Abstract
Animal experiments are a source of debate. This bibliometric study aims to identify published research in two representative dental journals: the Journal of Periodontology (JP) and the Journal of Clinical Periodontology (JCP). Two time points (1982/83 and 2012/13) covering 30 years were chosen. Articles describing data from animal experiments were identified and the data were extracted and compared between journals and time points. In 1982/83, 27 animal studies were published in JP and 17 in JCP. For 2012/13, 54 animal studies were considered in JP and 37 in JCP. The species examined were predominantly dogs (37%) in JCP and rats (61%) in JP in 1982/83. In 2012/13, rodents accounted for 85% in JP and for 54% in JCP. The number of animals used per study increased by a factor of 1.6–2.6. The diversity of geographic origin and articles from emerging countries increased over time. The number of animals examined per study and the publications describing these experiments seemed to have increased in the journals analyzed in the last decades.
Highlights
For ethical reasons, animal experiments are a source of an ongoing scientific and non-scientific debate [1,2,3,4]
Animal experiments have been applied with respect to the performance of dental implants or the pathogenesis and therapy of peri-implant diseases [14]
(c) With respect to articles with animal experiments, was there a difference regarding the animal species examined between these two periodontal journals?
Summary
Animal experiments are a source of an ongoing scientific and non-scientific debate [1,2,3,4]. Animal studies are applied in dental research, in particular for periodontal and dental implant experiments [5,6,7,8,9,10]. Questions regarding the applicability of results from animal experiments to humans has led to the application of and the ongoing need for the “Replace, Reduce, Refine” approach to animal experiments [3,15]. A critical appraisal of studies using animals was applied These issues affect risk of bias, including accuracy of treatment effect estimates, and quality of reporting, in particular reporting on success parameters for replication in human clinical trials
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
