Current trends in orthodontic journals listed in Journal Citation Reports. A bibliometric study

Exploring publications in 3 major orthodontic journals: A comparative bibliometric analysis of two 10-year periods (2002-2011 and 2012-2021)

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to perform a bibliometric analysis examining contributing countries and collaborative networks, authors and collaborative relationships, the performance of the institutions, and cocited journals and references in 3 major orthodontic journals (American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, European Journal of Orthodontics, and Angle Orthodontist) over two 10-year periods (2002-2011 and 2012-2021).

METHODS

In this study, 4432 publications in the first decade and 4012 publications in the second decade were quantitatively analyzed and visualized using visualization software such as VOSviewer (Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands), CiteSpace (Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pa), and Scimago Graphica (SCImago Lab, Spain).

RESULTS

Institutions in the United States had the highest number of publications through the 2 decades, whereas Brazil, South Korea, and China achieved significant improvements in performance in the second decade compared with the first. Closer collaborative networks among scholars were revealed in the second decade. The cocitation analysis of the journals showed that highly cited journals included more professional orthodontic journals in the second decade than in the first decade.

CONCLUSIONS

Bibliometric analysis of publications in 3 major orthodontic journals over two 10-year periods revealed a trend of diversification in countries and institutions participating in publishing, international collaborations, and collaboration networks among authors in the field of orthodontics during the 2 decades.

A bibliometric analysis of the 100 top-cited systematic review and meta-analysis in Orthodontics

OBJECTIVE

This bibliometric study aimed to analyze the citation metrics, journal and author characteristics, and subject domains of the 100 top-cited Systematic Reviews (SR) and Meta-Analysis (MA) in orthodontics.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An electronic database search was conducted for SR and MA in the Web of Science on 16th July 2023, without language and time restrictions. Of the 802 hits returned, the 100 top-cited orthodontic articles were shortlisted. They were analyzed for citation metrics, journal characteristics (journal, year of publication, impact factor-IF), author and affiliation characteristics (number, primary and corresponding author's affiliation, and country), study domain, and keywords.

RESULTS

These articles were published from 1996 to 2021 in 20 journals, with an impact factor of 1.9 to 10.5, by 351 researchers affiliated with 104 universities. Their citations ranged from 45 to 344, and 34 poised to be classified as classic (≥ 100 citations). The maximum number of articles was published in the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (n=38), the European Journal of Orthodontics (n=18), and the Angle Orthodontist (n=8). The authors for individual papers ranged from 1 to 10, with 5 being the most common (n=58). Europe had the highest contribution regarding the number of corresponding authors, institutions, and citations. Bone anchorage and orthodontic tooth movement/Biomechanics were the most frequently researched domains (n=11 each). The most common keyword used was Orthodontics (n=19), followed by Systematic Review (n=16) and Meta-analysis (n=9).

CONCLUSION

In general, the top cited SR and MA were published in high-impact orthodontic journals, were multi-authored, and reflected the collaborative work from different universities.

Diversity of authors in the British Journal of Orthodontics and Journal of Orthodontics over the last 50 years

AIMS

To explore any changes in the perceived gender and affiliation of first authors of papers published in the British Journal of Orthodontics (BJO) and Journal of Orthodontics (JO), over the last 50 years.

METHODS

Electronic hand searches of the BJO and JO from 1973 to 2021, were undertaken to identify research and clinical papers published the first volume of the BJO (1973-74) and then the first two volumes of each subsequent decade i.e. 1980-81; 1990-91 to 2020-21. Articles such as Editorials, Product Updates and Abstract summaries, were excluded.The perceived gender of the first author was identified from their forename, internet sources and/or personal knowledge, where possible. The country of the first author's affiliation was identified from the author details stated in the papers. The countries were then grouped into geographical areas.

RESULTS

A total of 385 papers were identified with a steady increase from 1973 to 2021. There was a statistically significant increase in papers published by authors who were perceived to be female (odds ratio 8.33; 95% CI 4.75, 14.64). The increase in papers published by non-UK affiliated first authors was significant (odds ratio 5.01; 95% CI 2.78, 9.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The Journal has seen a significant change, over the last 50 years, in its authorship profile from nearly exclusively male, UK based authors to more than 60% of published papers having a first author who was perceived as being female and 37% originating from outside the UK.

Scientific production of an oral implantology journal: a 5-year bibliometric study

Oral implantology is a science in constant evolution, with a considerable number of articles being published every year in scientific journals. Publications can be analyzed through bibliometric analysis, thus observing the evolution and trends of the articles published in the journal. To evaluate, through bibliometric analysis, the scientific production of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research (CIDRR) and its evolution and trends in the last 5 years (2016-2020).All articles published in CIDRR in the last 5 years were reviewed and classified according to the year of publication, volume, number, the number of authors, demographic data of the first and last author, the geographical scope of the article, the number of affiliations of the authors, research topic, type of study, and study design. The association between these variables and citation counts was also analyzed. 599 articles were analyzed. 77.4% were authored by 4-6 authors, obtaining 78.4% from 1 to 3 different affiliations. Male researchers predominated in both the first and last authorship. China showed the highest number of publications when comparing the origin of the authors' affiliations individually; however, most researchers (40.9%) were from the European Union (EU)-Western Europe area. The most studied topic was the implant/abutment design/treatment of the surface (19.1%). Clinical research articles accounted for 92.99% of the publications, of which cross-sectional observational studies prevailed (21.7%). The presence of articles from the United States of America-Canada and EU-Western Europe was positively correlated with the impact factor. This study revealed an increasing trend in Asian research production, particularly Chinese, whereas production of European origin showed a decrease. Clinical studies increased their relative weight to the detriment of translational ones. A growing tendency in the relative weights of female authors was appreciated. Journal citations were associated with certain study variables.

International trends of orthodontic publications: A bibliometric observational study of the last decade (2011-2020)

INTRODUCTION

The number of published orthodontic studies has increased considerably over the past ten years.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the bibliometric data of international orthodontic studies included in orthodontic journals encompassed by the Scopus database between 2011 and 2020, as well as to undertake data comparison between the period 2010-2015 and the period 2016-2020.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective search was conducted on 14 orthodontic journals included in the Scopus database from 2011 to 2020. Studies of both primary and secondary types were targeted by the search. The yearly number of studies published in the 14 journals, and the first 20 countries, institutions and their type (public/private), and authors, respectively, regarding publication volume, were presented.

RESULTS

Over the past ten years, the number of publications in the chosen journals reached 9200, where the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics and Angle Orthodontist topped the journal list, with 22% and 12% of the publications, respectively. Furthermore, the orthodontic publication volume showed a declining trend by the end of the decade (-9%), where academic/public institutions produced most of the orthodontic studies, and the US (20%), Brazil (17%), and South Korea (8%) topped the countries with the most orthodontic studies. A comparison of the two halves of the decade revealed that orthodontic research exhibited an increasing trend in developing nations, especially Egypt (104%), Saudi Arabia (88%), and Iran (83%).

CONCLUSION

The orthodontic studies published in the chosen journals over the past ten years showed a dynamic change in yearly publication and ranking of countries, institutions, and authors.

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

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.

Trending topics in orthodontic treatment practices in the past 5 years: A longitudinal study on case reports

Objectives:

This study aimed to analyze the case reports published in the past 5 years in orthodontic journals in the Web of Science (WOS) indexes and evaluate the trending topics.

Material and Methods:

Following a search conducted by entering the keyword “orthodontics” in the WOS Master Journal List search site, four journals in the Science Citation Index (SCI) and five journals in the Emerging Science Citation Index (ESCI) were included in the study, and case report articles published in these journals between 2016 and 2020 were examined. The case reports were analyzed by examining each issue of each journal published during these years. In addition, frequently studied topics were examined under seven headings.

Results:

Only nine of the 16 journals in the list of related journals have published case reports in the past 5 years. The largest number of articles appeared in the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics for the SCI group and International Orthodontics for the ESCI group. When the frequently examined topics were evaluated, it was determined that the highest number of articles was fixed orthodontic treatments (53.4%), orthognathic surgery (18.9%), multidisciplinary treatments (6.5%), and treatments for individuals with general health problems (6.5%).

Conclusion:

The number of case reports published has gradually increased in the past 5 years. The number of articles in the journals included in the SCI is higher. The subject variety of case reports is too great to be limited to a narrow field.

Assessment of reliability in orthodontic literature

OBJECTIVES

To map the statistical methods applied to assess reliability in orthodontic publications and to identify possible trends over time.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Original research articles published in 2009 and 2019 in a subset of orthodontic journals were downloaded. Publication characteristics, including publication year, number of authors, single vs multicenter study, geographic origin of the study, statistician involvement, study category, subject category, types of reliability assessment, and statistical methods applied to assess reliability, were recorded. Descriptive statistics, Chi-square tests, and logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate associations between reliability analysis and study characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 768 original research articles were analyzed. The most prevalent study category was observational (69%) with a statistician involved in 16% of studies. Overall, reliability was assessed in 47% of studies, and the most frequent methods applied to assess reliability were intraclass correlation coefficients or kappa statistics (60.4%). The odds of applying appropriate methods were greater in 2019 than in 2009 (odds ratio [OR]: 2.43; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.75, 3.37; P < .001). Involvement of a statistician resulted in greater odds of applying appropriate methods compared to no statistician involvement (OR: 1.88; 95% CI: 1.23, 2.87; P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Over the past decade (2009 vs 2019), reliability assessment became more common in the orthodontic literature, and studies applying correct statistical methods to assess reliability significantly increased. This trend was more apparent in studies that involved a statistician, which may highlight the role of the statistician.

Upper airway changes in Class III patients using miniscrew-anchored maxillary protraction with hybrid and hyrax expanders: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the upper airway space changes after miniscrew-anchored maxillary protraction with hybrid (HH) and conventional hyrax (CH) expanders.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The sample comprised Class III malocclusion growing patients that were randomized into two groups of miniscrew-anchored maxillary protraction. The group HH was treated with a hybrid hyrax appliance in the maxilla and two miniscrews distally to the canines in the mandible. Class III elastics were used from the maxillary first molar to the mandibular miniscrews until anterior crossbite correction. The group CH was treated with a similar protocol except for the conventional hyrax expander in the maxilla. Cone-beam computed tomography was obtained before (T1) and after 12 months of therapy (T2). The shape and size of upper airway were assessed. Intergroup comparisons were performed using Mann-Whitney U test (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

The group HH was composed of 20 patients (8 female, 12 male) with a mean age of 10.76 years. The group CH was composed of 15 patients (6 female, 9 male) with a mean age of 11.52 years. Anteroposterior and transverse increases of the upper airway were found for both groups. The oropharynx and the most constricted area increased similarly in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

No differences in upper airway changes were observed using protraction anchored on hybrid or conventional hyrax expanders.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Maxillary protraction anchored on hybrid or conventional hyrax expanders may benefit patients with breathing disorders due to the increase of the upper airway volume and most constricted area. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03712007).

Prolific authorship in orthodontic scientific publishing

OBJECTIVES

To identify the 10 most numerically prolific authors publishing in the field of orthodontics for each year over the last decade (2011-2020), describe the characteristics of these outputs and identify trends in the types of study being published.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Scopus literature search was conducted to identify the 10 most numerically prolific publishing authors in orthodontics for each year during this decade. Number and characteristics of all publications for each author were analysed with descriptive and inferential statistics.

RESULTS

Forty-nine different individual authors were identified who were collectively prolific for between 1-8 years within the assessment decade. These authors published a total of 2025 papers, with a median annual output of 18 papers per year; however, half of these authors published between 15-24 papers per year (range 5-200). Amongst authors, 2 or more collaborated on only 7% of the identified papers. The median number of authors per paper was 5 (range 1-27) with significant variation according to study design (P < .001). The majority of authors originated from Brazil (19.3%), Italy (14.1%) and India (12.7%). Most papers described non-prospective clinical studies (38.1%), case reports or case series (11.1%) and narrative reviews (10.8%). Finally, prolific authors had a smaller annual output when publishing in orthodontic journals (P < .001) and when publishing experimental primary research (P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

A cohort of prolific authors in orthodontics between 2011-2020 was identified. Extreme variation was found in annual output between these authors but case reports, non-prospective clinical studies and narrative reviews predominated.

The 100 most-cited articles in orthodontic journals in the last 20 years

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to identify and analyze the 100 most-cited articles published in orthodontic scientific journals in the past 21 years.

METHODS

The research was conducted in the Thomson Reuters Web of Science data citation index, considering articles from 2000 to 2020 and the category of dentistry, oral surgery, and medicine. Information about the number of citations, citations per year, title, authors, year of publication, the title of scientific journals, type of study, keywords, and thematic field were extracted for each article. Descriptive statistical analyses were performed to evaluate the collected data. The Pearson correlation analysis was used to explore the relationship between publication and the number of citations received. The VOSviewer software (Leiden University Center for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden, the Netherlands) was used to generate the keyword cooccurrence network.

RESULTS

The number of citations of the 100 selected articles ranged from 122 to 547. The journal with the largest number of cited articles was the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. Most of the papers were cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, and the most frequent thematic fields among the selected articles were anchorage, root resorption, and rapid maxillary expansion. Orthodontic treatment, anchorage, and root resorption were the most frequent keywords.

CONCLUSIONS

Bibliometric analysis of citations revealed a greater centralization of orthodontic studies. Most of the articles were published in a single journal and by one country. Anchorage is a trending topic in orthodontics, and cross-sectional and longitudinal studies are the most-cited types of papers.

Relationship between European postgraduate programme accreditation and national research output: The case of the Network of Erasmus-Based European Orthodontic Postgraduate Programmes (NEBEOP) in orthodontics. A bibliometric study

AIMS

To assess in each European country the correlation between the number of Network of Erasmus-Based European Orthodontic Postgraduate Programmes (NEBEOP) members and orthodontic research activity. Secondary objectives were to describe and quantify Europe's orthodontic research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Articles published between 2014 and 2018 in 4 major orthodontic journals (American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, European Journal of Orthodontics, The Angle Orthodontist, Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research) and oral presentation abstracts of five European Orthodontic Society (EOS) congresses were analysed. For each European country, the total number of orthodontic programmes and NEBEOP memberships were collected. Descriptive statistics were performed, and Spearman correlation coefficients and risk ratios were calculated.

RESULTS

2039 articles and 261 oral presentation abstracts were included. Correlation coefficients between national number of publications, oral presentations, sum of these, all adjusted for population, and number of NEBEOP members in each country were 0.64, 0.65 and 0.62, respectively. Risk ratios were all above 1 and statistically significant for number of NEBEOP memberships per country, indicating positive associations with national orthodontic research productivity. Europe accounted for 30.5% of publications and 68.6% of oral presentations at EOS congresses during this period. European orthodontic research was not evenly distributed, since 9 countries were responsible for around 80% of the output.

CONCLUSIONS

A positive association was found between number of NEBEOP programmes and national research activity. These results could be an additional argument to support similar pan-European initiatives and guidelines for postgraduate education, not only in orthodontics but in all other dental specialties.

Prevention of non-cavitated lesions with fluoride and xylitol varnishes during orthodontic treatment: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

Fixed orthodontic appliances impair oral hygiene increasing the risk of non-cavitated lesions (NCLs) and tooth decay. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of fluoride and xylitol varnishes in preventing NCLs during comprehensive orthodontic treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The sample comprised 55 volunteers from 15 to 20 years of age under orthodontic treatment that were randomly divided into three groups: Fluoride Group (FG; n=17), Xylitol Group (XG; n=19), and Placebo Group (PG; n=19). The patients in each group received two applications of the following varnishes: Duraphat^TM (5% NaF), 20% xylitol, and placebo (no F/Xylitol) in the three groups, respectively. The varnishes were applied in the first appointment (T0) and 3 months later (T1). Clinical examinations were carried out at T0 and 6 months after (T2) using the ICDAS index and the QLF system (fluorescence difference). The intergroup comparisons were performed by ANOVA/Tukey's or Kruskal-Wallis/Dunn's tests (P<0.05).

RESULTS

There was no significant intergroup difference regarding ICDAS index changes from T0 to T2. Fluoride varnish produced significantly greater increase in fluorescence of NCLs (mean change of -0.65 +0.78 and -0.56 +0.83, for maxilla and mandible, respectively) in comparison to the other groups. The majority of non-cavitated lesions improved in the fluoride and xylitol varnish groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Fluoride varnish produced significantly greater increase in enamel fluorescence compared to xylitol and placebo varnishes. In short term, both fluoride and xylitol varnishes produced remineralization of NCLs in orthodontic patients.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Non-cavitated lesions can be effectively controlled in high-risk orthodontic patients by means of fluoride varnishes.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ReBEC Identifier: RBR-6mdxfq; Date of Register: March 19th, 2020. Retrospectively Registered.

Analysis of the Type and Study Design of Publications in the Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society and the Changes in Trends Over 2 Decades

Background:

The aim of the study was to analyze the type and study design of publications in the Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society (JIOS) and the changes in their trends from 2001 to 2020.

Materials and Methods:

All the online publications in JIOS were classified as background resource, original articles, and case reports. The original articles were further divided into 7 types based on study design. The annual and overall data were compiled. To evaluate the change in trends, the study period was divided into 2 block years: 2001 to 2010 and 2011 to 2020. The differences in the total number of articles and distribution of articles by type and study design were analyzed using Mann–Whitney and chi-square/Fisher’s exact tests, respectively.

Results:

Background resource, original articles, and case reports comprised 38.7%, 43.9%, and 17.4% of the total articles (n = 845), respectively. Non-clinical (34.5%) and cross-sectional (32.35%) studies formed the bulk of original articles. There were 17 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (4.58%) and 5 systematic reviews (1.35%) among the original articles. The total number of publications were higher for years in the second block compared to those in the first (Mdn of 63.5 vs 14.5, P < .001). The differences in the distribution according to type were not statistically significant [ X2(2) = 2.052, P = .35]. A reduction in the share of cohort studies and increase in RCTs were found in the second block (F = 19.174, P = .002).

Conclusions:

The higher proportion of background resource publications and those with study designs lower in the hierarchy of evidence is a matter of concern. Though slow paced, the increase in the number of RCTs and systematic reviews over the past few years is encouraging.

The online attention to orthodontic research: an Altmetric analysis of the orthodontic journals indexed in the journal citation reports from 2014 to 2018

BACKGROUND

To describe the impact of research, beyond the limits of the academic environment, Altmetric, a new social and traditional media metric was proposed. The aims of this study were to analyze the online activity related to orthodontic research via Altmetric and to assess if a correlation exists among citations, Mendeley reader count, and the AAS (Altmetric Attention Score).

METHOD

The Dimensions App was searched for articles published in the orthodontic journals listed in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) throughout the years 2014 to 2018. The articles with a positive AAS were collected and screened for data related to publication and authorship. The articles with an AAS higher than 5 were screened for research topic and study design. Citation counts were harvested from Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus.

RESULTS

The best performing journals were Progress in Orthodontics and the European Journal of Orthodontics with a mean AAS per published item of 1.455 and 1.351, respectively and the most prevalent sources were Tweets and Facebook mentions. The most prevalent topic was Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQOL) and the study design was systematic reviews. The correlation between the AAS and the citations in both WOS and Scopus was poor (r = 0.1463 and r = 0.1508, p < .05). The correlation between citations count and Mendeley reader (r = 0.6879 and r = 0.697, p < .05) was moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

Few journals displayed a high level of web activity. Journals and editors should enhance online dissemination of the scientific outputs. The authors should report the impact of the findings to the general public in a convenient way to facilitate online dissemination but to avoid an opportunistic use of the research outputs. Despite the lack of correlation, a combination of the citation count and the AAS can give a more comprehensive assessment of research impact.

Top 100 most-cited papers in core dental public health journals: bibliometric analysis

OBJECTIVE

This quali-quantitative study analysed the 100 most-cited papers in core dental public health (DPH) journals focusing on understanding international knowledge production.

METHODS

The DPH journals were selected from titles and scopes at Web of Science Core Collection database up to March 2020. Further comparisons were performed at Scopus and Google Scholar databases. Some bibliometric parameters were extracted as follows: title, number of citations, citation density (number of citations per year), first author's country, year of publication, study design and subject. VOSviewer software was used to create graphical bibliometric maps.

RESULTS

Papers were ranked by the total number of citations, which ranged from 104 to 1,019, and six papers were cited more than 400 times. Papers were published from 1974 to 2013, mainly in Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. Most frequent study designs were cross-sectional (30%) and nonsystematic review (25%). Most papers were from Europe (54%) and North America (31%). First authors were predominantly from the United Kingdom (17%), United States of America (17%) and Canada (14%). VOSviewer map of co-authorship demonstrated the existence of clusters in the research collaboration. Although epidemiology was the most frequent subject (84%), health services research presented eight times higher citation density.

CONCLUSIONS

Top 100 most-cited papers in core DPH journals were predominantly observational studies from Anglo-Saxon countries. Top 100 most-cited papers in core DPH journals tend to be cross-sectional studies carried out in the United States with highest citation in health services research. Locker D, Petersen PE and Sheiham A are a landmark for DPH field.

Trending topics in orthodontics research during the last three decades: A longitudinal bibliometric study on the top-cited articles

OBJECTIVE

To perform a bibliometric analysis on the top-cited articles over the last three decades from 1989 to 2018, using a longitudinal set-up, in order to analyse how articles' features have evolved over time.

SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION

A sample of 312 articles divided into three subgroups of 104 top-cited articles for each decade were included. The h-index value was used to determine the sample size.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The articles were identified through a search in the category "dentistry oral surgery and medicine" of the Web of Science database. The information relative to the articles was collected. Descriptive statistics was used to describe the articles and the journals; selected parameters were analysed with the Kruskal-Wallis and the Mann-Whitney U test at the 0.05 level of significance.

RESULTS

The top-cited articles were published mainly by orthodontic journals. Along the last two decades, the scientific contribution of Asian and South American countries rose significantly. The trending topics varied in each decade. Skeletal anchorage-related articles dominated the production of the decade 1999-2008 while new technologies as CBCT displayed a higher prevalence in the last decade, where new topics such as corticotomy-assisted orthodontics started to appear. The number of multi-authored articles increased while the articles from no university institutions decreased.

CONCLUSION

The publications in the three studied decades were significantly different in terms of numbers and characteristics. A longitudinal set-up allows to study the evolution of the scientific production and how the area of interest has developed over time.