Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose: This study aimed to characterize publication activity, contributing communities, citation patterns, and thematic structures in Scopus-indexed research on digital zygomatic implant rehabilitation. Materials and Methods: Bibliometric analysis and keyword co-occurrence mapping were performed on a provisional corpus of 94 publications retained from 128 retrieved records. Metadata and keyword variants were standardized. Biblioshiny supported descriptive analysis, and VOSviewer generated author-keyword and indexed-keyword networks, an overlay visualization, and an author-keyword threshold sensitivity analysis. Results: The corpus encompassed 49 sources and accumulated 1,286 citations. Publications from 2021–2025 represented 54.3% of the corpus, with 2025 recording the highest output among completed years. Five sources contributed 38.3% of publications. China and Italy led corresponding-author locations; 17 publications involved international collaboration when sovereign countries were distinguished from territories. The ten most cited publications accounted for 51.9% of citations. The author-keyword network comprised 45 terms in six clusters, spanning guidance, navigation, robotics, biomechanics, and prosthetic rehabilitation. Its structure showed substantial agreement across occurrence thresholds among shared terms (adjusted Rand index, 0.899). The indexed-keyword network contained 82 terms in four clusters. Dynamic navigation, augmented reality, and robotics had comparatively recent average publication years. Conclusion: Research activity has expanded across interconnected surgical and prosthetic applications. Bibliometric prominence does not establish clinical effectiveness or adoption. Prospective multicentre research should evaluate integrated rehabilitation workflows, technical reliability, prosthetic outcomes, and patient-reported benefits. Findings remain provisional pending resolution of outstanding records. (Int J Maxillofac Prosthetics 2026;9:10-25)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rohuma et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: