Twenty-five Years of Nickel–Titanium Instrument Research in Endodontics: a Bibliometric Analysis of the 150 Most-cited Articles

Abstract

Objectives This study aimed to identify the 150 most-cited articles related to nickel-titanium (NiTi) instruments and to evaluate the influence of authors, institutions, and countries in shaping research trends in this field. Material and Methods A comprehensive search was conducted through the Web of Science Core Collection. Data extracted from each article included title, total citations, publication year, study design, country of origin, co-authorship patterns, and bibliographic coupling. VOSviewer software was applied to visualize collaboration networks and keyword relationships. Results The selected articles accumulated a total of 19.790 citations, with individual citation counts ranging from 68 to 637. A significant proportion (n = 92) achieved over 100 citations. The year 2012 yielded the highest number of highly cited publications (n = 13). The United States, Italy, and Brazil were leading contributors to the literature. The University of Zurich and Sapienza University of Rome produced the most frequently cited works. Most studies were laboratory-based (n = 133), with common keywords including “nickel-titanium”, “cyclic fatigue”, and “nickel-titanium instruments”. Conclusion This bibliometric analysis highlights major contributions and evolving trends in NiTi instrument research within endodontics. The high citation impact reflects the critical role of NiTi innovations in advancing endodontic practice and sustaining strong academic interest.

Keywords

• bibliometric analysis
• citations
• cyclic fatigue
• dental technology
• nickel titanium instruments
• root canal instruments

Endodonti'de Nikel-Titanyum Enstrüman Araştırmalarının Yirmi Beş Yılı: En Çok Atıf alan 150 Makalenin Bibliyometrik Analizi

Öz

Amaç Bu çalışmanın amacı, nikel-titanyum (NiTi) enstrümanlarıyla ilgili en çok atıf alan 150 makaleyi belirlemek ve bu alandaki araştırma eğilimlerinin şekillenmesinde yazarlar, kurumlar ve ülkelerin etkisini değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler Web of Science Core Collection veritabanında kapsamlı bir arama yapılmıştır. Her makaleden elde edilen veriler arasında başlık, toplam atıf sayısı, yayın yılı, çalışma tasarımı, kaynak ülke, ortak yazarlık örüntüleri ve bibliyografik eşleşme analizleri yer almıştır. İş birliği ağlarını ve anahtar kelime ilişkilerini görselleştirmek amacıyla VOSviewer yazılımı kullanılmıştır. Bulgular Seçilen makaleler toplam 19.790 atıf almıştır ve bireysel atıf sayıları 68 ile 637 arasında değişmiştir. Önemli bir kısmı (n = 92) 100’ün üzerinde atıf almıştır. En fazla atıf alan makalenin yayımlandığı yıl 2012’dir (n = 13). Literatüre en fazla katkı sağlayan ülkeler Amerika Birleşik Devletleri, İtalya ve Brezilya olmuştur. En çok atıf alan çalışmaları üreten kurumlar arasında Zürih Üniversitesi ve Roma Sapienza Üniversitesi öne çıkmıştır. Çalışmaların büyük çoğunluğu laboratuvar temellidir (n = 133) ve yaygın kullanılan anahtar kelimeler arasında “nickel-titanium”, “cyclic fatigue”, ve “nickel-titanium instruments” yer almaktadır. Sonuç Bu bibliyometrik analiz, endodontide NiTi enstrüman araştırmalarındaki önemli katkıları ve gelişen eğilimleri ortaya koymaktadır. Yüksek atıf etkisi, NiTi yeniliklerinin endodontik uygulamayı geliştirmedeki kritik rolünü ve alana yönelik akademik ilgiyi sürdürdüğünü göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• atıflar
• bibliyometrik analiz
• dental teknoloji
• döngüsel yorgunluk
• kök kanal enstrümanları
• nikel titanyum enstrümanları

Kaynakça

1. Adnan S, Ullah R. Top-cited articles in regenerative endodontics: a bibliometric analysis. J Endod. 2018; 44: 1650-64.
2. Celeste RK, Broadbent JM, Moyses SJ. Half‐century of Dental Public Health research: bibliometric analysis of world scientific trends. Commun Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2016; 44: 557-63.
3. Bornmann L, Mutz R, Neuhaus C, et al. Citation counts for research evaluation: standards of good practice for analyzing bibliometric data and presenting and interpreting results. Ethics Sci Environ Polit. 2008; 8: 93-102.
4. Feijoo JF, Limeres J, Fernández-Varela M, et al. The 100 most cited articles in dentistry. Clin Oral Investig. 2014; 18: 699-706.
5. Molléri JS, Petersen K, Mendes E. Towards understanding the relation between citations and research quality in software engineering studies. Scientometrics. 2018; 117: 1453-78.
6. Donthu N, Kumar S, Mukherjee D, et al. How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: an overview and guidelines. J Bus Res. 2021; 133: 285-96.
7. Gavini G, Santos Md, Caldeira CL, et al. Nickel-titanium instruments in endodontics: a concise review of the state of the art. Brazil Oral Res. 2018; 32: E67.
8. Dablanca-Blanco A-B, Castelo-Baz P, Miguéns-Vila R, et al. Endodontic rotary files, what should an endodontist know? Medicina. 2022; 58: 719.

9. Grande N, Castagnola R, Minciacchi I, et al. A review of the latest developments in rotary NiTi technology and root canal preparation. Aust Dent J. 2023; 68: S24-38.
10. Abramo G, Cicero T, D’Angelo CA. Are the authors of highly cited articles also the most productive ones? J Inform. 2014; 8: 89-97.
11. McAllister JT, Lennertz L, Atencio Mojica Z. Mapping a discipline: a guide to using VOSviewer for bibliometric and visual analysis. Sci & Technol Librar. 2022; 41: 319-48.
12. Fardi A, Kodonas K, Lillis T, et al. Top-cited articles in implant dentistry. Int J Maxillofac Implants. 2017; 32:555-64.
13. Tarazona B, Lucas-Dominguez R, Paredes-Gallardo V, et al. The 100 most-cited articles in orthodontics: a bibliometric study. Angl Orthod. 2018; 88: 785-96.
14. Nagendrababu V, Murray PE, Ordinola‐Zapata R, et al. PRILE 2021 guidelines for reporting laboratory studies in endodontology: a consensus‐based development. Int Endod J. 2021; 54: 1482-90.
15. Arias A, Peters OA. Present status and future directions: canal shaping. Int Endod J. 2022; 55: 637-55.
16. dos Reis‐Prado AH, Maia CA, Nunes GP, et al. Top 100 most‐cited scientific articles in regenerative endodontics 2019–2023: a bibliometric analysis. Int Endod J. 2024; 57: 1434-52.
17. Andersen J, Belmont J, Cho CT. Journal impact factor in the era of expanding literature. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2006; 39: 436-43.
18. Brüggmann D, Kayser L, Jaque J, et al. Human papilloma virus: Global research architecture assessed by density-equalizing mapping. Oncotarget. 2018; 9: 21965.
19. Shadgan B, Roig M, HajGhanbari B, et al. Top-cited articles in rehabilitation. Arch Phy Med Rehabil. 2010; 91: 806-15.
20. Philipson L. Medical research activities, funding, and creativity in Europe: comparison with research in the United States. JAMA. 2005; 294: 1394-8.
21. Balkanlioglu E. Publication rates of endodontics specialization theses defended between 2015 and 2022: a bibliometric analysis. Turk Endod J. 2024; 9: 165-72.
22. Lareau CR, Deren ME, Fantry A, et al. Does autogenous bone graft work? A logistic regression analysis of data from 159 papers in the foot and ankle literature. Foot Ankle Surg. 2015; 21: 150-9.
23. Natarajan K, Stein D, Jain S, et al. An analysis of clinical queries in an electronic health record search utility. Int J Med Inform. 2010; 79: 515-22.
24. Asghari S, Navimipour NJ. Nature inspired meta‐heuristic algorithms for solving the service composition problem in the cloud environments. Int J Commun Syst. 2018; 31: E3708.
25. Rojas-Lamorena ÁJ, Del Barrio-García S, Alcántara-Pilar JM. A review of three decades of academic research on brand equity: a bibliometric approach using co-word analysis and bibliographic coupling. J Bus Res. 2022; 139: 1067-83.