A bibliometric comparison of undergraduate and postgraduate endodontic education publications: The topics, trends, and challenges
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 19, 2025
Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases
Published on: October 24, 2019
Jinglan Zhang1, Xiaowei Liu1, Lei Yang1
1State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases & National Center for Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & Department of Operative Dentistry and Endodontics，West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Objectives:
This study employs bibliometric analysis to compare knowledge units and main topics in undergraduate and postgraduate endodontic education, aiming to identify similarities, differences, and connections. The insights gained are expected to inform the future of two-stage education to enhance continuity, highlighting evolving trends, challenges, and development directions.
Methods:
Citation data were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collections (WOSCC) database and non-WOSCC databases with two separate search formulas. VOSviewer and CiteSpace were used to analyze the distribution of research by publication years, citation-sources, co-authorship network of authors and countries, and clusters of keywords.
Results:
The focus on undergraduate education preceded postgraduate education by nearly a decade. The United Kingdom has emerged as the most prominent contributor to endodontic literature at both levels, with the International Endodontic Journal representing the most voluminous and cited resource in this domain. Dummer is recognized as the most prolific author in undergraduate endodontic education, while Gulabivala spearheads the most extensive cluster of postgraduate education. Keywords clustering analysis reveals that undergraduate education places greater emphasis on fundamental knowledge, while postgraduate education concentrates more on clinical practice. Descriptive analyses from non-WOSCC databases align with the topics and findings from WOSCC-based bibliometric analysis.
Conclusion:
This bibliometric analysis revealed the emphasis on fundamental knowledge and teaching techniques at the undergraduate level versus advanced clinical knowledge and techniques at the postgraduate level, which originated from different learning aims and contexts. Updating the curriculum to meet the latest practices and innovations is crucial for aligning learning objectives with current and future needs, and the connection between the two levels remains a central challenge in endodontic education.
