Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41919331›Full record

ArticleTurkish journal of orthodontics2026

The 100 Most Cited Studies on Impacted Canines: A Bibliometric Analysis Study.

Mehmet Gümüş Kanmaz, Genta Agani Sabah

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Turkish journal of orthodontics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mehmet Gümüş Kanmazİzmir Tınaztepe University Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Periodontology, İzmir, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0002-9261-7854
Genta Agani Sabahİzmir Tınaztepe University Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics, İzmir, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0002-7571-6922

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the scientific literature on impacted canines using bibliometric and altmetric analyses. Methods: A systematic search of the Web of Science Core Collection was performed using keywords related to impacted canines. Three independent reviewers identified, screened, and evaluated the 100 most-cited articles. Citation data were cross-verified with Scopus and Google Scholar. Extracted information included citation counts, study design, publication year, authors, institutions, journals, and countries. Bibliometric mapping was conducted using VOSviewer, and altmetric indicators were obtained from dimensions. Statistical analysis was performed using Spearman's rank correlation, with significance set at p<0.05. Results: The 100 most-cited articles received 10,429 citations in the Web of Science, and citation counts were strongly correlated across databases (p<0.001). Most studies were observational (69%), followed by narrative reviews (12%) and interventional studies (10%). Research topics primarily addressed the etiology, radiographic assessments, and associated anomalies. The most cited article in the Web of Science database was Ericson and Kurol's 1988 study on the interceptive extraction of primary canines. Publications were concentrated in orthodontic specialty journals, with the USA, Italy, and Israel being the leading countries. Conclusion: Analysis of the 100 most-cited articles revealed that influential research on impacted canines is predominantly, focusing on etiology and diagnosis. Areas such as mandibular impactions, periodontal outcomes, and long-term treatment effects remain underexplored.

Indexed as

bibliometricsCuspidimpacted tooth

Identifiers

PMID41919331
PMCPMC13041079

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.