Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

A Bibliometric Analysis of the Top 100 Most-Cited Articles on the Use of Intraoral Scanners in Dental Implants

Year 2025, Volume: 28 Issue: 2, 221 - 229, 30.06.2025

Hamiyet Güngör Erdoğan , Abdulhakim Kanlıdere

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study is to conduct a bibliometric analysis of the studies obtained when searching with the keywords “intraoral scanner” and “dental implant”.
Materials and Methods: As a search strategy, a search was performed in the main categories of Web of Science (Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-Expanded)) with the terms “intraoral scanner (IOS)” and “dental implant”. The search was limited by document type to “articles” and “reviews” only and restricted to articles published until 2023. All articles were manually reviewed and standardized by 3 independent reviewers to avoid typos and duplication of author names or institutions.
Results: The 100 most cited articles were selected from 392 articles that met the criteria. There has been a significant increase in the number of published articles, especially in the last 10 years. The 3 most productive countries are the USA, Italy, and Spain. The continent with the highest number of publications is Europe. The most cited article on this topic has 401 citations, while the total number of articles with over 100 citations is 10.
Conclusions: IOSs are an important technology in terms of patient and dentist comfort, the use of which has increased over the years in dentistry. The use of IOSs with dental implants in prosthodontic treatment has become increasingly popular. In this bibliometric study, when the countries with the most publications were analyzed, it was determined that the USA, Spain, and Italy constituted the top 3 countries.

Keywords

Bibliometric analysis dental implant intraoral scanner

Ethical Statement

Ethics committee approval is not required for this study.

References

  • 1. Örtorp A, Jemt T. CNC-milled titanium frameworks supported by implants in the edentulous jaw: A 10-year comparative clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14(1):88-99.
  • 2. Joda T, Brägger U. Digital vs. conventional implant prosthetic workflows: A cost/time analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26(12):1430-1435.
  • 3. Joda T, Lenherr P, Dedem P, Kovaltschuk I, Bragger U, Zitzmann NU. Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator's preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: A randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28(10):1318-1323.
  • 4. Ting-Shu S, Jian S. Intraoral Digital Impression Technique: A Review. J Prosthodont 2015;24(4):313-321.
  • 5. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. Current challenges in successful rehabilitation with oral implants. J Oral Rehabil 2011;38(4):286-294.
  • 6. Aglietta M, Siciliano VI, Zwahlen M, Brägger U, Pjetursson BE, Lang NP,et al. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant supported fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extensions after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20(5):441-451.
  • 7. Del Corso M, Abà G, Vazquez L, Dargaud J, Dohan Ehrenfest DM. Optical three-dimensional scanning acquisition of the position of osseointegrated implants: An in vitro study to determine method accuracy and operational feasibility. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2009;11(3):214-221.
  • 8. Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Chuang SK, Weber HP, Gallucci GO. A systematic review of biologic and technical complications with fixed implant rehabilitations for edentulous patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27(1):102-110.
  • 9. Naconecy MM, Teixeira ER, Shinkai RS, Frasca LC, Cervieri A. Evaluation of the accuracy of 3 transfer techniques for implant-supported prostheses with multiple abutments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19(2):192-198.
  • 10. Winter W, Mohrle S, Holst S, Karl M. Bone loading caused by different types of misfits of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: A three-dimensional finite element analysis based on experimental results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25(5):947-952.
  • 11. Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: Efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24(1):111-115.
  • 12. Christensen GJ. Impressions are changing: Deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. J Am Dent Assoc 2009;140(10):1301-1304.
  • 13. Gianfreda F, Pesce P, Marcano E, Pistilli V, Bollero P, Canullo L. Clinical Outcome of Fully Digital Workflow for Single-Implant-Supported Crowns: A Retrospective Clinical Study. Dent J 2022;10(8):139.
  • 14. Zhang XY, Cao Y, Hu ZW, Wang Y, Chen H, Sun YC. Scanning Accuracy of 10 Intraoral Scanners for Single-crown and Three-unit Fixed Denture Preparations: An In Vitro Study. Chin J Dent Res 2022;25(3):215-222.
  • 15. Tarazona B, Lucas-Dominguez R, Paredes-Gallardo V, Alonso-Arroyo A, Vidal-Infer A. The 100 most-cited articles in orthodontics: A bibliometric study. Angle Orthod 2018;88(6):785-796.
  • 16. Pena-Cristóbal M, Diniz-Freitas M, Monteiro L, Diz Dios P, Warnakulasuriya S. The 100 most cited articles on oral cancer. J Oral Pathol Med 2018;47(4):333-344.
  • 17. Ahmad P, Dummer PMH, Noorani TY, Asif JA. The top 50 most-cited articles published in the International Endodontic Journal. Int Endod J 2019;52(6):803-818.
  • 18. Nightingale JM, Marshall G. Reprint of "Citation analysis as a measure of article quality, journal influence and individual researcher performance". Nurse Educ Pract 2013;13(5):429-436
  • 19. Goebel MC, Rocha AO, Santos PS, Bolan M, Martins-Júnior PA, Santana CM, et al. A Bibliometric Analysis of the Top 100 Most-Cited Papers Concerning Dental Fluorosis. Caries Res 2023;57(4):509-515.
  • 20. Ionescu S, Madge OL, Robu I, Brătucu E, Daha C. Surgical Oncology in Romania: An Analysis of Research and Impact Based on Literature Search in PubMed and Web of Science. Biomed Res Int 2021;2021:5528582.
  • 21. Bakkalbasi N, Bauer K, Glover J, Wang L. Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomed Digit Libr 2006;3:7. Published 2006 Jun 29.
  • 22. Kulkarni AV, Aziz B, Shams I, Busse JW. Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA 2009;302(10):1092-1096.
  • 23. Baldiotti ALP, Amaral-Freitas G, Barcelos JF, Freire-Maia J, Perazzo MF, Freire-Maia FB, et al. The Top 100 Most-Cited Papers in Cariology: A Bibliometric Analysis. Caries Res 2021;55(1):32-40.
  • 24. Darby I. Risk factors for periodontitis & peri-implantitis. Periodontol 2000 2022;90(1):9-12.
  • 25. Jiang X, Zhu Y, Liu Z, Tian Z, Zhu S. Association between diabetes and dental implant complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Odontol Scand 2021;79(1):9-18.
  • 26. Khan FR, Raza Kazmi SM, Siddiqui YF. A bibliometric analysis of the studies on dental implant failure. J Pak Med Assoc 2022;72(Suppl 1)(2):S76-S80.
  • 27. Gomez-Meda R, Esquivel J, Blatz MB. The esthetic biological contour concept for implant restoration emergence profile design. J Esthet Restor Dent 2021;33(1):173-184.
  • 28. Khan FR, Kazmi SMR, Siddiqui HK, Aziz A. Prosthetic complications with dental implants: A bibliometric analysis of 20 topcited articles. J Pak Med Assoc 2023;73(6):1275-1279.
  • 29. Gonzalez-Gonzalez I, deLlanos-Lanchares H, Brizuela-Velasco A, et al. Complications of Fixed Full-Arch Implant-Supported Metal-Ceramic Prostheses. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17(12):4250.
  • 30. Saini RS, Alshadidi AAF, Rakhra J, et al. Text mining analysis of scientific literature on digital intraoral scanners in dentistry: Bibliometric analysis. Digit Health 2024;10:20552076241260837.
  • 31. Lee CY, Ganz SD, Wong N, Suzuki JB. Use of cone beam computed tomography and a laser intraoral scanner in virtual dental implant surgery: Part 1. Implant Dent 2012;21(4):265-271.

Dental implantlarda intraoral tarayıcıların kullanımıyla ilgili en çok atıf alan ilk 100 makalenin bibliyometrik analizi

Year 2025, Volume: 28 Issue: 2, 221 - 229, 30.06.2025

Hamiyet Güngör Erdoğan , Abdulhakim Kanlıdere

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, “intraoral scanner” ve “dental implant” anahtar sözcükleri ile arama yapıldığında elde edilen çalışmaların bibliyometrik analizini yapmaktır.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bir arama stratejisi olarak, Web of Science’ın ana kategorilerinde (Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-Expanded)) “intraoral scanner (IOS)” ve “dental implant” terimleri ile arama yapıldı. Arama, belge türüne göre yalnızca “makaleler” ve “derlemeler” ile sınırlandırıldı ve 2023’e kadar yayınlanmış makalelerle sınırlandırıldı. Tüm makaleler, yazım hatalarından ve yazar adlarının veya kurumlarının tekrarından kaçınmak için 3 bağımsız değerlendirici tarafından manuel olarak incelendi ve standartlaştırıldı.
Bulgular: Kriterleri karşılayan 392 makale arasından en çok atıf alan 100 makale seçildi. Özellikle son 10 yılda yayınlanan makale sayısında önemli bir artış oldu. En üretken 3 ülke ABD, İtalya ve İspanya’dır. En fazla yayına sahip kıta Avrupa'dır. Bu konuda en çok atıf alan makale 401 atıfa sahipken, 100'den fazla atıf alan toplam makale sayısı 10'dur.
Sonuçlar: IOS'lar hasta ve diş hekimi konforu açısından önemli bir teknolojidir ve diş hekimliğinde kullanımı yıllar geçtikçe artmıştır. Protetik diş hekimliğinde dental implantlarla birlikte IOS'ların kullanımı giderek daha popüler hale gelmiştir. Bu bibliyometrik çalışmada en fazla yayına sahip ülkeler incelendiğinde ilk 3 ülkeyi ABD, İspanya ve İtalya'nın oluşturduğu belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

Bibliyometrik analiz dental implant ağız içi tarayıcı

References

  • 1. Örtorp A, Jemt T. CNC-milled titanium frameworks supported by implants in the edentulous jaw: A 10-year comparative clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14(1):88-99.
  • 2. Joda T, Brägger U. Digital vs. conventional implant prosthetic workflows: A cost/time analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26(12):1430-1435.
  • 3. Joda T, Lenherr P, Dedem P, Kovaltschuk I, Bragger U, Zitzmann NU. Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator's preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: A randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28(10):1318-1323.
  • 4. Ting-Shu S, Jian S. Intraoral Digital Impression Technique: A Review. J Prosthodont 2015;24(4):313-321.
  • 5. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. Current challenges in successful rehabilitation with oral implants. J Oral Rehabil 2011;38(4):286-294.
  • 6. Aglietta M, Siciliano VI, Zwahlen M, Brägger U, Pjetursson BE, Lang NP,et al. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant supported fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extensions after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20(5):441-451.
  • 7. Del Corso M, Abà G, Vazquez L, Dargaud J, Dohan Ehrenfest DM. Optical three-dimensional scanning acquisition of the position of osseointegrated implants: An in vitro study to determine method accuracy and operational feasibility. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2009;11(3):214-221.
  • 8. Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Chuang SK, Weber HP, Gallucci GO. A systematic review of biologic and technical complications with fixed implant rehabilitations for edentulous patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27(1):102-110.
  • 9. Naconecy MM, Teixeira ER, Shinkai RS, Frasca LC, Cervieri A. Evaluation of the accuracy of 3 transfer techniques for implant-supported prostheses with multiple abutments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19(2):192-198.
  • 10. Winter W, Mohrle S, Holst S, Karl M. Bone loading caused by different types of misfits of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: A three-dimensional finite element analysis based on experimental results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25(5):947-952.
  • 11. Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: Efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24(1):111-115.
  • 12. Christensen GJ. Impressions are changing: Deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. J Am Dent Assoc 2009;140(10):1301-1304.
  • 13. Gianfreda F, Pesce P, Marcano E, Pistilli V, Bollero P, Canullo L. Clinical Outcome of Fully Digital Workflow for Single-Implant-Supported Crowns: A Retrospective Clinical Study. Dent J 2022;10(8):139.
  • 14. Zhang XY, Cao Y, Hu ZW, Wang Y, Chen H, Sun YC. Scanning Accuracy of 10 Intraoral Scanners for Single-crown and Three-unit Fixed Denture Preparations: An In Vitro Study. Chin J Dent Res 2022;25(3):215-222.
  • 15. Tarazona B, Lucas-Dominguez R, Paredes-Gallardo V, Alonso-Arroyo A, Vidal-Infer A. The 100 most-cited articles in orthodontics: A bibliometric study. Angle Orthod 2018;88(6):785-796.
  • 16. Pena-Cristóbal M, Diniz-Freitas M, Monteiro L, Diz Dios P, Warnakulasuriya S. The 100 most cited articles on oral cancer. J Oral Pathol Med 2018;47(4):333-344.
  • 17. Ahmad P, Dummer PMH, Noorani TY, Asif JA. The top 50 most-cited articles published in the International Endodontic Journal. Int Endod J 2019;52(6):803-818.
  • 18. Nightingale JM, Marshall G. Reprint of "Citation analysis as a measure of article quality, journal influence and individual researcher performance". Nurse Educ Pract 2013;13(5):429-436
  • 19. Goebel MC, Rocha AO, Santos PS, Bolan M, Martins-Júnior PA, Santana CM, et al. A Bibliometric Analysis of the Top 100 Most-Cited Papers Concerning Dental Fluorosis. Caries Res 2023;57(4):509-515.
  • 20. Ionescu S, Madge OL, Robu I, Brătucu E, Daha C. Surgical Oncology in Romania: An Analysis of Research and Impact Based on Literature Search in PubMed and Web of Science. Biomed Res Int 2021;2021:5528582.
  • 21. Bakkalbasi N, Bauer K, Glover J, Wang L. Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomed Digit Libr 2006;3:7. Published 2006 Jun 29.
  • 22. Kulkarni AV, Aziz B, Shams I, Busse JW. Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA 2009;302(10):1092-1096.
  • 23. Baldiotti ALP, Amaral-Freitas G, Barcelos JF, Freire-Maia J, Perazzo MF, Freire-Maia FB, et al. The Top 100 Most-Cited Papers in Cariology: A Bibliometric Analysis. Caries Res 2021;55(1):32-40.
  • 24. Darby I. Risk factors for periodontitis & peri-implantitis. Periodontol 2000 2022;90(1):9-12.
  • 25. Jiang X, Zhu Y, Liu Z, Tian Z, Zhu S. Association between diabetes and dental implant complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Odontol Scand 2021;79(1):9-18.
  • 26. Khan FR, Raza Kazmi SM, Siddiqui YF. A bibliometric analysis of the studies on dental implant failure. J Pak Med Assoc 2022;72(Suppl 1)(2):S76-S80.
  • 27. Gomez-Meda R, Esquivel J, Blatz MB. The esthetic biological contour concept for implant restoration emergence profile design. J Esthet Restor Dent 2021;33(1):173-184.
  • 28. Khan FR, Kazmi SMR, Siddiqui HK, Aziz A. Prosthetic complications with dental implants: A bibliometric analysis of 20 topcited articles. J Pak Med Assoc 2023;73(6):1275-1279.
  • 29. Gonzalez-Gonzalez I, deLlanos-Lanchares H, Brizuela-Velasco A, et al. Complications of Fixed Full-Arch Implant-Supported Metal-Ceramic Prostheses. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17(12):4250.
  • 30. Saini RS, Alshadidi AAF, Rakhra J, et al. Text mining analysis of scientific literature on digital intraoral scanners in dentistry: Bibliometric analysis. Digit Health 2024;10:20552076241260837.
  • 31. Lee CY, Ganz SD, Wong N, Suzuki JB. Use of cone beam computed tomography and a laser intraoral scanner in virtual dental implant surgery: Part 1. Implant Dent 2012;21(4):265-271.
There are 31 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Prosthodontics
Journal Section Original Research Articles
Authors

Hamiyet Güngör Erdoğan 0000-0001-7449-6297

Abdulhakim Kanlıdere 0009-0006-5357-3154

Publication Date June 30, 2025
Submission Date January 27, 2025
Acceptance Date April 7, 2025
Published in Issue Year 2025Volume: 28 Issue: 2

Cite

EndNote Güngör Erdoğan H, Kanlıdere A (June 1, 2025) A Bibliometric Analysis of the Top 100 Most-Cited Articles on the Use of Intraoral Scanners in Dental Implants. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 28 2 221–229.
 Download Cover Image

Cumhuriyet Dental Journal (Cumhuriyet Dent J, CDJ) is the official publication of Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry. CDJ is an international journal dedicated to the latest advancement of dentistry. The aim of this journal is to provide a platform for scientists and academicians all over the world to promote, share, and discuss various new issues and developments in different areas of dentistry. First issue of the Journal of Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry was published in 1998. In 2010, journal's name was changed as Cumhuriyet Dental Journal. Journal’s publication language is English.


CDJ accepts articles in English. Submitting a paper to CDJ is free of charges. In addition, CDJ has not have article processing charges.

Frequency: Four times a year (March, June, September, and December)

IMPORTANT NOTICE

All users of Cumhuriyet Dental Journal should visit to their user's home page through the "https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/user" " or "https://dergipark.org.tr/en/user" links to update their incomplete information shown in blue or yellow warnings and update their e-mail addresses and information to the DergiPark system. Otherwise, the e-mails from the journal will not be seen or fall into the SPAM folder. Please fill in all missing part in the relevant field.

Please visit journal's AUTHOR GUIDELINE to see revised policy and submission rules to be held since 2020.