Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Book Review
Case Report
Case Series
Clinical Article
Clinical Innovation
Clinical Pearl
Clinical Pearls
Clinical Showcase
Clinical Technique
Critical Review
Editorial
Expert Corner
Experts Corner
Featured Case Report
Guest Editorial
Original Article
Original Research
Review Article
Special Article
Special Feature
Systematic Review
The Experts Corner
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Book Review
Case Report
Case Series
Clinical Article
Clinical Innovation
Clinical Pearl
Clinical Pearls
Clinical Showcase
Clinical Technique
Critical Review
Editorial
Expert Corner
Experts Corner
Featured Case Report
Guest Editorial
Original Article
Original Research
Review Article
Special Article
Special Feature
Systematic Review
The Experts Corner
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Original Article
ARTICLE IN PRESS
doi:
10.25259/APOS_137_2022

Bibliometric analysis of research publications in three major orthodontic journals during 2012–2021

Division of Paediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Corresponding author: Yifan Lin, Division of Paediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. yflin@hku.hk
Licence
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, transform, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

How to cite this article: Li J, Onsiong K, Cheung EY, Lin Y. Bibliometric analysis of research publications in three major orthodontic journals during 2012–2021. APOS Trends Orthod, doi: 10.25259/APOS_137_2022

Abstract

Objectives:

This study conducted a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of articles published from 2012 to 2021 in three orthodontic journals: The American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO), The Angle Orthodontist (AO), and European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO).

Material and Methods:

Eligible articles published from 2012 to 2021 in AJODO, AO, and EJO were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection database and subsequently processed using CiteSpace software to generate their characteristics, including authorship, institution, geographic origin, keywords, and citation profiles.

Results:

The three orthodontic journals published 4001 articles from 370 institutions in 95 countries from 2012 to 2021. The AJODO published the most articles (45.5%) followed by AO (31.3%) and EJO (23.2%). The most prolific country was the United States (US), followed by Brazil, South Korea, China, and Turkey. The authors from the US were heavily engaged in international collaborations, especially with South Korea and Brazil. The country and institutions with the highest citation counts per publication were Italy and the University of Bern (Switzerland), respectively. Pandis N was the most prolific author, and Proffit W was the most-cited author in the 4001 publications. The keywords that emerged most frequently were “children” followed by “orthodontic treatment” and “malocclusion.” Four of the 10 most-cited articles were related to digital dental technology.

Conclusion:

This bibliometric analysis provides a complete picture of the research published in three major orthodontic journals over the past decade. It comprehensively analyzes the authorship, country of origin, institutions, keywords, and citation profiles of the articles.

Keywords

Bibliometrics
Orthodontic journals
Article characteristics
Citation analysis

INTRODUCTION

Orthodontics is a constantly evolving field of dentistry that involves exciting advancements both within and outside clinical settings. As the number of orthodontic publications grows worldwide, indicating an increasing interest in orthodontic research, the publication characteristics and citation profiles may well reveal the trends in orthodontics and thereby convey the latest discoveries and research prospects to the scientific community. Bibliometrics has emerged as a critical tool for assessing scientific activities and the publication trends of journals over time; they provide a complete picture of the general research landscape in a particular field.[1,2] Bibliometrics involves the quantitative analysis of publication characteristics, such as authorship, institutions, countries, topics, publication journals, citation profiles, and other variables.[1,2]

Considered an effective approach for information retrieval and stratification, numerous bibliometric studies have been conducted in the various fields of medicine and dentistry specialties, including endodontics, periodontology, pediatric dentistry, implantology, prosthodontics, and oral and maxillofacial surgery.[3-11] Several bibliometric studies have been conducted to gauge the performance and impact of orthodontic research in recent years. Most of these bibliometric studies have focused on the most-cited articles[12-15] or specific parameters[16,17] or have not included the most recent studies;[18,19] thus, the overall orthodontic research profile of studies published in the past decade has not yet been comprehensively investigated.

To bridge this knowledge gap, this study conducted a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of all of the publications from 2012 to 2021 in three high-impact orthodontic journals: The American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO), The Angle Orthodontist (AO), and European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO). In the era of big data, the findings of this study will offer valuable insights into the past, present, and future of the orthodontic research field.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data acquisition

Three well-established high-impact orthodontic journals included in the Journal Citation Reports – AJODO, AO, and EJO – were selected for bibliometric analysis. The data were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection database on February 8, 2022, using the search strategy SO = (AJODO) OR SO = (AO) OR SO = (EJO). The search was restricted to publications within the past decade, from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2021. Letters, editorials, corrections, meeting abstracts, biographical items, and book reviews were excluded. The records were retrieved in the “Full Records and Cited References” plain text file format. Each record contained pertinent data for analysis, such as the title, author, institution, country, keywords, abstract, and references. The 4001 eligible articles retrieved were subsequently processed using CiteSpace software (http://cluster.ischool.drexel.edu/~cchen/citespace/download/) to map the orthodontic research output over the past decade.

Data analysis

CiteSpace 5.8.R3, a multidimensional, time-sharing, and dynamic visualization analysis software application developed by Chen,[20] was used to identify and analyze the countries, institutions, authors, journals, keywords, citations, and references cited in these publications. The Web of Science is the original input data source for CiteSpace. Author, institution, and country were selected for respective analyses. The institutions and countries of all authors were counted, not limited to the first author. Keywords were selected for cooccurrence and burst analyses. Keyword bursts were used to investigate recurring keywords, analyze keywords with high citation bursts, and identify research frontier predictors. References were selected for cocitation analysis. The parameters were set as follows: Time slicing (2012–2021), year per slice (1), term source (all), and selection criteria (top 10%). The impact factors were obtained from the Journal Citation Reports. The article citations were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection. An online bibliometric tool (https://bibliometric.com/) was used to generate the country collaboration map.

RESULTS

Journal profiles

The trends in impact factors of the AJODO, AO, and EJO from 2012 to 2021 are shown in [Figure 1]. The impact factors of all three journals exhibited an upward trend over the past decade. The AJODO had the highest impact factor in 2012–2013, 2015, and 2018 before being replaced by EJO toward the end of the decade. A total of 4001 original articles published in the three journals from 2012 to 2021 were retrieved. The number of publications by AJODO (1821) was the highest, accounting for 45.5% of the total publications, followed by AO (1251, 31.3%) and EJO [929, 23.2%; Figure 2].

Figure 1:: Trends in the impact factor of the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, The Angle Orthodontist, and European Journal of Orthodontics from 2012 to 2021.
Figure 2:: Number of publications and publication trends in the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, The Angle Orthodontist, and European Journal of Orthodontics from 2012 to 2021.

Country profile

Ninety-five countries contributed 4001 articles to the AJODO, AO, and EJO from 2012 to 2021. The top countries contributing the most articles are shown in [Figure 3 and Table 1]. The United States (US) published the highest number of articles (1003) and had the most citations (11,955) followed by Brazil (545 articles and 5416 citations). Italy ranked first in terms of the average citation/publication ratio (15.32) followed by Switzerland (13.52) and the United Kingdom (UK; 13.51). A map of the collaborative relationships between countries is shown in [Figure 4]. The US was heavily engaged in international collaborations, especially with South Korea and Brazil, whereas the UK had more collaboration with European countries.

Figure 3:: Trends in the number of publications by the top 10 most prolific countries from 2012 to 2021.
Table 1:: Top 20 countries with the most publications in the AJODO, AO, and EJO from 2012 to 2021.
Country Publications Citations Citation/ publication ratio
United States 1003 11,995 11.96
Brazil 545 5416 9.94
South Korea 351 3643 10.38
China 301 2723 9.05
Turkey 295 3393 11.50
United Kingdom 265 3579 13.51
Italy 250 3829 15.32
Japan 244 2268 9.30
Switzerland 219 2960 13.52
Canada 179 1815 10.14
Germany 173 2856 16.51
Sweden 144 1792 12.44
Greece 112 1771 15.81
Australia 97 1011 10.42
Saudi Arabia 86 982 11.42
Netherlands 86 1251 14.55
India 82 1036 12.63
Egypt 69 827 11.99
Finland 67 641 9.57
Denmark 59 654 11.08
Figure 4:: Collaborative relationships between countries.

Institution profile

From 2012 to 2021, 370 institutions contributed articles to the AJODO, AO, and EJO. The 20 most prolific institutions are listed in [Table 2]. Among the top 10, three were in South Korea, two were in Brazil, and two were in Switzerland. The University of São Paulo (Brazil) was the most prolific institution, contributing 145 articles. Articles published by the University of Bern (Switzerland) had both the highest citation counts and the highest citation to publication ratio.

Table 2:: Top 20 institutions with the most publications in the AJODO, AO, and EJO from 2012 to 2021.
Institutions Country Publications Citations Citation/publication ratio
University of São Paulo Brazil 145 1152 7.94
University of Bern Switzerland 112 1795 16.03
Kyung Hee University South Korea 111 1095 9.86
University of Alberta Canada 110 1214 11.03
Seoul national university South Korea 100 1120 11.20
University of Zurich Switzerland 97 1344 13.86
University of Michigan United States 85 1188 13.98
Yonsei University South Korea 78 821 10.53
Sichuan University China 77 817 10.61
Federal University of Rio De Janeiro Brazil 72 1042 14.47
University of Athens Greece 69 1053 15.26
University of Florence Italy 65 996 15.32
A.T. Still University United States 64 532 8.31
Saint Louis University United States 63 781 12.40
University of Connecticut United States 60 726 12.10
University of North Carolina United States 58 778 13.41
Peking University China 47 408 8.68
Case Western Reserve University United States 43 396 9.21
Ohio State University United States 42 629 14.98
Catholic University of Korea South Korea 42 597 14.21
Kings College London United Kingdom 42 414 9.86

Author profile

The top 20 authors with the most publications in the AJODO, AO, and EJO from 2012 to 2021 are listed in [Table 3]. Their most recent affiliations and countries were also listed. The most prolific and cited author was Nikolaos Pandis, whose 76 articles were cited 1186 times followed by Guilherme Janson and Jae Hyun Park. The top 20 most-cited authors in the 4001 publications in the AJODO, AO, and EJO from 2012 to 2021 are shown in [Table 4]. William Proffit was the most-cited author among these publications, cited 601 times in the AJODO, AO, or EJO from 2012 to 2021 followed by Samir E. Bishara and James A. McNamara, Jr.

Table 3:: Top 20 authors with the most publications in the AJODO, EJO, and AO from 2012 to 2021.
Authors Publications Citations Academic affiliation Country
Pandis N 76 1,186 University of Bern Switzerland
Janson G 70 466 University of São Paulo Brazil
Park JH 66 541 Yonsei University South Korea
Flores-Mir C 65 813 University of Alberta United States
Franchi L 61 918 University of Florence Italy
Eliades T 53 752 University of Zurich Switzerland
Buschang PH 44 700 Texas A&M University Health Science Center United States
Nanda R 41 475 University of Connecticut United States
Fleming PS 30 614 Queen Mary University of London United Kingdom
Katsaros C 29 541 University of Bern Switzerland
Baek SH 29 339 Seoul National University South Korea
Darendeliler MA 27 292 University of Sydney Australia
Garib D 27 108 University of São Paulo Brazil
Bondemark L 27 571 Malmö University Sweden
Pithon MM 26 280 Southwest Bahia State University Brazil
Kim K 26 175 Yonsei University South Korea
Kim KB 26 390 Saint Louis University United States
Uribe FA 26 351 University of Connecticut United States
Cozza P 26 333 University of Rome Tor Vergata Italy
Kook YA 25 429 Catholic University of Korea South Korea
Table 4:: Top 20 most-cited authors by the publications in the AJODO, EJO, and AO from 2012 to 2021.
Authors Cocitations Academic affiliation Country
Proffit 601 University of North Carolina United States
Bishara 396 University of Iowa United States
McNamara Jr. JA 395 University of Michigan United States
Baccetti T 353 University of Florence Italy
Dahlberg D 272 State Institute for Race Biology Sweden
Björk A 236 Royal Dental College Denmark
Thilander B 225 Göteborg University Sweden
Pandis N 223 University of Bern Switzerland
Melsen B 222 Aarhus University Denmark
Fleming PS 199 Queen Mary University of London United Kingdom
Kuroda S 195 Okayama University Japan
Artun J 191 Kuwait University Kuwait
Zachrisson BU 188 University Oslo Norway
Janson G 175 University of São Paulo Brazil
Franchi L 174 University of Florence Italy
Little RM 171 University of Washington United States
Peck S 163 University of North Carolina United States
Houston WJB 160 Royal Dental Hospital School of Dental Surgery United Kingdom
Burstone CJ 155 University of Connecticut United States
Park HS 148 Kyungpook National University South Korea

Keywords

The top 20 most common keywords in the AJODO, AO, and EJO from 2012 to 2021 are listed in [Table 5]. The most frequently used keyword was “children” followed by “orthodontic treatment” and “malocclusion.” The top 20 keywords with the strongest citation bursts revealed a shift in research interests over the past decade [Figure 5]. Early in this decade, research related to “orthodontic bracket,” “mechanical property,” and “screw” attracted the most interest. Toward 2021, the research frontiers shifted to “maxillary expansion,” “maxillary canines,” “functional appliance,” “Invisalign,” and “oral health.”

Table 5:: Top 20 most frequent keywords in the AJODO, EJO, and AO from 2012 to 2021.
Key words Frequency
Children 348
Orthodontic treatment 296
Malocclusion 291
Prevalence 229
Skeletal 222
Stability 213
Growth 213
Appliance 199
Tooth movement 187
Teeth 187
Accuracy 187
Cone-beam computed tomography 182
Reliability 179
Anchorage 151
Therapy 150
Morphology 134
Adult 134
Perception 121
Force 117
Extraction 110
Figure 5:: Top 20 keywords with the strongest citation bursts. The green line represents the whole period and the red line represents the citation burst period.

Most-cited articles

Among the 4001 articles published in the AJODO, AO, and EJO from 2012 to 2021, the top 10 most-cited articles are listed in [Table 6]. Furthermore, the articles cited in the 4001 articles were analyzed. The top 10 articles most cited by the 4001 publications in the AJODO, AO, and EJO from 2012 to 2021 are listed in [Table 7]. The number of citations, citations per year, study types, and countries of all authors are also presented.

Table 6:: Top 10 most-cited articles published in the AJODO, EJO, and AO from 2012 to 2021.
No. Article titles Authors Journals Study type Countries of authors Year Citations Citations per year
1 Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner[21] Flügge et al. AJODO Cross-sectional study Germany 2013 249 31.13
2 Efficacy of clear aligners in controlling orthodontic tooth movement: A systematic review[22] Rossini et al. AO Systematic review Italy 2015 154 25.67
3 Failure rates and associated risk factors of orthodontic miniscrew implants: A meta-analysis[23] Papageorgiou et al. AJODO Systematic review Germany
Israel
Greece
2012 154 17.11
4 Effect of micro-osteoperforations on the rate of tooth movement[24] Alikhani et al. AJODO Randomized control trial United States 2013 139 17.38
5 Accuracy and reproducibility of dental replica models reconstructed by different rapid prototyping techniques[25] Hazeveld et al. AJODO Cross-sectional study The Netherlands 2014 138 19.71
6 Prevalence of white spot lesion formation during orthodontic treatment[26] Julien et al. AO Retrospective cohort study United States 2013 137 17.13
7 The effect of sample size and bias on the reliability of estimates of error: A comparative study of Dahlberg’s formula[27] Springate EJO Methodological study United Kingdom 2012 137 15.22
8 The impact of malocclusion on the quality of life among children and adolescents: A systematic review of quantitative studies[28] Dimberg et al. EJO Systematic review Sweden 2015 130 21.67
9 Imaging software accuracy for three-dimensional analysis of the upper airway[29] Weissheimer et al. AJODO Cross-sectional study Brazil United States 2012 127 14.11
10 Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: An assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance[30] Grünheid et al. AJODO Cross-sectional study United States 2014 125 17.86
Table 7:: Top 10 articles most cited by the AJODO, EJO, and AO from 2012 to 2021.
No. Article titles Authors Journals Study type Countries of authors Year Cocitations Citations per year
1 Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: Elaboration and explanation[33] Shamseer et al. BMJ Reporting guideline Canada
Ireland
Australia
Italy
United Kingdom
United States
2015 29 4.83
2 Prevalence of white spot lesions during orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances[34] Tufekci et al. AO Cross-sectional study United States 2011 28 2.80
3 Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: A systematic review[35] Fleming et al. OCR Systematic review United Kingdom 2011 27 2.70
4 Retention procedures for stabilizing tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces[36] Littlewood et al. Cochrane Systematic review United Kingdom Ireland 2016 24 4.80
5 Treatment effects of removable functional appliances in patients with Class II malocclusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis[37] Koretsi et al. EJO Systematic review Greece
Germany
2015 24 4.00
6 Clinical recommendations regarding use of cone-beam computed tomography in orthodontics. Position statement by the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology[38] American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology OOOO Clinical guideline United States 2013 23 2.88
7 The impact of malocclusion on the quality of life among children and adolescents: A systematic review of quantitative studies[28] Dimberg et al. EJO Systematic review Sweden 2015 23 3.83
8 Contemporary orthodontics[39] Proffit et al. Book N/A United States 2012 21 2.63
9 Effectiveness of comprehensive fixed appliance treatment used with the Forsus fatigue resistant device in class II patients[40] Franchi et al. AO Retrospective cohort study Italy
United States
2011 21 2.10
10 Treatment effects of fixed functional appliances alone or in combination with multibracket appliances: A systematic review and meta-analysis[41] Perinetti et al. AO Systematic review Italy
Slovenia
United States
2015 21 3.50

BMJ: British Medical Journal, Cochrane: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, OCR: Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research, OOOO: Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, and Oral Radiology

DISCUSSION

This bibliometric study mapped the publication output across three high-impact orthodontic journals – AJODO, AO, and EJO – from 2012 to 2021. In this period, the authors from 95 countries and 370 institutions contributed 4001 original articles to these three orthodontic journals. The publication characteristics during this time can represent the current research trends and predict the prospects in the field of orthodontics.

The US had the highest number of publications, followed by Brazil, South Korea, China, and Turkey. This finding is largely consistent with a previous study conducted by Baumgartner et al., which identified the US, Brazil, Japan, Turkey, and South Korea as the top publishing countries in the AJODO, AO, and EJO between 2008 and 2012.[19] The number of articles from China has increased in recent years, resulting in a spot among the top five countries with the most publications. In addition to quantifying the publications, we also measured the recognition and impact of publications by calculating the citation counts per article. Italy (15.32), Switzerland (13.52), and the UK (13.51) were the countries with the highest average citation to publication ratios.

Although the US ranks first in terms of article output, when the contributing institutions of the publications were analyzed, institutions in South Korea and Brazil were found to be more productive than those in the US. This was probably because the US has more institutions than any other country and therefore contributed the highest number of publications, whereas some institutions in Korea and Brazil published more articles per institution. Specifically, the University of São Paulo was the most prolific, contributing 145 articles followed by the University of Bern (112 articles) and Kyung Hee University (111 articles). Interestingly, three of the top 10 institutions were in South Korea, two were in Brazil, and two were in Switzerland. Aura-Tormos et al. analyzed the top 10 institutions published in seven orthodontic journals and found that the top three most prolific institutions were Seoul National University (South Korea), Yonsei University (South Korea), and the Federal University of São Paulo (Brazil).[18] In their results, six of the top 10 most prolific institutions were Asian, with four from Korea, one from China, and one from Japan.[18] Their study included the Korean Journal of Orthodontics, in which nearly 30% of the publications were from the same four Korean universities, which is one reason their list of the top 10 most prolific institutions differs from ours.[18] Moreover, they only counted the institution of the first author, whereas we counted the institutions of all co-authors.[18] Furthermore, the present study innovatively analyzed the total number of citations and the average number of citations per article for the top 10 institutions. The University of Bern was the most cited and had the highest average number of citations per article (16.03), reflecting the recognition and impact of their publications.

Two other studies analyzed only the most-cited articles in the field of orthodontics, and their results were different from those of this study.[12,15] Fernandes et al. analyzed the publishing institutions of the top 100 most-cited orthodontic articles published between 2000 and 2020 and found that the University of North Carolina (US) contributed the most articles (six articles and 978 citations) followed by Okayama University (Japan; four articles and 1169 citations) and the University of Illinois (US; four articles and 588 citations).[12] In contrast, Tarazona et al. analyzed the top 100 most-cited articles in orthodontics published between 1946 and 2016 and discovered that the most productive institutions were the University of Oslo (Norway; 10 articles), Ohio State University (US; nine articles), and the University of North Carolina (US; nine articles).[15] There were 21 US universities among the 42 institutions that contributed two or more articles.[15]

Unlike other studies,[18,19] we counted the profiles of all authors rather than just the first authors of the publications to map the research collaborations among different countries. The country collaboration map revealed that a large proportion of research output from 2012 to 2021 was from international collaborative efforts. In addition to publishing the most articles, the US had the most international collaborations, especially with South Korea and Brazil. Most Swiss publications were in collaboration with other countries. The UK mostly collaborated with other European countries, whereas other prolific countries, such as Turkey and China, tended to conduct research independently. The varied collaborative patterns among countries might be explained by differences in regional practices, research interests, funding resources, and the English proficiency of authors.

The top 20 most prolific authors are shown in [Table 3], representing the most active researchers in the field of clinical orthodontics. From 2012 to 2021, the most prolific author was Pandis N (76 articles and 1176 citations) followed by Janson G (70 articles and 466 citations) and Park JH (66 articles and 541 citations). However, when assessing citations, we did not consider the year of publication. Articles published in recent years are likely to be less cited than those published closer to 2012. Therefore, some authors whose publications are more recent may have received fewer citations. The top 20 authors most cited in the AJODO, AO, and EJO publications from 2012 to 2021, shown in [Table 4], represent the most influential orthodontic researchers in the field in recent decades. Their articles or books have been cited hundreds of times in the AJODO, AO, and EJO articles in the past decade, regardless of their year of publication. The top three most-cited authors were Proffit W, Bishara SE, and McNamara, JA Jr. from the US followed by Baccetti T from Italy. Notably, three authors – Pandis N, Janson G, and Fleming PS – were among the most prolific and most-cited authors.

The top 10 most-cited articles were all published during the first 3 years (2012–2015) included in our analysis.[21-30] Flügge et al. were cited over 200 times, with an average of 31.13 citations per year, indicating its high scientific impact.[21] Among these top 10 most-cited articles, four were related to digital dental techniques, that is, intraoral scanners, digital dental casts, and imaging software;[21,25,29,30] two investigated the risks of orthodontic treatments, namely, white spot lesions and mini-screw failure;[23,26] two assessed the efficacy of tooth movement, one using clear aligners and one using micro-osteoperforations;[22,24] and the remaining two were related to dental public health and statistics.[27,28] These topics reflect the most popular research hotspots in the past decade. The top 100 most-cited articles in the three journals from 2012 to 2021 were shown in the supplementary file. Unlike our results, Aura-Tormos et al. reported bone anchorage to be the most recurrent topic in articles published from 2007 to 2017.[18] A recent study analyzed the 100 most-cited articles in orthodontics in the past 20 years and found that anchorage (16 articles) was the most frequent thematic field followed by root resorption (eight articles) and rapid maxillary expansion (seven articles).[12] Another study analyzed the 100 most-cited orthodontic articles between 1946 and 2016 and found that mini-implant (18 articles) was the most frequently cited topic followed by biomechanics and biology (15 articles).[15] These differences could be explained by the difference in periods and journals analyzed. Based on our results, digital orthodontics was a more popular research topic in the past decade, probably because the three orthodontic journals we analyzed were more accepting of orthodontic clinical studies. In contrast, biology, material, or basic science studies in orthodontics were published in a broader range of scientific journals.

Regarding the study types of the most-cited studies, three were systematic reviews, representing the highest level of evidence because they summarized all valid scientific evidence at the time of publication.[31] Four were cross-sectional studies, one was a randomized and controlled trial, and one was a retrospective case series. Cross-sectional studies are an excellent option for research in dentistry, considering their effectiveness, benefit-to-cost ratio, rapid implementation, and roles as sources for planning and organizing oral health programs.[32] Gibson and Harrison found that surveys were the most prevalent research method, accounting for 33.9% of the publications in the AJODO, AO, EJO, and the Journal of Orthodontics from 1999 to 2008.[17] Among the 100 most-cited articles in orthodontics from 2000 to 2020, cross-sectional studies were the most common study type (37 articles); this study design is more relevant to research topics in anchorage, digital models, and cone-beam computed tomography.[12]

The top 10 articles most cited by AJODO, AO, and EJO publications from 2012 to 2021 are shown in [Table 7].[28,33-41] Among these articles, three were related to functional appliances or Class II correctors,[37,40,41] and the rest described retention protocols,[36] white spot lesions,[34] digital models,[35] quality of life,[28] and cone-beam computed tomography.[38] Regarding the study types, five were systematic reviews, one was a non-randomized controlled trial, one was a cross-sectional study, and the other three could not be classified.

One of the limitations of this study is that we only included articles published in the three major orthodontic journals, namely, AJODO, AO, and EJO; other orthodontic-related studies published in other scientific journals or other languages were not included in the study. In addition, we analyzed all coauthors of each publication, allowing for country collaboration analysis; however, this approach does not consider the level of contributions made by each author. Furthermore, when assessing the citation profiles of articles, the most-cited articles are ranked according to the total number of citations. It is acknowledged that older articles are highly likely to receive more citations than those published recently. The results would be different if articles were ranked according to the average number of citations per year, which would reflect a more objective and up-to-date impact. Finally, the present study did not provide information about the quality of the included publications, as the quality may vary greatly among studies.[42]

CONCLUSION

This bibliometric analysis provides a complete picture of orthodontic publications over the past decade (2012–2021). It reveals the most prolific and influential journals, countries, institutions, authors, and keywords in three major orthodontic journals.

  1. The AJODO, AO, and EJO published 4001 articles from 370 institutions in 95 countries from 2012 to 2021. The AJODO published the most articles (45.5%) followed by AO (31.3%) and EJO (23.2%)

  2. The country with the most publications was the US, while the country and institution with the highest citation counts per publication were Italy and the University of Bern (Switzerland), respectively

  3. Pandis N was the most prolific author with the most publications and citations, and Proffit W was the most-cited author

  4. Four of the 10 most-cited articles were related to digital dental technology. Cross-sectional studies and systematic reviews were the most common study types among the 10 most-cited articles and the 10 articles most cited by the 4001 publications analyzed, respectively.

Declaration of patient consent

Patient’s consent not required as there are no patients in this study.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. . Library herald journal: A bibliometric study. Res World. 2011;2:68.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. . Advanced bibliometric methods to assess research performance and scientific development: Basic principles and recent practical applications. Res Eval. 1993;3:151-66.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. , . Top-cited articles in regenerative endodontics: A bibliometric analysis. J Endod. 2018;44:1650-64.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. , , , . A bibliometric analysis of periodontology 2000. Periodontology 2000. 2020;82:286-97.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. , , , , , , et al. Bibliometric analysis and evaluation of the journal of prosthodontic research from 2009 to 2021. 2022
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. , . Most cited publications in oral and maxillofacial surgery: A bibliometric analysis. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;22:25-37.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. , . A bibliometric analysis of international publication trends in total temporomandibular joint replacement research (1986-2020) J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021;79:1458.e12.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. , , , , , , et al. Prominence of scientific publications towards peri-implant complications in implantology: A bibliometric analysis using the H-classics method. J Oral Rehabil. 2018;45:240-49.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. , , . Bibliometric analysis of the scientific production in implantology (2009-2013) Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28:864-70.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. , , , , , . An analysis of prosthodontic research productivity: Geographic, economic, and collaborative perspective. J Prosthodont. 2012;21:73-8.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. , , , , , , et al. A bibliometric analysis of the 100 most cited articles on early childhood caries. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2020;30:527-35.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. , , , , . The 100 most-cited articles in orthodontic journals in the last 20 years. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2022;161:e260-76.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. , , , , . The 100 top-cited articles in orthodontics from 1975 to 2011. Angle Orthod. 2013;83:491-9.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. , , . Highly cited orthodontic articles from 2000 to 2015. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2018;153:61-9.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. , , , , . The 100 most-cited articles in orthodontics: A bibliometric study. Angle Orthod. 2018;88:785-96.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. , , , . Characteristics and fate of orthodontic articles submitted for publication: An exploratory study of the American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2015;147:680-90.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. , . What are we reading? An analysis of the orthodontic literature 1999 to 2008. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2011;139:e471-84.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. , , , , . Current trends in orthodontic journals listed in journal citation reports. A bibliometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2019;156:663-74.e1.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. , , . Exploring the publications in three major orthodontic journals: A comparative analysis of two 5-year periods. Angle Orthod. 2014;84:397-403.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. . Science mapping: A systematic review of the literature. J Data Inform Sci. 2017;2:1-40.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. , , , , . Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2013;144:471-8.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. , , , , . Efficacy of clear aligners in controlling orthodontic tooth movement: A systematic review. Angle Ortho. 2015;85:881-9.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. , , . Failure rates and associated risk factors of orthodontic miniscrew implants: A meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2012;142:577-95.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. , , , , , , et al. Effect of micro-osteoperforations on the rate of tooth movement. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2013;144:639-48.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. , , . Accuracy and reproducibility of dental replica models reconstructed by different rapid prototyping techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2014;145:108-15.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. , , . Prevalence of white spot lesion formation during orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod. 2013;83:641-7.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. . The effect of sample size and bias on the reliability of estimates of error: A comparative study of Dahlberg's formula. Eur J Orthod. 2012;34:158-63.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. , , . The impact of malocclusion on the quality of life among children and adolescents: A systematic review of quantitative studies. Eur J Orthod. 2015;37:238-47.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. , , , , , . Imaging software accuracy for 3-dimensional analysis of the upper airway. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2012;142:801-13.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. , , . Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: An assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2014;146:673-82.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. , , , , . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264-9.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. . Cross-sectional studies-what are they good for? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018;97:388-93.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. , , , , , , et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: Elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;350:g7647.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. , , , . Prevalence of white spot lesions during orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. Angle Orthod. 2011;81:206-10.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. , , . Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: A systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2011;14:1-16.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. , , , , . Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2016:CD002283.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. , , , . Treatment effects of removable functional appliances in patients with Class II malocclusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2015;37:418-34.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. . Clinical recommendations regarding use of cone beam computed tomography in orthodontics. Position statement by the American academy of oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013;116:238-57.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. , , . Contemporary Orthodontics (5th ed). India: Elsevier India; .
    [Google Scholar]
  40. , , , , , . Effectiveness of comprehensive fixed appliance treatment used with the forsus fatigue resistant device in class II patients. Angle Orthod. 2011;81:678-83.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. , , , , . Treatment effects of fixed functional appliances alone or in combination with multibracket appliances: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Angle Orthod. 2015;85:480-92.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. , , , , , . The characteristics and level of evidence of clinical studies published in 5 leading orthodontic journals. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2019;19:273-82.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Show Sections