Scientific Trends in Clinical Research on Zirconia Dental Implants: A Bibliometric Review

Abstract

Keywords: zirconia implant, bibliometrics, citations, scientometric

1. Introduction

The clinical application of dental implant rehabilitation represents consolidated effectiveness in the literature due to long-term predictability and high-level satisfactory functioning and aesthetics [1,2,3,4]. Titanium alloys are the most widely used biomaterials for dental implant fixtures due to their physical, chemical, and thermal properties, which produce the osseointegrating ability of the fixture placed to replace the natural teeth [2,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12].

Recently, the use of zirconia as an implant material has become more prevalent due to its high aesthetic characteristics, particularly in the rehabilitation of the compromised anterior jaw area, where there is fine soft-tissue biotype and the metal sensibility of the patients [13,14,15].

In fact, the literature reports that the titanium ion dissolution related to the implant corrosion could alter the natural oral microbiome and the homeostatic functional balance of the oral tissues [16,17,18,19,20].

On the contrary, it has been shown in vitro that the zirconia surface can lead to a significant decrease in periodontal pathogen adhesion compared to the titanium surface [21], alongside similar bone–implant contact compared to the titanium fixture with an almost overlapping range [22].

Additionally, Scarano et al. reported in a rabbit study that zirconia implants had about 68.4% bone–implant contact with evidence of contact osteogenesis without fibrous tissue interposition [23].

Zirconia material is distinguished by its clear ivory appearance, which is very similar to the natural color of the teeth and is characterized by an intrinsic strength and physical resistance to the loading [24,25,26]; as a result, it has been introduced as a restorative material for dental crowns, bars, abutments, and specially designed drills and burs [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34]. Therefore, zirconia has recently gained further attention in the scientific community by growing research activities to confirm the clinical effectiveness of zirconia as a dental implant material.

Although citations are not an infallible metric to determine whether research is beneficial to researchers and clinicians, citations and citation analysis can quantify an article’s influence, author, subject of debate, country, journal, or a specialty [35,36]. Based on citation analysis, the bibliometric analysis aims to provide information about the trend in a research field and demonstrates its growth and development [37]; the number of citations received, researcher H-index, and journal impact factor are the most common bibliometric evaluation variables and considered as a scientific productivity score for the scientometric evaluation [38].

With the significant increase in the published articles on dental implants, recognizing trends and advances in a research field is critical and relevant to the needs of dental practitioners and researchers [39,40]. In this sense, bibliometric analysis is a useful tool for this purpose [41,42].

As far as we know, the trends and advances in zirconia dental implants have not been studied before; hence this study aimed to evaluate the bibliometric output of clinical research and co-authors in the field of zirconia dental implant rehabilitations.

2. Materials and Methods

We reported this bibliometric study in compliance with the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) [43] and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [44].

2.1. Search Strategy

An online literature search was conducted in Elsevier’s Scopus and Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science (WoS) until 5 October 2020. We used the medical terms (MeSH) feature in the Cochrane Library to obtain the available synonyms for our search terms to create a detailed search strategy (Table 1).

2.2. Data Extraction and Bibliometric Parameters

We used a specially built Excel file (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA) to collect the findings of the literature search. The file contained the following information: abstracts, year of publication, indexed keywords, journal name, citations as well as all co-author bibliometric data (H-index, number of papers related to zirconia implant, the total number of papers, citation of paper regarding zirconia implant, and citation of paper regarding zirconia implant). Authors with the highest quantity of clinical studies regarding zirconia dental implants were evaluated and measured the average, the standard deviation, minimum and maximum of topic paper, total papers, topic citations, overall citations, and H-index. Moreover, we evaluated the scientific trend of the included study according to the year of publication and journal details (full title, the impact factor (IF), and rank) based on the Clarivate Analytics report for 2019 with selected categories: “Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine”, study design, number of citations received, marginal bone loss, survival rate, failure, and study follow-up.

2.3. Study Selection

We screened the literature search results in two steps, where the first phase was the screening of the title and abstract by paired reviewers separately. Then, the second phase was a full-text assessment by two expert reviewers (L.F and A.S). The reference list of the studies included in the full-text screening was hand-screened for potential additional studies. In this bibliometric study, inclusion criteria were only clinical studies (either prospective or retrospective) without time restrictions. Exclusion criteria were animal studies, in vitro studies, literature reviews, systematic reviews, short communications, personal opinion, letters, book chapters, and non-English studies.

2.4. Data Analysis

We used VOSviewer software (version 1.6.8; Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands) to visualize a term map analyzing keywords from the data obtained. “Create Map” function was used to analyze the data by using the “Citation” type and setting the unit of analysis as a “number of citations.” In the keyword map, the node’s size reflects the number of received citations, as the larger size indicates the author with the highest citations. Furthermore, keywords that often appeared together were classified as the same color in network visualization mode [45,46].

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection

A total of 1159 references were collected from electronic databases in which (n = 185) were omitted due to duplication. By title and abstract, 968 articles were screened and 841 excluded as irrelevant topics. By the full-text screening of 127 papers, 29 studies were included in this bibliometric study [47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75] excluding the remaining 98 articles because they did not meet our inclusion criteria (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow chart demonstrates the process of literature search and study selection. (Figure not reproduced here; see the original article.)

3.2. Study Characteristics

The included studies showed wide variability in the study design, presence/absence of a control group, experimental site, type of prosthetic rehabilitation, prosthetic connection (one-piece or two-piece), follow-up period, and different methods for evaluating the effectiveness of research. Although these differences exist, most studies reported favorable outcomes for the use of zirconia implants in oral rehabilitation. The main characteristics of the included studies are summarized in Table 2.

A total of 21 studies evaluated monolithic or one-piece zirconia implants [47,48,49,51,52,53,54,56,57,58,60,62,64,66,70,71,72,73,74,76], two of which had titanium implants as their control and showed no significant difference in survival rate and marginal bone loss between groups (p > 0.05) [64,70]. Two studies evaluated the immediate loading of zirconia implants [53,64]: one study compared it to the non-occlusal loading procedure [64], while the other study compared it with the standard loading protocol [57]. Furthermore, 26 papers assessed the cylindrical microgeometry of zirconia implants [47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,67,70,71,72,73,74,75], while three studies evaluated the root-analog zirconia implants obtained by a three-dimensional scan [66,68,69]. However, Akça et al. and Pirker et al. reported the lowest marginal bone loss after two years (0.31 ± 0.24 and 0.5 ± 0.7 mm, respectively), in which Akça et al. used specially designed titanium–zirconia alloy implants [47], and Pirker et al. used specially designed root-analog zirconia implants with a micro-retention surface in a fresh extraction socket [69].

3.3. Growth of Publications

In total, 29 clinical studies were published between 2008 and 2020, in which 19 papers (65.5%) were published in the last five years and ten papers published before 2015. The highest number of published studies was in 2015 (n = 6, 20.6%) followed by 2013 and 2017 (n = 4, 13.7% for each) (Figure 2).

Figure 2 Publication trend of the clinical studies on the zirconia implants. (Figure not reproduced here; see the original article.)

3.4. Journal of Publication

The clinical studies on the use of zirconia dental implants for oral rehabilitation were published across ten peer-reviewed journals. The journal with the largest number of publications was “Clinical Oral Implants Research” (n = 12, 41%), followed by “International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery” (n = 4, 13.7%) (Figure 3).

Figure 3 Contribution journals in clinical research on zirconia implants. (Figure not reproduced here; see the original article.)

The majority of publications were published in Q1 journals (n = 25, 86%), while the journal with the highest impact factor was “Journal of Clinical Periodontology” (IF = 5.241), which had two articles.

3.5. Study Design and Level of Evidence

All included studies were prospective, while the most common study design of clinical research on zirconia implants was cohort study (n = 12, 41.4%), followed by case series (n = 9, 31%), and RCT (n = 5, 17%). According to the hierarchy of evidence levels (Is) [77,78], the available evidence supporting the use of zirconia implants is 17% level II, 41.4% EL IV, and the remaining EL VI.

3.6. Contribution of Countries and Institutions

The majority of the studies originated from institutions in Germany (n = 14, 48.3%), followed by Switzerland, (n = 6, 20.7%), and Austria (n = 5, 17%), where the most productive institution was the Medical Center of University of Freiburg (n = 8, 27.6%), followed by the Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zürich (n = 5, 17%). While many of the included studies were funded, the most funding support for included research was provided by VITA Zahnfabrik—H. Rauter GmbH & Co. KG, Bad Säckingen, Germany (n = 5, 17%) (Table 3).

3.7. Bibliometric Assessment

A total of 29 articles with total citations_[Scopus] ranged from 0 to 176 (mean 57.28 ± 42.18), while the number of citations_[Scopus] received by each paper ranged from 0 to 69 (mean 21.3 ± 20). The top-cited study was the RCT of Cannizzaro et al. (2010) (n_[Scopus] = 69) [54], followed by the prospective case series of Payer et al. (2012) (n_[Scopus] = 61) [66], and Pirker et al. (2009) (n_[Scopus] = 58) [69].

However, the author with the highest number of clinical research on zirconia implants was Kohal R.J. (n = 10), followed by Spies B.C. (n = 8) and Vach K. (n = 6), while the top-cited author of clinical studies on zirconia implants was Kohal R.J. (n_[WoS] = 155), followed by Arnetzl G. (n_[WoS] = 91), Koller M. (n_[WoS] = 87), Payer M., and Jakse N. (n_[WoS] = 86 for each) (Figure 4 and Figure 5).

Figure 4 Network analysis of the authors with the largest number of clinical studies on zirconia implants. (Figure not reproduced here; see the original article.)

Figure 5 Bibliometric variables for authors with the highest number of topic papers. (Figure not reproduced here; see the original article.)

The authors’ H-index_Scopus ranged from one to 79 (mean 22.67 ± 19.96), and the author with the most bibliometric characteristics was Hämmerle C.H.F., who had 364 publications (two of which were clinical studies on zirconia implants) with 8311 total citations and H-index_Scopus = 79 (Table 4 and Figure 6).

Figure 6 Box plots summarize the bibliometric variables of the authors with the largest number of studies. (Figure not reproduced here; see the original article.)

4. Discussion

The present study carried out a bibliometric evaluation of clinical research on zirconia implant rehabilitation, highlighting the significant heterogeneity of the included studies, which revealed considerable variations in methodology, technical approaches, follow-up, and control group involvement. Our findings indicate that there is a trend for zirconia implants in oral rehabilitation as there has been an increase in about 180% of the studies published in the last five years.

The included studies reported a survival rate for zirconia implants ranging from 87% to 100% with follow-up periods from one to 7.8 years, while the least survival rate reported in RCT by Siddiqi et al. was 67.6% after one-year follow-up (i.e., 16 zirconia implants failed out of 68) [70]. This RCT aimed to study the effectiveness of zirconia vs. titanium implants restored with one-piece ball-abutment in mandibular and maxillary overdentures, while this high decrease in the survival rate was for both groups (i.e., 67.6% for zirconia implants and 66.7% for titanium implants); the outcomes of maxillary rehabilitation were worse than the mandible, while no mechanical fractures of the fixtures were reported [70].

Although one-piece and two-piece zirconia implants have been evaluated, the lower marginal bone loss and higher survival rates were observed in studies of one-piece zirconia implant rehabilitation on a single tooth or three element prosthetic rehabilitation [59,61]. However, the studies did not report any differences in the marginal bone loss and survival rate between the single crown and the fixed multiple zirconia implant recovery, while the prosthetic connection appears to have no apparent effect on these parameters [48]. Additionally, Lorenz et al. showed no significant difference in marginal bone loss with a total of 83 zirconia implants compared to natural teeth after 7.8 years of function [47], and the marginal bone loss was similar in the other studies, which was less than 1 mm in the first year and stabilized in subsequent functional loading [47,48,49,52,56,57,58,64,69,73,74]. Moreover, the prospective study by Kniha et al. contained the largest sample size of the included studies involving 81 patients with 105 implants for fixed rehabilitation, who reported a significant decrease of 0.66 ± 0.30 mm with a survival rate of 100% after three years [58].

However, the most common complication (70%) was the failure of implant osseointegration as 17 studies reported a loss of at least one implant in the first six months [48,49,50,51,53,54,55,56,59,60,61,63,64,66,67,69,70,72,73,74].

As previously reported for titanium dental implant threads, microgeometry appears to have a significant effect on the osseointegration of zirconia implants [79,80], whereas a more retentive surface resulted in an increased survival rate compared to a sandblasted surface only [68,69].

Although all clinical research included in this analysis was screened and selected from the Scopus and Web of Science databases, which may avoid restriction in each database [39,81], our investigation has further limitations. First, the year of publication, which is a reliable indicator of the number of citations received, as older papers receive more citations than recent publications because there is more time to cite them, regardless of their impact [82,83]. Second, open access policies have a significant influence on the citations received in the evaluated papers [84,85,86], as a result, we found large heterogeneity in Topic/Total Citations% and co-authors’ H-index.

5. Conclusions

This was the first study highlighting bibliometric output of clinical research and co-authors in the field of zirconia dental implants and shows a strong interest in the development of research into the clinical application of zirconia dental implants, as evidenced by the increase in the number of scientific papers published in the last ten years.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.L. and A.S.; Methodology, F.L. and A.G.A.K.; Software, F.L.; Validation, F.L. and A.S.; Formal analysis, F.L. and A.G.A.K.; Investigation, A.S., F.L. and B.R.; Data curation, F.L., A.G.A.K. and A.S.; Writing—original draft preparation, F.L. and A.S.; Writing—review and editing, F.L., A.G.A.K. and S.N.; Visualization, A.S., B.R. and I.F.; Supervision, A.S. and I.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

References

References

1. Albrektsson T., Wennerberg A. On osseointegration in relation to implant surfaces. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2019;21(Suppl. 1):4–7. doi: 10.1111/cid.12742.
2. Buser D., Janner S.F.M., Wittneben J.-G., Brägger U., Ramseier C.A., Salvi G.E. 10-Year Survival and Success Rates of 511 Titanium Implants with a Sandblasted and Acid-Etched Surface: A Retrospective Study in 303 Partially Edentulous Patients. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2012;14:839–851. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2012.00456.x.
3. Degidi M., Piattelli A. A 7-year Follow-up of 93 Immediately Loaded Titanium Dental Implants. J. Oral Implantol. 2005;31:25–31. doi: 10.1563/0-730.1.
4. Scarano A., Inchingolo F., Murmura G., Traini T., Piattelli A., Lorusso F. Three-Dimensional Architecture and Mechanical Properties of Bovine Bone Mixed with Autologous Platelet Liquid, Blood, or Physiological Water: An In Vitro Study. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018;19 doi: 10.3390/ijms19041230.
5. Barros R.R.M., Degidi M., Novaes A.B., Piattelli A., Shibli J.A., Iezzi G. Osteocyte Density in the Peri-Implant Bone of Immediately Loaded and Submerged Dental Implants. J. Periodontol. 2009;80:499–504. doi: 10.1902/jop.2009.080484.
6. Gehrke S., Mazón P., Del Fabbro M., Tumedei M., Aramburú Júnior J., Pérez-Díaz L., De Aza P. Histological and Histomorphometric Analyses of Two Bovine Bone Blocks Implanted in Rabbit Calvaria. Symmetry. 2019;11:641. doi: 10.3390/sym11050641.
7. Scarano A., Carinci F., Lorusso F., Festa F., Bevilacqua L., Santos de Oliveira P., Maglione M. Ultrasonic vs Drill Implant Site Preparation: Post-Operative Pain Measurement Through VAS, Swelling and Crestal Bone Remodeling: A Randomized Clinical Study. Mater. Basel. 2018;11:2516. doi: 10.3390/ma11122516.
8. Scarano A., Crincoli V., Di Benedetto A., Cozzolino V., Lorusso F., Podaliri Vulpiani M., Grano M., Kalemaj Z., Mori G., Grassi F.R. Bone Regeneration Induced by Bone Porcine Block with Bone Marrow Stromal Stem Cells in a Minipig Model of Mandibular “Critical Size” Defect. Stem. Cells Int. 2017;2017:9082869. doi: 10.1155/2017/9082869.
9. Scarano A., De Oliveira P.S., Traini T., Lorusso F. Sinus Membrane Elevation with Heterologous Cortical Lamina: A Randomized Study of a New Surgical Technique for Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation without Bone Graft. Mater. Basel. 2018;11:1457. doi: 10.3390/ma11081457.
10. Piattelli A., Scarano A., Piattelli M. Detection of alkaline and acid phosphatases around titanium implants: A light microscopical and histochemical study in rabbits. Biomaterials. 1995;16:1333–1338. doi: 10.1016/0142-9612(95)91049-5.
11. Comuzzi L., Tumedei M., Piattelli A., Iezzi G. Short vs. Standard Length Cone Morse Connection Implants: An In Vitro Pilot Study in Low Density Polyurethane Foam. Symmetry. 2019;11:1349. doi: 10.3390/sym11111349.
12. Tumedei M., Savadori P., Del Fabbro M. Synthetic Blocks for Bone Regeneration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019;20:4221. doi: 10.3390/ijms20174221.
13. Afrashtehfar K.I., Del Fabbro M. Clinical performance of zirconia implants: A meta-review. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2020;123:419–426. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.05.017.
14. Hanawa T. Zirconia versus titanium in dentistry: A review. Dent. Mater. J. 2020;39:24–36. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2019-172.
15. Hashim D., Cionca N., Courvoisier D.S., Mombelli A. A systematic review of the clinical survival of zirconia implants. Clin. Oral Investig. 2016;20:1403–1417. doi: 10.1007/s00784-016-1853-9.
16. Cantore S., Mirgaldi R., Ballini A., Coscia M.F., Scacco S., Papa F., Inchingolo F., Dipalma G., De Vito D. Cytokine gene polymorphisms associate with microbiogical agents in periodontal disease: Our experience. Int. J. Med. Sci. 2014;11:674–679. doi: 10.7150/ijms.6962.
17. Noronha Oliveira M., Schunemann W.V.H., Mathew M.T., Henriques B., Magini R.S., Teughels W., Souza J.C.M. Can degradation products released from dental implants affect peri-implant tissues? J. Periodontal Res. 2017;53:1–11. doi: 10.1111/jre.12479.
18. Noumbissi S., Scarano A., Gupta S. A Literature Review Study on Atomic Ions Dissolution of Titanium and Its Alloys in Implant Dentistry. Mater. Basel. 2019;12:368. doi: 10.3390/ma12030368.
19. Ottria L., Lauritano D., Andreasi Bassi M., Palmieri A., Candotto V., Tagliabue A., Tettamanti L. Mechanical, chemical and biological aspects of titanium and titanium alloys in implant dentistry. J. Biol. Regul. Homeost. Agents. 2018;32(Suppl. 1):81–90.
20. Rodrigues D.C., Valderrama P., Wilson T.G., Palmer K., Thomas A., Sridhar S., Adapalli A., Burbano M., Wadhwani C. Titanium Corrosion Mechanisms in the Oral Environment: A Retrieval Study. Mater. Basel. 2013;6:5258–5274. doi: 10.3390/ma6115258.
21. Scarano A., Piattelli M., Caputi S., Favero G.A., Piattelli A. Bacterial Adhesion on Commercially Pure Titanium and Zirconium Oxide Disks: An In Vivo Human Study. J. Periodontol. 2004;75:292–296. doi: 10.1902/jop.2004.75.2.292.
22. Mihatovic I., Golubovic V., Becker J., Schwarz F. Bone tissue response to experimental zirconia implants. Clin. Oral Investig. 2016;21:523–532. doi: 10.1007/s00784-016-1904-2.
23. Scarano A., Di Carlo F., Quaranta M., Piattelli A. Bone Response to Zirconia Ceramic Implants: An Experimental Study in Rabbits. J. Oral Implantol. 2003;29:8–12. doi: 10.1563/1548-1336(2003)029<0008:BRTZCI>2.3.CO;2.
24. Agustín-Panadero R., Serra-Pastor B., Roig-Vanaclocha A., Fons-Font A., Solá-Ruiz M.F. Fracture resistance and the mode of failure produced in metal-free crowns cemented onto zirconia abutments in dental implants. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0220551. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220551.
25. Bethke A., Pieralli S., Kohal R.-J., Burkhardt F., von Stein-Lausnitz M., Vach K., Spies B.C. Fracture Resistance of Zirconia Oral Implants In Vitro: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Mater. Basel. 2020;13:562. doi: 10.3390/ma13030562.
26. Sailer I., Asgeirsson A.G., Thoma D.S., Fehmer V., Aspelund T., Özcan M., Pjetursson B.E. Fracture strength of zirconia implant abutments on narrow diameter implants with internal and external implant abutment connections: A study on the titanium resin base concept. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2018;29:411–423. doi: 10.1111/clr.13139.
27. Cao Y., Yu C., Wu Y., Li L., Li C. Long-Term Survival and Peri-Implant Health of Titanium Implants with Zirconia Abutments: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Prosthodont. 2019;28:883–892. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13097.
28. Fanali S., Tumedei M., Pignatelli P., Inchingolo F., Pennacchietti P., Pace G., Piattelli A. Implant primary stability with an osteocondensation drilling protocol in different density polyurethane blocks. Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Eng. 2020:1–7. doi: 10.1080/10255842.2020.1806251.
29. Fujiwara S., Kato S., Bengazi F., Urbizo Velez J., Tumedei M., Kotsu M., Botticelli D. Healing at implants installed in osteotomies prepared either with a piezoelectric device or drills: An experimental study in dogs. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s10006-020-00895-y.
30. Kermanshah H., Geramy A., Ebrahimi S.F., Bitaraf T. IPS-Empress II inlay-retained fixed partial denture reinforced with zirconia bar: Three-dimensional finite element andin-vitrostudies. Acta Odontol. Scand. 2012;70:569–576. doi: 10.3109/00016357.2011.640283.
31. Kotsu M., Urbizo Velez J., Bengazi F., Tumedei M., Fujiwara S., Kato S., Botticelli D. Healing at implants installed from ~ 70- to <10-Ncm insertion torques: An experimental study in dogs. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. :2020. doi: 10.1007/s10006-020-00890-3.
32. Scarano A., Di Carlo F., Piattelli A. Effect of sterilization and cleansing on implantology drills: Zirconia vs steel. Ital. Oral Surg. 2008;3:61–72.
33. Scarano A., Valbonetti L., Marchetti M., Lorusso F., Ceccarelli M. Soft Tissue Augmentation of the Face with Autologous Platelet-Derived Growth Factors and Tricalcium Phosphate. Microtomography Evaluation of Mice. J Craniofac. Surg. 2016;27:1212–1214. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000002712.
34. Scarano A., Piattelli A., Quaranta A., Lorusso F. Bone Response to Two Dental Implants with Different Sandblasted/Acid-Etched Implant Surfaces: A Histological and Histomorphometrical Study in Rabbits. BioMed Res. Int. 2017;2017:8724951. doi: 10.1155/2017/8724951.
35. Ibrahim G.M., Carter Snead O., Rutka J.T., Lozano A.M. The most cited works in epilepsy: Trends in the “Citation Classics”. Epilepsia. 2012;53:765–770. doi: 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2012.03455.x.
36. Parker J.N., Lortie C., Allesina S. Characterizing a scientific elite: The social characteristics of the most highly cited scientists in environmental science and ecology. Scientometrics. 2010;85:129–143. doi: 10.1007/s11192-010-0234-4.
37. Park K.M., Park B.S., Park S., Yoon D.Y., Bae J.S. Top-100 cited articles on headache disorders: A bibliometric analysis. Clin. Neurol. Neurosurg. 2017;157:40–45. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2017.03.022.
38. Lorusso F., Inchingolo F., Scarano A. Scientific Production in Dentistry: The National Panorama through a Bibliometric Study of Italian Academies. BioMed Res. Int. 2020;2020:3468303. doi: 10.1155/2020/3468303.
39. Jayaratne Y.S.N., Zwahlen R.A. The evolution of dental journals from 2003 to 2012: A bibliometric analysis. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0119503. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119503.
40. Pommer B., Valkova V., Ubaidha Maheen C., Fürhauser L., Rausch-Fan X., Seeman R. Scientific Interests of 21st Century Clinical Oral Implant Research: Topical Trend Analysis. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2015;18:850–856. doi: 10.1111/cid.12371.
41. Gutiérrez-Vela M.M., Díaz-Haro A., Berbel-Salvador S., Lucero-Sánchez A., Robinson-García N., Cutando-Soriano A. Bibliometric analysis of research on regenerative periodontal surgery during the last 30 years. J. Clin. Exp. Dent. 2012;4:e112–e118. doi: 10.4317/jced.50646.
42. Tetè S., Zizzari V.L., De Carlo A., Lorusso F., Di Nicola M., Piattelli A., Gherlone E., Polimeni A. Characterizing scientific production of Italian Oral Surgery professionals through evaluation of bibliometric indices. Ann. Di Stomatol. 2014;5:23. doi: 10.11138/ads/2014.5.1.023.
43. O’Brien B.C., Harris I.B., Beckman T.J., Reed D.A., Cook D.A. Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research. Acad. Med. 2014;89:1245–1251. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388.
44. Liberati A., Altman D.G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gøtzsche P.C., Ioannidis J.P.A., Clarke M., Devereaux P.J., Kleijnen J., Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000100. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100.
45. Van Eck N.J., Waltman L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics. 2010;84:523–538. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3.
46. Van Eck N.J., Waltman L. VOSviewer manual. Leiden Univeristeit Leiden. 2013;1:1–53.
47. Akça K., Cavusoglu Y., Uysal S., Cehreli M.C. A Prospective, Open-Ended, Single-Cohort Clinical Trial on Early Loaded Titanium-Zirconia Alloy Implants in Partially Edentulous Patients: Up-to-24-Month Results. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2013;28:573–578. doi: 10.11607/jomi.3088.
48. Balmer M., Spies B.C., Kohal R.J., Hämmerle C.H.F., Vach K., Jung R.E. Zirconia implants restored with single crowns or fixed dental prostheses: 5-year results of a prospective cohort investigation. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2020;31:452–462. doi: 10.1111/clr.13581.
49. Balmer M., Spies B.C., Vach K., Kohal R.-J., Hämmerle C.H.F., Jung R.E. Three-year analysis of zirconia implants used for single-tooth replacement and three-unit fixed dental prostheses: A prospective multicenter study. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2018;29:290–299. doi: 10.1111/clr.13115.
50. Becker J., John G., Becker K., Mainusch S., Diedrichs G., Schwarz F. Clinical performance of two-piece zirconia implants in the posterior mandible and maxilla: A prospective cohort study over 2 years. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2015;28:29–35. doi: 10.1111/clr.12610.
51. Borgonovo A., Censi R., Dolci M., Vavassori V., Bianchi A., Maiorana C. Use of endosseous one-piece yttrium-stabilized zirconia dental implants in premolar region: A two-year clinical preliminary report. Minerva. Stomatol. 2011;60:229–241.
52. Borgonovo A., Vavassori V., Censi R., Calvo J., Re D. Behavior of endosseous one-piece yttrium stabilized zirconia dental implants placed in posterior areas. Minerva. Stomatol. 2013;62:247–257.
53. Bormann K.-H., Gellrich N.-C., Kniha H., Schild S., Weingart D., Gahlert M. A prospective clinical study to evaluate the performance of zirconium dioxide dental implants in single-tooth edentulous area: 3-year follow-up. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18:181. doi: 10.1186/s12903-018-0636-x.
54. Cannizzaro G., Torchio C., Felice P., Leone M., Esposito M. Immediate occlusal versus non-occlusal loading of single zirconia implants. A multicentre pragmatic randomised clinical trial. Eur. J. Oral Implant. 2010;3:111–120.
55. Cionca N., Müller N., Mombelli A. Two-piece zirconia implants supporting all-ceramic crowns: A prospective clinical study. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2015;26:413–418. doi: 10.1111/clr.12370.
56. Jung R.E., Grohmann P., Sailer I., Steinhart Y.-N., Fehér A., Hämmerle C., Strub J.R., Kohal R. Evaluation of a one-piece ceramic implant used for single-tooth replacement and three-unit fixed partial dentures: A prospective cohort clinical trial. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2015;27:751–761. doi: 10.1111/clr.12670.
57. Kniha K., Kniha H., Möhlhenrich S.C., Milz S., Hölzle F., Modabber A. Papilla and alveolar crest levels in immediate versus delayed single-tooth zirconia implants. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2017;46:1039–1044. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2017.02.007.
58. Kniha K., Schlegel K.A., Kniha H., Modabber A., Hölzle F., Kniha K. Evaluation of peri-implant bone levels and soft tissue dimensions around zirconia implants—A three-year follow-up study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2017;47:492–498. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2017.10.013.
59. Kohal R.-J., Patzelt S.B.M., Butz F., Sahlin H. One-piece zirconia oral implants: One-year results from a prospective case series. 2. Three-unit fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) reconstruction. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2013;40:553–562. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12093.
60. Kohal R.-J., Spies B.C., Bauer A., Butz F. One-piece zirconia oral implants for single-tooth replacement: Three-year results from a long-term prospective cohort study. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2018;45:114–124. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12815.
61. Koller M., Steyer E., Theisen K., Stagnell S., Jakse N., Payer M. Two-piece zirconia versus titanium implants after 80 months: Clinical outcomes from a prospective randomized pilot trial. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2020;31:388–396. doi: 10.1111/clr.13576.
62. Lorenz J., Giulini N., Hölscher W., Schwiertz A., Schwarz F., Sader R. Prospective controlled clinical study investigating long-term clinical parameters, patient satisfaction, and microbial contamination of zirconia implants. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2019;21:263–271. doi: 10.1111/cid.12720.
63. Osman R.B., Payne A., Duncan W., Ma S. Zirconia implants supporting overdentures: A pilot study with novel prosthodontic designs. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2013;26:277–281. doi: 10.11607/ijp.2903.
64. Osman R.B., Swain M.V., Atieh M., Ma S., Duncan W. Ceramic implants (Y-TZP): Are they a viable alternative to titanium implants for the support of overdentures? A randomized clinical trial. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2014;25:1366–1377. doi: 10.1111/clr.12272.
65. Patankar A., Kshirsagar R., Patankar S., Pawar S. Immediate, non submerged root analog zirconia implant in single rooted tooth replacement: Case report with 2 years follow up. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 2016;15:270–273. doi: 10.1007/s12663-015-0786-1.
66. Payer M., Arnetzl V., Kirmeier R., Koller M., Arnetzl G., Jakse N. Immediate provisional restoration of single-piece zirconia implants: A prospective case series-results after 24 months of clinical function. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2012;24:569–575. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02425.x.
67. Payer M., Heschl A., Koller M., Arnetzl G., Lorenzoni M., Jakse N. All-ceramic restoration of zirconia two-piece implants—A randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2015;26:371–376. doi: 10.1111/clr.12342.
68. Pirker W., Kocher A. Immediate, non-submerged, root-analogue zirconia implant in single tooth replacement. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2008;37:293–295. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2007.11.008.
69. Pirker W., Kocher A. Immediate, non-submerged, root-analogue zirconia implants placed into single-rooted extraction sockets: 2-year follow-up of a clinical study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2009;38:1127–1132. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2009.07.008.
70. Siddiqi A., Kieser J.A., De Silva R.K., Thomson W.M., Duncan W.J. Soft and Hard Tissue Response to Zirconia versus Titanium One-Piece Implants Placed in Alveolar and Palatal Sites: A Randomized Control Trial. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2015;17:483–496. doi: 10.1111/cid.12159.
71. Spies B.C., Balmer M., Jung R.E., Sailer I., Vach K., Kohal R.-J. All-ceramic, bi-layered crowns supported by zirconia implants: Three-year results of a prospective multicenter study. J. Dent. 2017;67:58–65. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.09.008.
72. Spies B.C., Balmer M., Jung R.E., Sailer I., Vach K., Kohal R.J. All-ceramic single crowns supported by zirconia implants: 5-year results of a prospective multicenter study. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2019;30:466–475. doi: 10.1111/clr.13433.
73. Spies B.C., Balmer M., Patzelt S.B.M., Vach K., Kohal R.J. Clinical and Patient-reported Outcomes of a Zirconia Oral Implant: Three year Results of a Prospective Cohort Investigation. J. Dent. Res. 2015;94:1385–1391. doi: 10.1177/0022034515598962.
74. Spies B.C., Sperlich M., Fleiner J., Stampf S., Kohal R.-J. Alumina reinforced zirconia implants: 1-year results from a prospective cohort investigation. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2016;27:481–490. doi: 10.1111/clr.12560.
75. Spies B.C., Witkowski S., Vach K., Kohal R.J. Clinical and patient-reported outcomes of zirconia-based implant fixed dental prostheses: Results of a prospective case series 5 years after implant placement. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2017;29:91–99. doi: 10.1111/clr.13072.
76. Borgonovo A.-E., Fabbri A., Vavassori V., Censi R., Maiorana C. Multiple teeth replacement with endosseous one-piece yttrium-stabilized zirconia dental implants. Med. Oral Patol. Oral Cir. Bucal. 2012;17:e981–e987. doi: 10.4317/medoral.18194.
77. Greenhalgh T. How to read a paper: Getting your bearings (deciding what the paper is about) BMJ. 1997;315:243–246. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7102.243.
78. Guyatt G.H., Sackett D.L., Sinclair J.C., Hayward R., Cook D.J., Cook R.J., Bass E., Gerstein H., Haynes B., Holbrook A. Users’ guides to the medical literature: IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. JAMA. 1995;274:1800–1804. doi: 10.1001/jama.1995.03530220066035.
79. Scarano A., Crocetta E., Quaranta A., Lorusso F. Influence of the thermal treatment to address a better osseointegration of Ti6Al4V dental implants: Histological and histomorphometrical study in a rabbit model. BioMed Res. Int. 2018 doi: 10.1155/2018/2349698.
80. Scarano A., Degidi M., Perrotti V., Degidi D., Piattelli A., Iezzi G. Experimental Evaluation in Rabbits of the Effects of Thread Concavities in Bone Formation with Different Titanium Implant Surfaces. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2013;16:572–581. doi: 10.1111/cid.12033.
81. Van Eck N.J., Waltman L. Accuracy of citation data in Web of Science and Scopus. arXiv. 20191906.07011
82. Feijoo J.F., Limeres J., Fernández-Varela M., Ramos I., Diz P. The 100 most cited articles in dentistry. Clin. Oral Investig. 2014;18:699–706. doi: 10.1007/s00784-013-1017-0.
83. Ugolini D., Neri M., Cesario A., Bonassi S., Milazzo D., Bennati L., Lapenna L.M., Pasqualetti P. Scientific production in cancer rehabilitation grows higher: A bibliometric analysis. Supportive Care Cancer. 2012;20:1629–1638. doi: 10.1007/s00520-011-1253-2.
84. Davis P.M. Open access, readership, citations: A randomized controlled trial of scientific journal publishing. FASEB J. 2011;25:2129–2134. doi: 10.1096/fj.11-183988.
85. Gargouri Y., Hajjem C., Larivière V., Gingras Y., Carr L., Brody T., Harnad S. Self-selected or mandated, open access increases citation impact for higher quality research. PLoS ONE. 2010;5:e13636. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013636.
86. Hua F., Shen C., Walsh T., Glenny A.-M., Worthington H. Open Access: Concepts, findings, and recommendations for stakeholders in dentistry. J. Dent. 2017;64:13–22. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.06.012.