Bibliometric analysis uncovers leading randomized controlled trials in pediatric dentistry, suggesting trends in minimally invasive methods and caries prevention.
Background: The objective of this study is to identify and assess the 100 most-cited randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in pediatric dentistry using bibliometric techniques, and to elucidate significant research trends, collaboration levels, and knowledge deficiencies.Methods: On August 28, 2025, a comprehensive analysis was conducted in the Web of Science Core Collection database using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. As a result, the 100 most-cited RCTs were examined in detail in terms of bibliometric variables (year, journal, author, country, institution, keywords) and citation indicators. Co-authorship and keyword analyses were performed using VOSviewer, and statistical analyses were conducted with SPSS.Results: The 100 RCTs published between 1975 and 2025 received a total of 6,719 citations, with an H-index of 47. The most frequently studied and highly cited research topics included minimally invasive methods, caries prevention strategies, comparisons of results of restorative treatments, and pulp therapies. The most cited articles were published in the Journal of Dentistry, Journal of Dental Research, and International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. Authorship analysis showed that the majority of the most-cited studies were multi-authored, with strong co-authorship networks emerging around leading research groups in Hong Kong, Brazil, and Europe. Brazil, the United Kingdom, and Hong Kong/China were the top countries that contributed, and they also stood out in international cooperation. Conclusions: The most cited randomized controlled trials mostly concentrated on caries prevention, minimally invasive techniques, restorative methods, and pulp therapies. To increase the evidence base, it is important to expand collaborations across multiple centers and look into areas that haven't been studied enough.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Savas et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: