and history of sending unsolicited emails. The level of evidence (LOE) of all included studies was assessed using a modified Oxford LOE classification scale. Univariable and multivariable ordinal logistic regression analyses were performed to examine possible associations between the level of evidence, journal discipline, and authorship characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 753 studies, published by 246 unique journal titles, were included and further assessed. Nearly two-thirds of orthodontic papers were published in non-orthodontic journals (62.8%) and over half (55.6%) of the articles were published in open-access policy journals. About a fifth of the articles (21.2%) were published either in presumed predatory journals or in journals of uncertain legitimacy. Journal discipline was significantly associated with the level of evidence. Higher-quality orthodontic studies were more likely published in established orthodontic journals (likelihood ratio test P < .001). LIMITATIONS: The identification and classification of predatory journals are challenging due to their covert nature. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of orthodontic articles were published in non-orthodontic journals. In addition, approximately one in five orthodontic studies were published in presumed predatory journals or in journals of uncertain legitimacy. Studies with higher levels of evidence were more likely to be published in established orthodontic journals.

Longitudinal bibliometric investigation of published orthodontic research 2013-23: are we investigating patient-reported outcomes?

BACKGROUND: The published literature represents the fundamental basis of any academic specialty, including orthodontics. Orthodontic research outputs provide useful insight into clinical and research priorities, which can help inform future research efforts and resource outputs. In recent years, the need for more patient-reported outcomes in orthodontic research has been highlighted. OBJECTIVES: To identify the most common reported research subjects in orthodontics between 2013-23; (2) identify the main outcomes and types of study design associated with this research, including study design related to patient-reported outcomes; and (3) identify trends in this research activity based upon these findings. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A literature search was performed in a single electronic database (Scopus) to return all indexed publications with relevance to orthodontics published from 2013 to 2023. The 50 most-cited publications per year were then identified. Publication characteristics were extracted using a data collection sheet. Descriptive statistics including frequency distributions were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 14 397 publications were identified. Publications on orthodontic bonding made up 7.02% of all output, followed by materials (5.88%) and tooth movement (5.42%). Subsequent analysis of the most-cited publications per year revealed the most frequently published subjects were aligners (12.5%), orthodontic tooth movement (9.45%), and digital workflow (9.09%), and the most common study designs were in vitro (19.09%) and retrospective observational studies (15.45%). The most common outcome type was morphological features of malocclusion (26.9%). Conversely, patient-focused measures were only reported in 12.7% of studies. CONCLUSIONS: Orthodontic research outputs are dynamic but do show consistent research interest in certain subjects. There is a predilection for the reporting of clinician-focused outcomes; whilst these have some value, more efforts should be focused on conducting rigorous and robust studies that include patient-reported outcomes.

Estimating the use of ChatGPT in dental research publications.

INTRODUCTION: Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) Large-language models such as ChatGPT have become increasingly popular in various fields. However, the impact of ChatGPT on dental research writing has yet to be quantified. This study aimed to assess ChatGPT's usage in dental research writing and discuss potential advantages and challenges. METHODS: Using a bibliometric design, we performed a keyword analysis of specific 'signaling words' indicative of ChatGPT use in the titles/abstracts of 299,695 dental research abstracts indexed PubMed 2018-2024. Statistical comparisons using normalized ratios per 10,000 dental publications compared changes in word frequency before and after the ChatGPT release on November 30, 2022. RESULTS: Before ChatGPT's release, the frequency of abstracts with signaling words was 47.1 per 10,000 papers. After the release, this increased to 224.2 per 10,000 papers, an increase of 177.2 per 10,000 papers (p = 0.014, 95 % CI 53.5-300.7). The word 'delve' showed the most significant usage increase (increased ratio=17.0). CONCLUSIONS: This study is among the first to systematically assess the use of GenAI, specifically ChatGPT, in dental research. We found evidence of the use and growth of ChatGPT in dental research publications. This trend indicates the widespread adoption of GenAI-assisted writing in scientific communication, consistent with other scientific fields. While GenAI can potentially increase productivity and inclusivity, it raises concerns such as bias, inaccuracy, and distortion of academic incentives. Therefore, our findings support the need for clear AI guidelines and standards for academic publishing to ensure responsible use and maintain scientific integrity.

Top 100 most-cited papers on diabetes mellitus in Dentistry: a bibliometric study.

This study assessed the features of the 100 most-cited papers on diabetes mellitus (DM) in dentistry using bibliometric measures. A search of the most cited papers on DM using journals included in the category "Dentistry, Oral Surgery and Medicine" in the Web of Science database up to January 2023 was performed. The complete bibliographic records of the selected papers were exported in plain text or Research Information Systems (RIS) file format. The following bibliometric indicators were collected: title, year, authors, number of citations, mean number of citations, institution, country, continent, study design, journal, impact factor, and keywords. Graphical bibliometric networks were created using the VOSviewer software. The number of citations for the 100 most-cited papers in DM research ranged from 111 to 566. Six papers each had more than 400 citations. Most were observational studies (n = 50) from the United States (USA) (n = 23) and were published in the Journal of Periodontology (30%; n=30). Robert Genco was the most cited author and contributed the most to the top 100 articles (3,653 citations; n = 13). The VOSviewer map of co-authorship showed the existence of clusters in research collaboration. The most prolific institutions were the Universities of Buffalo and Michigan (n = 6 each). "Diabetes mellitus" was the most frequent keyword, with 31 occurrences. In conclusion, the most cited studies that investigated the relationship between dentistry and DM were in periodontology. Observational studies, primarily from the USA, have been the most cited thus far.

Noncarious cervical lesions: A bibliometric analysis and future research trends.

OBJECTIVE: The present bibliometric review analyzed the literature on non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) to explore the current state and propose future research topics. DATA: An electronic search was performed, only full scientific papers published in English were included. SOURCES: A search was conducted of all databases in the Web of Science (WOS) platform for available publications on the topic of NCCLs. STUDY SELECTION: 959 publications were retrieved, and the following data were extracted and analyzed: number of publications, study topics, keywords, study type, authors, affiliations, countries, funding agencies, journals and citations. Articles on NCCLs have been increasing in count, ever since they were first mentioned in the literature. Therapy alternatives account for 628 with few on prevention, and the majority were clinical. Brazil has published the most on NCCLs as well as has the highest number of authors and the most funded articles. The three journals that published the most on the topic were Operative Dentistry, Journal of Dentistry and Clinical Oral Investigations. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study provide a full picture of the current literature on NCCLs, research trends, knowledge gaps, and areas requiring further investigation. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: By highlighting evolving treatment strategies and potential gaps in prevention, researchers can contribute to the advancement of clinical practice. This can improve patient care and outcomes in the management of NCCLs, while also providing valuable insights for policymakers to prioritize research funding and policy initiatives.

Spin in dental publications: a scoping review.

The aim of this review was to map the practice of spin in scientific publications in the dental field. After registering the review protocol (osf.io/kw5qv/), a search was conducted in MEDLINE via PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, Scopus, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and OpenGrey databases in June 2023. Any study that evaluated the presence of spin in dentistry was eligible. Data were independently extracted in duplicate by two reviewers. After removing duplicates, 4888 records were screened and 38 were selected for full-text review. Thirteen studies met the eligibility criteria, all of which detected the presence of spin in the primary studies, with the prevalence of spin ranging from 30% to 86%. The most common types of spin assessed in systematic reviews were failure to mention adverse effects of interventions and to report the number of studies/patients contributing to the meta-analysis of main outcomes. In randomized controlled trials, there was a focus on statistically significant within-group and between-group comparisons for primary or secondary outcomes (in abstract results) and claiming equivalence/noninferiority/similarity for statistically nonsignificant results (in abstract conclusions). The practice of spin is widespread in dental scientific literature among different specialties, journals, and countries. Its impact, however, remains poorly investigated.

Status of Research on Dental Caries during Pregnancy: A Biometric Exploration.

AIM: To describe the bibliometric characteristics of the state of scientific production on dental caries during pregnancy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A bibliometric study with a sample of 408 publications indexed in the Scopus database, which were selected based on a search strategy that included logical operators and the term MESH. The Scival tool was used to analyze the metadata. RESULTS: Jamieson Lisa Marie is positioned as the author with the most publications, and Schroth Robert as the one with the best-weighted impact (FWCI: 37.7). High-impact journals such as BMC Oral Health, Journal of Dental Research, and BMC Public Health stand out for their productivity and an average number of citations. The United States has a large number of publications and evidence of networks of scientific activity with Australia, Canada, and Brazil. The University of Adelaide leads the production and the work of two Latin American institutions (Universidade de São Paulo and Universidade Federal do Maranhão) stands out. International collaboration has improved during the study period. CONCLUSION: Scientific production on dental caries during pregnancy is increasingly published in high-impact journals, with growing international collaboration. The United States leads in publications, while Australian institutions are the most productive in this field. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Caries during pregnancy is a problem that has an important impact on maternal and perinatal health; thus, its timely management and prevention are important areas of research in the field of oral health. How to cite this article: Muñoz-Hidalgo M, Verastegui-Cabanillas Y, Barja-Ore J. Status of Research on Dental Caries during Pregnancy: A Biometric Exploration. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(4):386-391.

Evaluating global research trends in special needs dentistry: A systematic bibliometrix analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Special needs dentistry (SND) is a vast and fragmented field of study. This comprehensive bibliometric analysis aimed to evaluate the scope of SND, including the existing knowledge base, distribution structure, quantitative relationships, and research trends. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic search was conducted on March 10, 2022, using the Web of Science Core Collection database, covering the period from 1985 to 2021, focusing on studies reporting on special needs populations in a dentally relevant context. Records were title-screened and analyzed for key bibliometric indicators. RESULTS: Among 48,374 articles, 13,869 underwent bibliometric analysis. Peak SND research occurred during 1985-1997. United States led in productivity, trailed by Brazil and Japan. University of Sao Paulo excelled in Brazil, University of Washington and University of North Carolina in the United States. The Journal of Dental Research was the most productive source of research and also had the highest number of citations, followed by Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. Keyword analysis revealed that "elderly", "caries", and "epidemiology" were the most commonly used author keywords. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the first bibliometric analysis of SND literature. It emphasizes the need for increased collaboration between institutions and authors. Furthermore, it suggests focusing on research input from non-dental disciplines and populations with rarer intellectual or developmental conditions.

Dental research related to COVID-19 in Brazil: research presented at the 38th SBPqO Meeting.

The aim of this study was to identify and describe the characteristics of coronavirus (COVID-19)-disease related dental research in Brazil presented at the 38th Annual Meeting of the Brazilian Division of the International Association for Dental Research (SBPqO). A search was carried out in the proceedings of the meeting to retrieve all abstracts. Those containing the term "COVID-19" in titles, abstracts, or keywords, and/or those of which the scope approached a COVID-19-related topic were included. The variables extracted from abstracts were: presenter category, field of study, design, data collection method, population, affiliation, and authors' gender. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used, with a significance level of α = 0.05. The search retrieved 185 abstracts, 5 did not meet study eligibility criteria and were excluded. COVID-19-related research was presented by either aspiring/associate members (67.8%) or beginner members (32.2%). Data collection methods were predominantly digitally mediated (65%), followed by secondary data use (25%), and in-person data collection (7.2%). Irrespective of the role of authorship, there were a ratio of two female authors to each male. Among the last authors, the ratio was three females to each male. Female lead authors more frequently came from the Southeast region (71.8%; p = 0.470). There was an association between presenter category and study design (p = 0.012), clinical and epidemiological studies were more concentrated among experienced presenters. In conclusion, female dental researchers affiliated to southeastern institutions approached the topic of pandemic more frequently than male colleagues. The use of digital technology for data collection may have long-lasting impacts on the teaching and publication of dental research.

Research interest on dental sealant in dentistry based on the 100 most cited articles: bibliometric analysis.

The aim of this study was to identify and analyze the characteristics of the 100 most cited articles about dental sealants (DS) in dentistry. In September 2023, a search was performed in the Web of Science Core Collection (WoS-CC) database. The following information was extracted from each article: number and density of citations, year of publication, authorship, journal, impact factor, keywords, study design, theme, continent, country, and institution. The citations of the WoS-CC were compared with those of the Scopus and Google Scholar databases. The VOSviewer software was used to generate collaborative networks. The number of citations ranged from 33 to 205. The articles were published between 1961 and 2016. Buonocore MG (7%) was the most prominent author among the most cited. The Journal of the American Dental Association was the most frequent journal (25%) and Journal of Dental Research (7.6) had the highest impact factor. Most studies had interventional (41%) and laboratory (31%) designs, mainly addressing DS effectiveness in the prevention and control of dental caries (86%). There was a predominance of publications from North America (46%) and the USA was the country with the highest number of articles (44%). The most frequent institutions were the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (USA) and the University of Rochester (USA) (6% each). "Retention" was the most frequent keyword. In conclusion, the 100 most cited articles were mostly interventional and laboratory studies, addressing the retention and efficacy of DS. Most of the articles were concentrated in North America and Europe, demonstrating a little collaboration from other continents.

Five decades of research on immediate implant therapy: A modern bibliometric network analysis via Altmetric and level of evidence mapping.

AIM: To conduct a bibliometric network analysis to explore the research landscape of immediate implant placement (IIP) and provide insights into its trends and contributors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Scopus database was utilized as the bibliographic source, and a search strategy was implemented to identify relevant research articles. Various bibliometric parameters were extracted, including publication year, journal, authors, citations, and funding. The analysis involved examining authorship patterns, international collaborations, level of evidence, Altmetric data, and funding analysis. RESULTS: We identified a steady annual growth rate of 6.49% in IIP research. The top three countries contributing to research output were the USA, Italy, and China. Prolific authors were identified based on publication and citation metrics. International collaborations among different countries were observed. The level of evidence analysis revealed that over 30% of the articles fell into higher levels of evidence (levels 1 and 2). Altmetric data analysis indicated no significant correlations between citation counts and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), and conversely a significant association with Mendeley readers count. Funding and open access did not significantly impact the bibliometric indices of the papers. CONCLUSIONS: The focus of research on IIP has been evolving as indicated by an exponential growth rate in this study. Only approximately 16% of the articles fit into level 1 evidence, therefore, emphasizing on higher quality level research study shortage in this field. Modern indices can be used as new bibliometric indicators as they also cover social media and online attention scores.

Reporting characteristics of systematic review abstracts published in the proceedings of the SBPqO meeting

Aim: This study aimed to assess the reporting characteristics of systematic review abstracts published in the proceedings of the Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica (SBPqO) meeting. Methods: We selected abstracts published in the SBPqO meeting proceedings of 2019 and 2020, mentioning that a systematic review was conducted in the title, objective or methods sections. One researcher performed the screening and the data extraction after a pilot test training. The following data were extracted: affiliation of the primary author, dental specialization, the term "systematic review" mentioned in the title, reporting of the objective, reporting of eligibility criteria, reporting of information sources, reporting of the number of included studies and if a meta-analysis was performed. A descriptive analysis of the data was performed with data summarized as frequencies. Results: We included 235 abstracts. A total of 20 studies were from the Universidade de Uberlândia (8.5%), and the main specialization was Restorative and Esthetic Dentistry, with 47 studies (20%). Most of the studies mentioned the term "systematic review" in the title (n=219; 93.2%) and reported the objective (n=231; 98.3%). A great majority of studies did not report the eligibility criteria (n=97; 41.3%) or it was classified as unclear (n=96; 40.8%). The great majority of studies only reported the databases searched (n=103; 43.8%) or databases and date of search (n=74; 31.5%). Most of the studies reported the number of included studies (n=204; 86.8%). Conclusion: Based on this study, the reporting characteristics of systematic review abstracts published in the proceedings of the SBPqO meeting are satisfactory. However, there is room for improvement

Women Recipients of IADR Distinguished Scientist Awards.

The International Association for Dental Research (IADR) Distinguished Scientist Awards are prestigious recognitions of outstanding scientific accomplishments in various areas of dental, oral, and craniofacial research, which correspond to several of the IADR Scientific Groups and Networks. These 17 awards were established over a period of 60 y. The objective of this report is to highlight women recipients of IADR Distinguished Scientist Awards. Additionally, we report the distribution of awards to women scientists over time and compare the number of women nominees, awardees, and gender distribution of the membership. Information about the awards was obtained from the IADR member database and press releases. Information collected included name of the award, year received, and the awardee's name, institution, and position held at the time of the award. For the last 14 y, the time span for which reliable information was available, the gender distribution of the membership of the IADR was also retrieved. Overall, only 13% of the awardees have been women; even in the last 20 y, <20% have been women. In the last 14 y, the number of women awardees paralleled the number of nominees for each award. However, the proportion of women nominees was significantly lower than the female membership each year (P < 0.001). With the exception of 1 y, the percentage of women awardees trailed the women membership of the IADR. In the past 4 y, women represented 12% to 18% of the awardees, whereas they composed 41% to 46% of the IADR's membership. Given the benefits of prestigious recognitions on recruitment and retention of faculty and on attracting new research trainees into a discipline, it is important that policies be implemented to increase the proportion of women nominees for awards to appropriately recognize the efforts of remarkable women scientists.

Commentary: Challenges and Opportunities for Women in Dental Research.

This commentary integrates and expands on the preceding articles in this issue that document and celebrate a century of women's achievements in the International Association for Dental Research (IADR). The increasing participation and leadership of women in dental and craniofacial research and within the IADR were viewed from the perspective of a changing culture of science. The steps that have been taken by the IADR to develop greater inclusiveness are acknowledged, and some of the challenges that remain are discussed in terms of obstacles that are most often social or cultural in origin. Comparisons are made across countries, and the social determinants that lead to differences in women's participation are described. Recommendations are made for developing strategies to change elements of our institutional cultures that have provided advantages to some groups of researchers more than to others. The unconscious biases and a lack of commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion that limit the participation of members of some groups limit the progress and achievements of science in general.

Empowering Women Researchers in the New Century: IADR's Strategic Direction.

Gender inequality in science, medicine, and dentistry remains a central concern for the biomedical research workforce today. Although progress in areas of inclusivity and gender diversity was reported, growth has been slow. Women still face multiple challenges in reaching higher ranks and leadership positions while maintaining holistic success in these fields. Within dental research and academia, we might observe trends toward a more balanced pipeline. However, women continue to face barriers in seeking leadership roles and achieving economic equity and scholarship recognition. In an effort to evaluate the status of women in dental research and academia, the authors examined the role of the International Association for Dental Research (IADR), a global research organization, which has improved awareness on gender inequality. The goal of this article is to review five crucial issues of gender inequality in oral health research and academics-workforce pipeline, economic inequality, workplace harassment, gender bias in scholarly productivity, and work-life balance-and to discuss proactive steps that the IADR has taken to promote gender equality. Providing networking and training opportunities through effective mentoring and coaching for women researchers, the IADR has developed a robust pipeline of women leaders while promoting gender equality for women in dental academia through a culture shift. As knowledge gaps remained on the levels of conscious and unconscious bias and sexist culture affecting women advancement in academics, as well as the intersectionality of gender with race, gender identity, ability status, sexual orientation, and cultural backgrounds, the IADR has recognized that further research is warranted.

The online attention to oral cancer research: An Altmetric analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Altmetrics, or alternative metrics, have recently emerged as a web-based metrics measuring the impact of research with an emphasis on the public engagement with the research output. In this study, we aimed to identify and analyze research articles about oral cancer that provoked the most online attention. METHODS: Altmetric Explorer was used to identify articles about oral cancer that generated the highest online attention. Descriptive and correlational statistics were performed, and the top 100 articles were identified and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 7,940 articles were identified. Topics were mostly discussed on Facebook, Twitter, Mendeley, and news outlets. The top 100 articles that generated the highest online attention discussed mainly topics related to treatment outcomes and quality of life. Human papilloma virus (HPV) was the most commonly discussed individual topic in the list of top 100 outputs (n = 20). Most articles originated from the USA (n = 46) and Europe (n = 33; mainly from UK [24 articles]). Articles were published in 47 journals that belong to different specialities; journals with a social media account had significantly higher Altmetric scores for their articles compared to those without an account. CONCLUSION: Topics of general interest to the public such as HPV transmission and vaccination, risk factors, and treatment generated the highest online attention.

Research Productivity of Directors of U.S. Advanced Education in Prosthodontics Programs.

The aims of this study were to measure the research productivity of directors of U.S. advanced education in prosthodontics programs (AEPP) and to identify associations between the directors' publication metrics and professional characteristics. A list of AEPP directors was obtained from the American College of Prosthodontists website in December 2015. Information on gender, academic rank, and highest degree was collected from the institutional website for each individual. Citation databases (Scopus and Google Scholar) were searched for each director's h-index and i10-index (both indexes are based on numbers of citations of the author's articles) and total numbers of publications and citations. The search identified 50 AEPP directors. The majority were male and had a primary appointment at a university. Most held the rank of associate professor or professor and held both DDS and MS degrees. The mean h-index and i10-index of all directors were 6.32±6.97 and 6.84±10.77, respectively. Their mean numbers of publications and citations were 24.60±31.21 and 288.40±625.97, respectively. The analysis showed that the program directors affiliated with a university had significantly higher mean values for all indexes than those of non-university-affiliated program directors. Professors had productivity metrics significantly higher than those of other ranks in all measures of research productivity.