stomaeduj-2-2020-article-6
ORAL IMPLANTOLOGY www.stomaeduj.com
TREND OF SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTION ON DIGITAL
Review Articles
IMPLANT DENTISTRY (1990-2019):
A BIBLIOMETRIC STUDY
Zhaozhao Chen1a , Junying Li1b , Cho-Ying Lin2c , Hom-Lay Wang1d*
1
Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
2
Department of Periodontics, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
a
DDS, MS, PhD, Resident; e-mail: zzchen@umich.edu; ORCIDiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2188-1367
b
DDS, MS, PhD, Clinical Lecturer; e-mail: junying@umich.edu; ORCIDiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5782-2051
c
DDS, Clinical Lecturer; e-mail: jessicalin1020@gmail.com; ORCIDiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2499-6191
d
DDS, MS, PhD, Professor; e-mail: homlay@umich.edu; ORCIDiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4238-1799
ABSTRACT https://doi.org/10.25241/stomaeduj.2020.7(2).art.6
Background and Objective Digital implantology has become a hot topic in dentistry. The purpose of this
paper was to present trends regarding the interests of this field using bibliometric indicators.
Data sources On the basis of articles in the Web of Science database, we performed a quantitative analysis
of publications in 1990-2019 on digital implant dentistry.
Data Extraction and Synthesis Excel and VOSviewer were applied to assess the publication trend. A total
number of 3680 publications with 57,930 citations up to February 8, 2020, were obtained. More than half
(2013; 54.70%) of the articles were published in the last five years (2015–2019). The United States was in the
leading position, with the highest H-index (60), 23.91% of the publications, and 28.74% of the total citations.
Among the top 10 active authors, eight were from Europe, and the other two were from the United States. The
University of Bern (Switzerland) (101; 2.745%) was the most productive institution, followed by the University
of Sao Paulo (Brazil) (89; 2.418%), and the University of Michigan (United States) (84; 2.283%). The most
active journal in publishing articles related to digital implantology was the Clinical Oral Implant Research
(336; 9.13%), together with the International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants (336; 9.13%). Three of
the top 15 funding agencies were well-known implant companies. Digital workflow, digital impression, and
3D printing are becoming popular research topics. In conclusion, there was a noticeable growth in scientific
publications in digital implant dentistry, and most key bibliometric indicators demonstrated its upward
trends.
KEYWORDS
Bibliometrics; Dental Implants; Digital Technologies; Evidence-Based Dentistry; Dental Research.
1. INTRODUCTION to a “restoration-driven” treatment, the concept of
implant therapy currently turns to“computer-assisted”
Compared to the era of the introduction of dental implant placement and even a completely digi-
implants in the 1960s, implant therapy is now tal workflow [3,4]. Together with the increasing use of
highly predictable and has become a widely used digital technologies in implant dentistry, research on
treatment modality to replace missing dentition [1]. this topic has grown at an exponential rate, producing
Along with the continuous technological progress in increasing numbers of scientific publications every
the treatment planning software, computer-aided year [5]. The research topics range from pre-clinical
design (CAD), and computer-assisted manufacturing to clinical, from surgical to prosthetic related fields.
technology (CAM), a strong digitalization trend in In addition, novel digital equipment such as cone-
implant dental medicine is noticed in clinical practice beam computed tomography (CBCT) [6], optical
[2]. Evolving from being a merely “surgically driven” scanner [7,8], magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [9],
OPEN ACCESS This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.
Peer-Reviewed Article
Citation: Chen Z, Li J, Lin CY, Wang HL. Trend of scientific production on digital implant dentistry (1990-2019): a bibliometric study. Stoma Edu J.
2020;7(2):123-130.
Received: March 08, 2020; Revised: March 20, 2020; Accepted: May 24, 2020; Published: May 26, 2020
*Corresponding author: Professor Hom-Lay Wang, Director, Graduate Periodontics Program, Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine
University of Michigan School of Dentistry 1011 North University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1078, USA.
Tel: +734 763 3383; Fax: +734 936 0374; e-mail address: homlay@umich.edu
Copyright: © 2020 the Editorial Council for the Stomatology Edu Journal
Stoma Edu J. 2020;7(2): 123-130 pISSN 2360-2406; eISSN 2502-0285 123
Chen Z, et al.
www.stomaeduj.com
Review Articles
Figure 1. Number of Publications. (A) The number of publications of the
top 10 countries and regions; (B) Annual evolution of the scientific
production on digital implant dentistry.
and ultrasonography [10,11], are increasingly being
tested in research for the assessment of implant
treatment outcome. Knowing the trend of the industry Figure 2. The analysis of keywords (with the occurrence more than 20
is essential for dental practitioners and researchers in times). (A) Based on different clusters; (B) Based on its different average
appearing year.
this field. With the rapid growth of publications in
digital implant dentistry, it is necessary to quantify optimum database to perform bibliometric analysis,
both results of scientific activity and its impact on the and it has been applied in many published studies
research trend [12,13]. In this context, bibliometrics is [12-15]. All screenings took place on a single day,
a useful and objective tool [14]. February 8, 2020, with an attempt to eliminate any
Bibliometrics is a method of analyzing data from change in the number of publications and citations.
citation indexes. It traces relationships amongst The search strategy was: ((TS=(dental implant* OR
academic journal citations and assesses the trend implant dentistry* OR dental implantology OR oral
of a specific field as well as its international scientific implant) AND TS=(digital* OR digital technologies OR
impact. digital workflow OR computer OR computer-guided
Yet, to our knowledge, the progress of digital implan- OR computer-aided OR computer-assisted OR CAD/
tology so far has not been extensively studied. CAM OR intraoral scan OR intraoral scanner OR cone
Therefore, the aim of our study was to present all- beam OR CBCT)) AND LANGUAGE: (English), and
around insights on the current state of digital-related timespan for publication was set as 1990–2019.
implant dentistry.
The distribution of the research publications, 2.2. Data collection
affiliations, keywords, and authorships were analy- The basic characteristics of selected publications
zed to discover the popular topics and to better under- were obtained from the Web of Science by its intrinsic
stand the global trend of research in this field. It tool Clarivate Analytics.
is hypothesized that the upward trends in digital Data related to publication years, countries/regions,
implant dentistry will be reflected in the production authors, institutions, journals, funding agencies, and
of quality articles and popular topics. citations were exported as Excel files for tabulation.
All journals’ impact factor (IF) were retrieved from the
2. METHODOLOGY Journal Citation Reports of 2019.
n an attempt to evaluate both the productivity and
2.1. Literature search strategy citations of the publications, the H-index was used,
The literature search was performed in the core which indicates that a scholar (or country or organi-
collection of Thomson Reuter’s Web of Science zation) has published H papers and each of which
database, with the manuscript type restricted has been cited in other publications at least
to articles. The Web of Science is considered the H times [16].
124 Stoma Edu J. 2020;7(2): 123-130 pISSN 2360-2406; eISSN 2502-0285
Trend of scientific production on digital implant dentistry
www.stomaeduj.com
Review Articles
Table 1. The most productive authors (top 10) with the publications related to digital implant dentistry.
% of
Author Country Affiliation Docs Citations H-index
3680
Jacobs R. Belgium Catholic University of Leuven 60 1.630 2245 25
Wang HL. United States University of Michigan 54 1.467 940 19
Bornstein MM. Switzerland University of Bern 33 0.897 984 16
Academisch Centrum Tandheelkunde
Wismeijer D. Netherlands 33 0.897 981 18
Amsterdam (ACTA)
Quirynen M. Belgium Catholic University of Leuven 32 0.870 1207 17
Hammerle CHF. Switzerland University of Zurich 29 0.788 869 16
Buser D. Switzerland University of Bern 26 0.707 1441 17
Chan HL. United States University of Michigan 26 0.707 388 12
Jung RE. Switzerland University of Zurich 25 0.679 769 12
Bragger U. Switzerland University of Bern 24 0.652 666 16
Table 2. Top 10 organizations with the most publications related to digital implant dentistry.
Organization Country Docs % of 3680 Citations H-index
University of Bern Switzerland 101 2.745 36 4504
University of Sao Paulo Brazil 89 2.418 17 1319
University of Michigan United States 84 2.283 20 1550
University of Zurich Switzerland 79 2.147 21 1673
Catholic University of Leuven Belgium 59 1.603 22 1976
King Saud University Saudi Arabia 55 1.495 11 390
Harvard University United States 48 1.304 23 1356
Seoul National University Korean 44 1.196 14 512
Yonsei University Korean 42 1.141 10 339
University of Geneva Switzerland 41 1.114 16 687
2.3. Statistical analysis 3. RESULTS
The data were imported into a java program
VOSviewer (version 1.6.8; Leiden University, Leiden, 3.1. Growth of publications
Netherlands). This software was used to visualize a In total, 3680 documents published between 1990-
term map analyzing keywords from the extracted 2019 were included. The highest number of articles
data. The data were then analyzed by using the was published in 2019 with a total number of 448
“Create Map” function. (13.26%). More than half (2013, 54.70%) of the papers
The type of analysis was chosen as “Co-occurrence” were published in the last five years (2015-2019). The
and the unit of analysis was set as “All keywords”. Only total trend and the annual number of documents
keywords that had the occurrence number more than are shown in Fig. 1. The United States was the most
20 were displayed. Redundant keywords like “dental productive country with 880 (23.91%) publications,
implant” and “dentistry” were removed. followed by Germany (434; 11.79%) and Italy (342;
Thereafter, a keyword map was generated by the 9.29%).
software. For each keyword, the size of the node
indicates its frequency of occurrence in the included 3.2. Distribution of most productive organizations,
publications, and larger size represents a higher frequ- journals and funding agencies
ency of occurrence. Articles from top 10 organizations accounted for
In network visualization mode, keywords that frequ- 17.45% of all publications in this field. The University
ently occurred together were marked as the same of Bern published the highest number of studies with
color. a total number of 101 (2.745% of all publications). In
In overlay visualization mode, different colors were the list of the top 10 organizations, three were from
used to mark the average publication year of the Switzerland, two were from the United States, two
keywords. [17]. were from Korea, the rest three were from Brazil,
Stoma Edu J. 2020;7(2):123-130 pISSN 2360-2406; eISSN 2502-0285 125
Chen Z, et al.
www.stomaeduj.com
Review Articles Table 3. The most productive journals on digital implant dentistry.
IF
Journals Country Docs % of 679
2018
Clinical Oral Implants Research Denmark 3.825 336 9.130
International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants United States 1.734 336 9.130
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry United States 2.787 190 5.163
Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research United States 3.212 181 4.918
Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery United States 1.781 146 3.967
Implant Dentistry United States 1.214 108 2.935
Dentomaxillofacial Radiology England 1.525 84 2.283
Journal of Oral Implantology United States 1.062 83 2.255
International Journal of Periodontal and Restorative Dentistry United States 1.228 74 2.011
Belgium, and Saudi Arabia (Table 2). The top 10 outcome; Fig. 2A, left, in red), cluster 2 (accuracy of
journals publishing the most articles are shown in digital technology; Fig. 2A, right, in green), cluster
Table 3. There were 1611 papers published in these 3 (implant planning and placement; Fig. 2A, up, in
journals (43.78% of all publications). Clinical Oral blue), and cluster 4 (radiograph and anatomy; Fig.
Implants Research (IF=3.825, 2018; 336 articles) and 2A, left, in yellow), and cluster 5 (implant stability
International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants and biomechanics; Fig. 2A, middle, in purple). In
(IF=1.734, 2018; 336 articles) ranked first, followed by the cluster 1, the frequently used keywords were
the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry (IF=2.787, 2018; “reconstruction” (162 times), and “implant placement”
190 articles). Among these studies, 1109 out of 3680 (161 times), and “follow-up” (152 times). The most
(30.14%) were supported by funding agencies. The frequent keywords in the second cluster were, “in-
top 15 funding agencies are presented in Table 4, with vitro” (264 times), “restorations” (166 times), and
four based in the United States, four in Switzerland, “CAD/CAM” (147 times). In cluster 3, “accuracy” (586
and three in Brazil. NIH in the United States endorsed times), “placement” (400 times), and “surgery” (332
81 studies (ranked 1st, 2.201%), followed by National times) were the most frequent keywords. “CT” (251
Natural Science Foundation in China (68 studies, times), and “cone beam computed tomography” (221
1.848%), and Coordination for the Improvement of times) were the most frequent keywords in cluster
Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) in Brazil (48 4. In cluster 5, “bone” (329 times), “osseointegration”
studies, 1.304%). Furthermore, implant companies (126 times), and “stability” (113 times) were the top
showed great contributions to the development of 3 frequently used keywords. Based on its different
digital implant dentistry and occupied three of the average appearing year, VOSviewer marked each
top 15 funding agencies. keyword with different colors (Fig. 2B). Keywords in
yellow appeared later than those in green and blue.
3.3. Highly contributive authors publishing digital In cluster 1, the newest keywords were “Schneiderian
implant dentistry research membrane” (34 times) which has an average publi-
The 3680 documents were authored by 10,598 cation year of 2016, “dimensions” (51 times, 2016),
different authors. The 10 most productive authors and “floor elevation” (36 times, 2016). In cluster 2, the
are listed in Table 1. The most productive was new focus of “accuracy of digital technology” were
Jacobs R. (n=60, citations=2245) from the Catholic “3d printing” (29 times, 2017), “digital impression” (36
University of Leuven (Belgium), followed by Wang HL. times, 2017), and “digital workflow” (26 times, 2017).
(n=54, citations=1467) from the University of As for the third cluster, the new focus of “implant
Michigan (United States), and Bornstein MM. planning and placement” was “guided surgery” (74
(n=33, citations=984) from the University of Bern times) with an average publication year of 2015. In
(Switzerland). Five of the top 10 productive authors the fourth cluster, the newest keyword was “mental
came from Switzerland, followed by two from the foramen” (32 times, 2015), “inferior alveolar nerve”
United States, two from Belgium, and one from the (45 times, 2015), and “location” (44 times, 2015). In
Netherlands. the fifth cluster, “stability” (113 times, 2015) was a
relatively new keyword.
3.4. Hotspot analysis
All keywords were extracted from the title/abstract 3.5. Characteristics of top 10 articles in digital implant
of 3680 articles and then analyzed by VOSviewer dentistry
software. Keywords, with an occurrence of more Among all 3680 publications (57,980 citations), top 10
than 20 times, were included in the map (Fig. 2) and cited articles (Table 5) have 2,378 citations (22.19%).
were stratified into five clusters: cluster 1 (treatment The paper “Bone healing and soft tissue contour
126 Stoma Edu J. 2020;7(2): 123-130 pISSN 2360-2406; eISSN 2502-0285
Trend of scientific production on digital implant dentistry
www.stomaeduj.com
Review Articles
Table 4. The top 15 funding-related agencies in digital implantology.
Funding agency Country N % of 3680
National Institutes of Health (NIH) United States 81 2.201
National Natural Science Foundation of China China 68 1.848
Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) Brazil 48 1.304
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) United States 46 1.250
Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) Brazil 43 1.168
The Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) Brazil 41 1.114
Dentsply United States 34 0.924
Noble Biotech Switzerland 32 0.870
ITI Foundation Switzerland 32 0.870
Ministry Education, Culture, Sports, Science Technology (MEXT) in Japan Japan 31 0.842
University of Michigan United States 30 0.815
Institute Straumann AG Switzerland 28 0.761
King Saud University Saudi Arabia 28 0.761
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Japan 25 0.679
University of Zurich Switzerland 22 0.598
changes following single-tooth extraction: A clinical the rest three were from Brazil, Belgium, Saudi
and radiographic 12-month prospective study.” [18] Arabia. This shows that digital implantology is a
in International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative subject of interest in many different countries. The
Dentistry received the highest citations (924 times) University of Bern was the leading organization in
with an average citation of 51.33 times per year. digital implant dentistry research concerning the
quantity of publications, citations, and H-index.
4. DISCUSSION Unlike other medical areas where most of the studies
The present study assessed scientific publications were supported by the government, digital implant
pertaining to digital implantology in the last 30- dentistry research was also supported by commercial
year period (1990–2019). Upward trends in this field organizations, and four of the top 15 active funding
were demonstrated by most bibliometric indicators. agencies were well-known dental implant companies
These findings could provide a self-evaluation for the and institutes. In this field, research teams worked
dental community and be valuable to editors and closely with an industrial partner as they needed the
publishers of implant-related journals. Regarding the expertise of engineering and precise manufacturing.
countries, around 73% of the articles (2672) in this At the same time, companies need researchers to test
field came from these top 10 productive countries. new digital products for marketing and sales. Top
The United States and Germany were the most researchers from the top institutions can be good
productive countries in this field, which is in candidates for partnerships and may also have the
agreement with a similar bibliometric study for the priority for more investments and grants.
whole of implantology [14]. Besides the quantity When it came to the analysis by journal, the articles
of publications in a country, the total citations and included in this study were published in 151 journals.
H-index may represent its quality of publications Around half of the articles were published in the
as well as academic impact. The United States and top 10 journals, and eight of which are based in the
Germany also ranked 1st and 2nd. Switzerland United States. Clinical Oral Implants Research, The
was 6th when ranked according to the quantity of International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants,
publications, but 3th for citations and 3th for H-index. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, and Clinical Implant
The most active authors are renowned specialists in Dentistry and Related Research published most studies
implant dentistry linked to universities. On the list on digital implantology. Future discoveries in digital
of the top 10 scholars, five of the top 10 productive implant dentistry are likely to be published in the
authors came from Switzerland, followed by two aforementioned journals. Subsequently, researchers
from the United States, two from Belgium, and one may pay more attention to studies reported by these
from the Netherlands. Jacobs R. from the Catholic journals. Regarding the keywords in this field, the
University of Leuven was the most productive author; topics can be mainly divided into five groups. In the
also, this institution was a leader in this field. Three out cluster related to the accuracy of digital technology, the
of 10 top organizations were from Switzerland, two paper “Digital vs. conventional implant impressions:
were from the United States, two were from Korea, efficiency outcomes” [19] was most cited with 125
Stoma Edu J. 2020;7(2):123-130 pISSN 2360-2406; eISSN 2502-0285 127
Chen Z, et al.
www.stomaeduj.com
Review Articles Table 5. Top 10 cited articles in digital implantology.
Total Citations
Title Authors Journal Year
Citations per year
Bone healing and soft tissue contour
changes following single-tooth extraction: Schropp L, Wenzel A, Int J Periodontics
2003 924 51.33
A clinical and radiographic 12-month Kostopoulos L, et al. Restorative Dent.
prospective study.
A new volumetric CT machine for dental
Mozzo P, Procacci C,
imaging based on the cone-beam Eur Radiol. 1998 635 27.61
Tacconi A, et al.
technique: preliminary results.
Clinical applications of cone-beam Scarfe WC, Farman
J Can Dent Assoc. 2006 593 39.53
computed tomography in dental practice. AG, Sukovic P.
Cone-beam computerized tomography
De Vos W,
(CBCT) imaging of the oral and
Casselman J, J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009 397 33.08
maxillofacial region: A systematic review of
Swennen GRJ.
the literature.
McAllister BS,
Bone augmentation techniques. J Periodontol. 2007 376 26.86
Haghighat K.
The future of dental devices is digital. van Noort R. Dent Mater. 2012 367 40.78
Crestal bone changes around titanium
Hermann JS,
implants. A radiographic evaluation of
Cochran DL, J Periodontol. 1997 317 13.21
unloaded nonsubmerged and submerged
Nummikoski PV, et al.
implants in the canine mandible.
Analysis of the accuracy of linear
Lascala C, Panella J, Dentomaxillofac.
measurements obtained by cone beam 2004 305 17.94
Marques MM. Radiol.
computed tomography (CBCT-NewTom).
Sarment DP,
Accuracy of implant placement with a Int J Oral Maxillofac
Sukovic P, 2003 273 15.17
stereolithographic surgical guide. Implants.
Clinthorne N.
Bone classification: an objective scale of
bone density using the computerized Norton MR, Gamble C. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001 250 12.50
tomography scan.
citations. For treatment outcome, “Bone healing and diagnosis, panoramic radiography (before 2010),
soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth CT, osseointegration, bone, resonance frequency
extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month analysis (2011), placement, surgery, surgical guide,
prospective study” [18] with 924 citations was the in-vitro, biomechanics (2012), accuracy, follow-
most cited one. In this study, cast and model scanner up, interface, finite-element-analysis, restorations
were used to evaluate the change of soft tissue (2013), augmentation, soft tissue, (2014), CAD/CAM,
contour. Recently, clinical studies using intraoral intraoral impression, abutment, fixed dental prost-
scanner to capture tissue contour were more heses, zirconia, guided surgery (2015), floor
often published [20]. In the third cluster of implant elevation (2016), digital workflow, 3D printing, digital
planning and placement, the most cited paper with impression (2017). This suggests that the emphasis
593 citations was “Clinical applications of cone-beam of digital implant dentistry research responds to the
computed tomography in dental practice” [21], which prosthetic field and digital workflow that is very new
reinforced that CBCT played a vital role in the progress to researchers. Supplementary large-scale clinical
of digital implant dentistry. For implant stability and studies on different digital systems and different
biomechanics, “Influence of cortical bone thickness digital workflows will be vital to better utilize these
and implant length on implant stability at the time processes and/or understand the potential of the
of surgery-clinical, prospective, biomechanical, and digital technology.
imaging study” [22] had 179 citations. Regarding
the trend of research topics, the most frequently Limitations
used keywords in digital implantology research The publications included in this study were
papers and their main year when they were screened and selected from the Web of Science
published were: digital subtraction radiography, database, and the analysis was relatively objective
128 Stoma Edu J. 2020;7(2): 123-130 pISSN 2360-2406; eISSN 2502-0285
Trend of scientific production on digital implant dentistry
www.stomaeduj.com
Review Articles
and comprehensive. However, it should be noted 5. CONCLUSION
that studies published in 2020 were not included in
the present study and digital technologies are a very The present study showed significant growth in the
dynamic area in implant dentistry. Therefore, future literature regarding digital implantology research in
research may soon become necessary with the latest the last decade. The United States was in the leading
published studies. position. Digital workflow, digital impression, and 3D
Besides, in the Web of Science, the number of printing are the latest popular topics.
publications for each author was counted regardless
of the position of the author. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
For example, a document with five authors is counted Authors declare no conflict of interest related to this manuscript.
once for each author.
Therefore, a potential overlap in the number of AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
publications assigned for each author may happen.
ZC, JL, and HLW: contributed to the conception of the work. ZC and
The same applies to data regarding the most active JL: collected and analyzed the data, wrote the manuscript. CYL and
countries and organizations. HLW: critically revised the manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. Buser D, Sennerby L, De Bruyn H. Modern implant dentistry 12. Jayaratne YSN, Zwahlen RA. The evolution of dental
based on osseointegration: 50 years of progress, current trends journals from 2003 to 2012: a bibliometric analysis. PloS One.
and open questions. Periodontol 2000. 2017;73(1):7-21. doi: 2015;10(3):e0119503. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119503.
10.1111/prd.12185. [Free text links] ] [CrossRef ] [PubMed] Google Scholar Scopus
[Full text links] [CrossRef ] [PubMed] Google Scholar Scopus 13. Pommer B, Valkova V, Ubaidha Maheen C, et al. Scientific
2. Joda T, Ferrari M, Gallucci GO, et al. Digital technology in fixed interests of 21st century clinical oral implant research: topical
implant prosthodontics. Periodontol 2000. 2017;73(1):178-192. trend analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016;18(4):850-856.
doi: 10.1111/prd.12164. doi: 10.1111/cid.12371.
[Full text links] [CrossRef ] [PubMed] Google Scholar Scopus [Full text links] [CrossRef ] [PubMed] Google Scholar Scopus
3. Zhang Y, Tian J, Wei D, et al. Quantitative clinical adjustment 14. Tarazona B, Vidal-Infer A, Alonso-Arroyo A. Bibliometric
analysis of posterior single implant crown in a chairside digital analysis of the scientific production in implantology (2009-2013).
workflow: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(7):864-870. doi: 10.1111/clr.12891.
2019;30(11):1059-1066. doi: 10.1111/clr.13519. [Full text links] [CrossRef ] [PubMed] Google Scholar
[Full text links] [CrossRef ] [PubMed] Google Scholar Scopus 15. Gao Y, Wang Y, Zhai X, et al. Publication trends of research on
4. Li J, Chen Z, Dong B, et al. A digital workflow with computer- diabetes mellitus and T cells (1997-2016): A 20-year bibliometric
assisted implant planning for fabricating an impression splinting study. PloS One. 2017;12(9):e0184869. doi: 10.1371/journal.
framework and custom tray for multiple implants. J Prosthet pone.0184869.
Dent. 2019 Nov 25. pii: S0022-3913(19)30585-2. doi: 10.1016/j. [Full text links] [CrossRef ] [PubMed] Google Scholar
prosdent.2019.08.021. 16. Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific
[Full text links] [CrossRef ] [PubMed] Google Scholar Scopus research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(46):16569-
5. Hämmerle CHF, Cordaro L, van Assche N, et al. Digital 16572. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0507655102.
technologies to support planning, treatment, and fabrication [Full text links] [CrossRef ] [PubMed] Google Scholar Scopus
processes and outcome assessments in implant dentistry. 17. van Eck NJ, Waltman L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a
Summary and consensus statements. The 4th EAO consensus computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics.
conference 2015. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26 Suppl 11:97-101. 2010;84(2):523-538. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3.
doi: 10.1111/clr.12648. [Full text links] [CrossRef ] [PubMed] Google Scholar Scopus
[Full text links] [CrossRef ] [PubMed] Google Scholar Scopus 18. Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L, Karring T. Bone
6. Bornstein MM, Horner K, Jacobs R. Use of cone beam healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth
computed tomography in implant dentistry: current concepts, extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective
indications and limitations for clinical practice and research. study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2003;23(4):313-323.
Periodontol 2000. 2017;73(1):51-72. doi: 10.1111/prd.12161. [PubMed] Google Scholar Scopus
[Full text links] [CrossRef ] [PubMed] Google Scholar Scopus 19. Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs. conventional implant
7. Mizumoto RM, Yilmaz B. Intraoral scan bodies in implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res.
dentistry: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;120(3):343- 2013;24(1):111-115. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02430.x.
352. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.10.029. [Full text links] [CrossRef ] [PubMed] Google Scholar Scopus
[Full text links] [CrossRef ] [PubMed] Google Scholar Scopus 20. van Nimwegen WG, Raghoebar GM, Zuiderveld EG, et al.
8. Li J, Chen Z, Wang M, et al. Dynamic changes of peri-implant Immediate placement and provisionalization of implants in
soft tissue after interim restoration removal during a digital the aesthetic zone with or without a connective tissue graft: A
intraoral scan. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;122(3):288-294. doi: 1-year randomized controlled trial and volumetric study. Clin Oral
10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.07.020. Implants Res. 2018;29(7):671-678. doi: 10.1111/clr.13258.
[Full text links] [CrossRef ] [PubMed] Google Scholar Scopus [Full text links] [CrossRef ] [PubMed] Google Scholar Scopus
9. Flügge T, Ludwig U, Hövener JB, et al. Virtual implant planning 21. Scarfe WC, Farman AG, Sukovic P. Clinical applications of
and fully guided implant surgery using magnetic resonance cone-beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent
imaging - proof of principle. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020 Feb 27. Assoc. 2006;72(1):75-80.
doi: 10.1111/clr.13592. [Full text links] [CrossRef ] [PubMed] Google Scholar Scopus
[Full text links] [CrossRef ] [PubMed] Google Scholar Scopus 22. Miyamoto I, Tsuboi Y, Wada E, et al. Influence of cortical bone
10. Bhaskar V, Chan HL, MacEachern M, Kripfgans OD. Updates thickness and implant length on implant stability at the time of
on ultrasound research in implant dentistry: a systematic review surgery--clinical, prospective, biomechanical, and imaging study.
of potential clinical indications. Dento Maxillo Facial Radiol. 2018; Bone. 2005;37(6):776–780. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2005.06.019.
47(6):20180076. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.20180076. [Full text links] [CrossRef ] [PubMed] Google Scholar Scopus
[Full text links] [CrossRef ] [PubMed] Google Scholar Scopus
11. Chan HL, Sinjab K, Li J, et al. Ultrasonography for noninvasive
and real-time evaluation of peri-implant tissue dimensions. J Clin
Periodontol. 2018;45(8):986-995. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12918.
[Full text links] [CrossRef ] [PubMed] Google Scholar Scopus
Stoma Edu J. 2020;7(2):123-130 pISSN 2360-2406; eISSN 2502-0285 129
Chen Z, et al.
www.stomaeduj.com
Review Articles Zhaozhao CHEN
BDS, MS, PhD Resident
Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine
School of Dentistry
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI, USA
CV
Zhaozhao Chen is a Periodontics resident at the School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. She earned
her BDS (2013), MS (2015), and PhD (2019) degree from the West China School of Stomatology, Sichuan University, China. Her
current research focuses on the application of digital technology in implant dentistry and the development of regenerative
biomaterials in ridge augmentation.
Questions
1. The following are considered as the latest popular topics in digital implant dentistry,
with one exception?
qa. Digital workflow;
qb. Digital impression;
qc. 3D printing;
qd. Resonance frequency analysis.
2. Which of the following is increasingly being tested in research for the assessment of
implant treatment outcome?
qa. CBCT;
qb. Optical scanner;
qc. Ultrasonography;
qd. All above.
3. Which of the following is a bibliometric indicator?
qa. Number of publications;
qb. Number of citations;
qc. H-index;
qd. All above.
4. Which one indicates that a scholar (or country or organization) has published H papers
and each of which has been cited in other publications at least H times?
qa. Impact factor (IF);
qb. H-index;
qc. Citation index;
qd. Hotspot analysis.
130 Stoma Edu J. 2020;7(2): 123-130 pISSN 2360-2406; eISSN 2502-0285