Highly Cited Dental Implant Research: A Bibliometric Analysis of Publication Patterns and Research Themes

Authors:
Open Access
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Dental implant research has expanded substantially over recent decades, yet the characteristics of its most influential publications remain insufficiently defined. This study aimed to analyze highly cited dental implant research to identify global publication patterns, leading contributors, and major research themes. Methods: Publications indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection (SCI-EXPANDED) up to 1 May 2025 were retrieved. The analysis was restricted to WoSCC and used a fixed citation threshold; citation normalization and network analyses were not performed. Highly cited publications were defined as those with TC2024 ≥ 100 citations. A total of 1599 highly cited publications were identified; after application of the “front page” filter, 1324 implant-related documents remained, and 1016 original research articles were included in detailed bibliometric analyses. Citation indicators (TC2024, CPP2024) and authorship metrics (FP, RP, IP, CP, SP, and APP) were evaluated. Temporal trends, keyword frequency, and Y-index analysis were applied to assess research development and author contributions. Results: Publication output demonstrated steady growth, with peak citation impact observed after approximately 16 years. Research was primarily concentrated within dentistry, oral surgery, and biomedical-related fields. The United States and several European countries accounted for the majority of highly cited publications, with internationally collaborative articles showing higher citation impact than single-country publications. Keyword analysis identified four major research themes: biological integration, implant materials and surface characteristics, clinical treatment strategies, and peri-implant diseases. Conclusions: Highly cited dental implant research is characterized by strong representation of biological, material, and clinical domains. These findings should be interpreted as WoSCC-based citation patterns rather than definitive evidence of clinical impact, methodological quality, or global research priorities.

This publication has 59 references indexed in Scilit: