Bibliometric analysis reveals growing interests in oral lichen planus, suggesting innovative advancements and key research areas.
Background: Oral lichen planus (OLP) is a common oral disease. Currently, there are many controversies surrounding OLP, including etiopathogenesis, diagnostic criteria, and malignant transformation. We employed a bibliometric analysis to delineate the current status, evolving hotspots, and emerging frontiers in OLP research. This methodology provides a macroscopic perspective on the field’s development. Materials and methods: We extracted documents on OLP published between January 01, 2014 and December 31, 2023 from the Web of Science Core Collection. VOSviewer, CiteSpace, and Origin were mainly used to visualize the publications, countries, institutions, authors, journals, co-cited journals, references, and keywords. Result: A total of 1717 documents were included. The number of articles on OLP had been on the rise overall since 2014. China made the largest contribution in this field (n = 447, 29.25%). The most productive institution and author was Sichuan University (n = 59) and Zhou Gang (n = 40), respectively. A large proportion of the literatures were published on oral diseases (n = 119), and the most cited journal was Journal of Oral Pathology and Medicine (n = 3918). References and keywords analysis identified “expression,” “pathogenesis,” “diagnosis,” and “management” as key focuses in OLP research. Furthermore, “oral potentially malignant disorders” stood out not only as a key area of interest but also as a cutting-edge frontier in the field of OLP. Conclusions: This study delineated a comprehensive landscape of hotspots and frontiers in OLP, thus facilitating the identification of interdisciplinary advancements. We sincerely hope that the bibliometric analysis will enable researchers to leverage the OLP to ultimately improve human oral health.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bu et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: