Regenerative Endodontics: A Scientometric and Bibliometric Analysis

Abstract

IntroductionScientometric analyses outline the research output in a field and, therefore, help researchers and funding agencies to focus more on underinvestigated areas and make more efficient decisions related to public health. The aim of this study was1.to perform a scientometric analysis to characterize the status of the research and publications in the field of regenerative endodontics and2.to identify the most effective actors (authors, countries, and journals) and to examine their role in the development of science using a bibliometric analysis. MethodsElectronic searches were done in MEDLINE and Scopus databases using specified search criteria. All articles related to the field of regenerative endodontics until December 2017 were included. The total number of publication/year and the yearly growth rate of publications were calculated. The following data were extracted and analyzed: authors, country of origin, journal, number of citations, study design, and level of evidence (LOE). The visualization maps for authorship/coauthorship, citations, and country of origin of articles were prepared and analyzed. ResultsA total of 694 articles were included. The average yearly growth for publications was 40.4% between 2007 and 2017. The highest number of articles were ex vivo/in vitro (n = 342, 49.27%). The distribution of articles based on LOE was as follows: LOE 1, 8.34%; LOE 2, 6.00%; LOE 3, 0.66%; LOE 4, 11.67%; and LOE 5, 73.33%. Collectively, 1820 authors contributed to the publications included in this study: 1001 authors within 40 collaborating clusters and 819 authors within 149 noncollaborating clusters. The United Sates was the lead country regarding the number of publications, citations, and international collaborations. The Journal of Endodontics published the highest number of articles. ConclusionsThe total number of publications in the field of regenerative endodontics shows exponential growth in the past decade. However, the proportion of articles with LOE 1 is low. The research groups around the globe are encouraged to focus their collaborative efforts on higher-quality and clinically oriented research.