Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 8, 2026
Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases
Published on: October 24, 2019
Digital workflows in prosthetic dentistry: A scientometric analysis of Web of Science-indexed clinical studies
Alexandra Feldmann1, Henrique César Schimitz Gassen1, Bruno Manoel Medeiros E Silva2
1Graduate student, Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil.
Statement Of Problem:
Despite the increasing adoption of digital workflows in prosthetic dentistry, a comprehensive overview of publication trends and their scientific impact remains lacking.
Purpose:
The purpose of this scientometric analysis was to provide an overview of clinical studies on digital workflows in prosthetic dentistry, with a focus on factors influencing their scientific impact.
Material And Methods:
Data from the Web of Science database up to July 2025, including clinical studies and case reports on digital workflows for prosthetic rehabilitation, were retrieved. Relevant variables were extracted, and a Generalized Additive Model for Location, Scale, and Shape (GAMLSS) was applied to assess the relationship between citation counts, prosthesis type, material, and impact factor. The model used a negative binomial distribution with a cubic spline for impact factor, selected by the Generalized Akaike Information Criterion (GAIC) and validated through worm plot diagnostics (α=.05).
Results:
The analysis included 515 articles, published between 1996 and 2025, and showed a marked increase in publications over the last decade, peaking in 2024 (n=56) and with rising expectations for 2025 (63 articles estimated). Case reports or series accounted for the largest share (n=256), followed by prospective (n=117), randomized (n=60), cross-sectional (n=41), and retrospective (n=41) studies. Higher impact factor was observed for the polyetheretherketone (PEEK)/polyetherketoneketone (PEKK) (P=.042) and resin (P=.008) materials when compared to ceramic, as well as for the implant-supported fixed prostheses in comparison with the removable conventional prosthesis (P=.041). Regarding the predictors of citation counts, a positive, nonlinear association was observed between impact factor and the number of citations (P<.001). Cross-sectional (P<.001) and prospective (P=.011) studies tend to receive more citations than randomized clinical trials, whereas case reports/series exhibit lower citation counts (P=.008).
Conclusions:
Clinical research on digital workflows for dental prostheses has increased markedly, particularly in technologically advanced regions. Scientific visibility was primarily influenced by study design and journal impact factor, with specific prosthesis types and materials being more frequently investigated and applied within the literature.
