Research Trends in Internal Root Resorption from 1947 to 2022: A Bibliometric Analysis of the 50 Most-cited Articles

Abstract

Aim:

This study analyzed trends in citation count and density, authorship, geographical distribution, and keyword co-occurrence in the 50 most-cited articles on internal root resorption (IRR) from 1947 to 2022.

Materials and Methods:

A search was conducted in October 2023 using Web of Science (WoS), with citation counts cross-referenced in Scopus and Google Scholar. Data on authorship, institutions, collaborations, publication year, journal, citation metrics, study design, topics and keywords were analyzed. Statistical tests included Shapiro-Wilk (normality) and Spearman’s correlation (significance: 5%).

Results:

Citation count showed no correlation with publication age (r = 0.0661, P > .05), but citation density had a significant negative correlation (r = -0.7118, P < .0001). Most articles (n = 39) were published between 2001 and 2019, with a decline in 2019–2022 (n = 4). Citation density increased from 2008 onward. The Journal of Endodontics had the most publications (n = 17). The number of authors per article increased from four (1947–2000) to up to nine (2000–2022). Brazil contributed most in 2000–2010 (n = 5), while Turkey led from 2000 to 2022 (n = 12). Study designs evolved from case reports (1947–2000, n = 5) to laboratory studies (2000–2022, n = 12). Research focus shifted from epidemiology (1947–2000) to treatment (2000–2010) and imaging techniques (2000–2022). Keywords evolved from “inflammatory root resorption” (1947–2000) to terms like “CBCT” (2000–2010) and treatment materials such as “biodentine” (2010–2022).

Conclusion:

Most highly cited IRR articles were published in the last two decades, with increasing multi-author collaborations. Citation density peaked after 2008, but a decline in citations post-2019 suggests insufficient accumulation time. Research shifted toward laboratory studies, imaging techniques, and advanced materials. Future studies should prioritize clinical observational research and IRR prevalence.