Clinical Oral Investigations (2024) 28:92

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-024-05498-5

RESEARCH

A bibliometric and Altmetric analysis of the 100 top most cited articles
on dentin adhesives
Ferda Karabay1 · Mustafa Demirci2 · Safa Tuncer2 · Neslihan Tekçe3 · Meriç Berkman4

Received: 6 November 2023 / Accepted: 7 January 2024 / Published online: 13 January 2024
© The Author(s) 2024

Abstract
Objective This study aimed to identify the 100 top-cited articles on dentin adhesives utilizing comprehensive bibliometric
and altmetric analyses.
Materials and methods The Institute of Scientific Information Web of Knowledge database was used to compile the top-
cited articles published from 1945 through February 12, 2023. Citation counts were manually retrieved for each article from
Scopus, Google Scholar, Dimensions, and Altmetric. The articles were analyzed in terms of their number of citations, year,
journal name, author (name, institution, and country), and type and specific field of study. We used descriptive statistics to
summarize the results.
Results The analysis revealed that the top 100 cited articles originated from 18 English-language journals and collectively
accumulated a remarkable 34526 citations. The article with the highest number of citations garnered 1288 references.
Among authors, Van Meerbeek B. stood out with nine articles and 4650 citations, followed by Pashley D.H. with six articles
and 2769 citations. Japan was the leading contributor by country, while the Catholic University of Leuven led in terms of
institutions with 20 articles.
Conclusion According to this study, basic research and review articles garnered the most citations, respectively. The cita-
tion analysis revealed different trends for researchers, the first being that researchers have focused on basic fields such as the
ultramorphology of dentin and adhesive interfaces, followed by bond strength to dentin. Two studies on clinical experiences
suggested that studies with high-level evidence, such as systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or randomized controlled clini-
cal trials, are required.
Clinical relevance It is identified that more studies with high-level evidence-based research are needed in the field of dental
adhesives.

Keywords Bibliometric · Altmetric · Citation analysis · Dentin adhesive · Restorative dentistry

Introduction

Bibliometrics is one of the few subfields involved in the

measurement of science outputs [1]. Bibliometric indica-
tors are useful tools for evaluating research performance,
* Ferda Karabay provided they are precise, advanced, up-to-date, com-
ferdagecgel@hotmail.com bined with expert knowledge, and interpreted and applied
with care [2]. Citation analysis is a principal bibliometric
1
Deparment of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, approach [2]. Citations may not fully reflect the quality of
Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey
a work, but highly cited articles often present new ideas or
2
Deparment of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, address important problems, so they are valuable in the sci-
Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
entific world. Additionally, the frequent citation of an article
3
Deparment of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, could be a strong indication of its reliability as a source for
Kocaeli University, Kocaeli, Turkey
researchers to substantiate their methods or arguments [3].
4
Deparment of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry,
Yeditepe University, Istanbul, Turkey

Vol.:(0123456789)
92 Page 2 of 18 Clinical Oral Investigations (2024) 28:92

Since 1945, the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) multiple dentistry journals [4, 34–38] or in a single dentistry
has been collecting bibliometric data from published sci- journal [13, 39].
entific papers, but their collection was not launched until Dentin adhesives appear to have made tremendous pro-
the Science Citation Index (SCI), a special tool for meas- gress over the years since adhesives were first introduced in
uring citations, was first published in 1962 [4]. Today, 1955 by Buonocore in a study on the bonding of resins to
the most widely used databases for bibliometric studies etched enamel surfaces and later after the introduction of
are the citation indexes produced by Thomson Reuters, resin bondings to adhere to etched dentin by Fusuyama et al.
especially Web of Science (WoS) and its predecessor, the [40–42]. Dental adhesive technology is constantly evolv-
SCI [2]. Google Scholar, a tool sponsored by the Internet ing with the rapid changes in commercial adhesives. These
search company Google, was created to provide users with developments are the result of numerous laboratory and
a simple way of searching a broad range of scientific lit- clinical studies, and the data obtained are highly important
erature. Google Scholar employs a matching algorithm to in showing the potential success of these materials and in
search for keyword search terms in the title, summary, or guiding future research [43].
full text of an article from various publishers and websites The basic mechanism of bonding to enamel and dentin
[5]. Around the same time Google Scholar was announced involves the replacement of resin monomers with the min-
to the public, Elsevier introduced Scopus, an indexing and erals removed from the dental hard tissues, which cause
abstraction service that includes its own citation-tracking porosity, and upon setting, micromechanical interlocking
tool. Scopus has reportedly indexed more journals than occurs in the formed porosities [44]. Adhesives can be clas-
WoS has and included more international and open-access sified as “etch and rinse” or “self-etching” depending on
journals [5]. the underlying adhesion strategy, and the degree of sub-
Altmetric (https://​www.​altme​tric.​com) is powered by stance exchange varies significantly among these adhesives
Digital Science, a Macmillan company that focuses on [44]. Nevertheless, the success of both adhesion strategies
technology to aid scientific research. It collects data from has been reported in both laboratory and clinical research.
three primary sources: social media (e.g., Twitter, Face- However, it’s important to note that their effectiveness may
book, Google, Pinterest, and blogs); traditional media, both depend on the specific product being used [45].
mainstream (e.g., The Guardian and New York Times) and To date, no bibliometric analysis has been carried out
science-specific (e.g., New Scientist and Scientific Ameri- to provide a more comprehensive perspective to evaluate
can); and online reference managers (e.g., Mendeley and research on various topics in the field of dentin adhesives,
CiteULike). It also calculates the score of an article on the enabling us to anticipate future advancements and direct
basis of its wager on those sources. This is an algorithm- research efforts in this area. Thus, the purposes of this study
calculated quantitative measure of the article's quality and were to gain insight into the scientific interests, research
amount of attention [6]. trends, and development within the field of dental adhe-
In early 2018, Digital Science & Research Solutions sives by using WoS, Scopus, Google Scholar, Altmetric,
launched Dimensions, a novel online academic platform and Dimensions.
designed to provide a distinct viewpoint on research out-
comes. Grant awards, journal and book publications, men-
tions of social media, academic citations, clinical trials, and Materials and methods
commercial patents are considered research outputs. The
publication and citation contents at Dimensions are created To identify the most cited articles on dentin adhesives, our
and constantly updated by integrating data from multiple study was conducted in two stages, in which bibliometric
sources, including multiple clinical trial records, open- and altmetric analysis data were collected. Institutional eth-
access articles, indexes covering many scientific journals, ics committee approval was not necessary because the data
databases with content licenses, and open-access databases used in this study were obtained from publications.
[7]. Initially, the WoS database (http://w
​ ww.w
​ ebofk​ nowle​ dge.​
Numerous citation analyses and the most cited articles com) was used for the bibliometric analysis. On February
have become available in dentistry, including areas such as 12, 2023, a search was conducted in the "Web of Science
caries [8, 9], bulk-fill composites [10], endodontics [11–17], Core Collection (WoSCC)" using the search terms listed in
implants [18–20], pediatric dentistry [21, 22], periodontol- Table S1, starting from the year 1945. The most commonly
ogy [23, 24], oral medicine and radiology [25–27], and used free and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms in
orthodontics [28], and in topics such as dental traumatol- the published literature on dentin adhesives were combined
ogy [12, 29], tooth wear [30], minimally invasive dentistry to create keywords. The field tags as “Topic” were selected,
[31], orofacial pain [32], and dental education [33]. Some and the search resulted in 142,494 articles ranked according
citation analysis studies have included articles published in to the first option with the highest number of citations. Then,
Clinical Oral Investigations (2024) 28:92 Page 3 of 18 92

respectively, the search was restricted to articles written in from all databases searched. As the numbers of citations
the English language (n = 137,996), and ‘Science Citation were the same, our top 100 list consisted of 101 articles.
Index Expanded (SCI-E)’ and ‘Emerging Science Citation After the final list was confirmed, the top 100 most cited
Index (ESCI)’ index limitations were applied, resulting in articles were analyzed by the researchers, who recorded the
123,086 articles. The document types “article” and “review number of citations, publication name (title), year of pub-
article” were selected (n = 115,845). After screening the lication, journal name and impact factor, author(s) (name,
articles, all studies were exported into the Excel program number, and authorship position), country, institution, and
as a full record. type and field of study. When the article analysis results
After ranking the articles according to their numbers of were discrepant between the two independent researchers, a
citations in the WoS database, two independent research- consensus decision was reached through a discussion.
ers (F.K. and M.D.) reviewed the titles and abstracts of More recent articles were listed with priority for articles
the articles to identify the candidates for full-text review. with the same numbers of citations. The list of journal names
Apart from the restrictions set, the eligibility criteria con- was arranged in order of their numbers of top-cited articles,
sisted mainly of studies that had data or topics that directly and the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) 2021 from the Journal
included dentin adhesives. The first 100 articles with the of Citation Reports (https://​jcr.​clari​vate.​com) was used to
highest number of citations according to the criteria were rate journals with the same numbers of articles (Table S2).
identified independently by the two researchers (F.K. and The institute of origin was based on the address of the first
M.D.). All results were cross-checked, and inconsistencies author's affiliation. If the first author worked at more than
were resolved after reading the full texts of the articles and one institution that belonged to more than one country, each
reviewing the relevant literature. The inter-examiner agree- institution and country were counted. The type of study was
ment was quantified using the kappa coefficient. classified as clinical, basic, review, systematic review, meta-
After the top 100 most cited articles were identified, the analysis, or lecture based on the article type. To determine
citation counts were manually retrieved for each article from the area of study, the full text of each article was carefully
the Scopus (https://​www.​scopus.​com/), Google Scholar examined by identifying concepts based on MeSH terms
(https://​schol​ar.​google.​com), and Dimensions databases from PubMed.
(https://​app.​dimen​sions.​ai) on the same date to provide a The Visualization of Similarities (VOS) Viewer software
more comprehensive view, as the citation count of the same program (version 1.6.15; Centre for Science and Technol-
article may vary on different dates (date of access: March ogy Studies, Leiden University) was used to analyze the
3, 2023). co-authorship network and journals. SPSS version 21 (IBM
For the altmetric analysis, the Altmetric Attention Score Corporation, USA) was used for the statistical analysis of
(AAS; a metric that automatically calculates the weighted the frequencies of the descriptive measures.
count of social media attention received by a research out-
put) was used. The 100 most cited articles were accessed by
manually scanning the Altmetric Explorer database (https://​ Results
www.​altme​tric.​com) through the “Advanced Search” option
using “publication title” or “DOI” simultaneously (date of The top 100 most-cited articles are listed in Table 1 accord-
access: March 3, 2023). A donut graph with different colors ing to the number of citations. The most cited article, pub-
representing the amount of attention given to the different lished in 2003 by Van Meerbeek et al. in Operative Den-
types of output was constructed with the AASs. Articles tistry, had 1288 citations and was a lecture on adhesion to
that were found in the database but were not cited in other enamel and dentin (Table 1). The least-cited article had
articles and those that were added to the database either by 198 citations. The top 100 most cited articles had a total
institutional implementation or through a non-scoring source of 34,526 citations, and the mean number of citations per
were displayed in the donut with a question mark. If the arti- article was 342.
cle was not mentioned at all in any article or if this output
did have a score at one point but had been removed/reduced Journals and years of publication
because of changes in the number of mentions, it was rep-
resented with “0” in the altmetric donut. At this point, there The top 100 cited articles were published in 18 journals, all
would be no difference in that both cases would indicate in the English language. Nine of the 18 journals had each
having no tracked attention or altmetric score assigned to published only one of the 100 most cited articles, while three
the research output (help.altmetric.com). other journals had each published two articles. The other 6
The top 100 most cited articles are shown in Table 1 journals that published at least 3 of the most cited articles
according to their numbers of citations as indicated in the are shown in Fig. 1. The impact factors of the six journals
WoSCC database, from highest to lowest, including results were between 2.16 and 15.304. The journal with the highest
92 Page 4 of 18 Clinical Oral Investigations (2024) 28:92

Table 1  The 100 most cited articles on dentin adhesives

Rank Article No. of citatitons
WOS Scopus Google scholar Dimension AAS
Total Avg. per year

1 Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay 1288 64.4 1464 3118 1100 0
P, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Buonocore memorial
lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future
challenges. Oper Dent. 2003 May-Jun;28(3):215–35
2 De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts 1200 66.67 1345 2836 1214 3
P, Braem M, Van Meerbeek B. A critical review of the durability
of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res. 2005
Feb;84(2):118–32
3 Van Landuyt KL, Snauwaert J, De Munck J, Peumans M, Yoshida Y, 887 55.44 963 1759 911 9
Poitevin A, Coutinho E, Suzuki K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek
B. Systematic review of the chemical composition of contemporary
dental adhesives. Biomaterials. 2007 Sep;28(26):3757–85
4 Breschi L, Mazzoni A, Ruggeri A, Cadenaro M, Di Lenarda R, De 822 54.8 885 1707 850 24
Stefano Dorigo E. Dental adhesion review: aging and stability of
the bonded interface. Dent Mater. 2008 Jan;24(1):90–101
5 Van Meerbeek B, Yoshihara K, Yoshida Y, Mine A, De Munck J, Van 817 68..08 899 1702 863 8
Landuyt KL. State of the art of self-etch adhesives. Dent Mater.
2011 Jan;27(1):17–28
6 Yoshida Y, Nagakane K, Fukuda R, Nakayama Y, Okazaki M, Shin- 777 40.89 851 1477 833 0
tani H, Inoue S, Tagawa Y, Suzuki K, De Munck J, Van Meerbeek
B. Comparative study on adhesive performance of functional mono-
mers. J Dent Res. 2004 Jun;83(6):454–8
7 Pashley DH, Tay FR, Yiu C, Hashimoto M, Breschi L, Carvalho RM, 709 37.32 785 1363 763 7
Ito S. Collagen degradation by host-derived enzymes during aging.
J Dent Res. 2004 Mar;83(3):216–21
8 Pashley DH, Tay FR, Breschi L, Tjäderhane L, Carvalho RM, 620 51.67 679 1271 704 4
Carrilho M, Tezvergil-Mutluay A. State of the art etch-and-rinse
adhesives. Dent Mater. 2011 Jan;27(1):1–16
9 Sano H, Shono T, Sonoda H, Takatsu T, Ciucchi B, Carvalho R, 603 20.79 675 1386 601 3
Pashley DH. Relationship between surface area for adhesion and
tensile bond strength–evaluation of a micro-tensile bond test. Dent
Mater. 1994 Jul;10(4):236–40
10 Peumans M, Kanumilli P, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Lambre- 582 32.33 647 1225 606 5
chts P, Van Meerbeek B. Clinical effectiveness of contemporary
adhesives: a systematic review of current clinical trials. Dent Mater.
2005 Sep;21(9):864–81
11 Tay FR, Pashley DH. Aggressiveness of contemporary self-etching 509 23.14 581 1094 504 0
systems. I: Depth of penetration beyond dentin smear layers. Dent
Mater. 2001 Jul;17(4):296–308
12 Sano H, Takatsu T, Ciucchi B, Horner JA, Matthews WG, Pashley 501 17.89 550 988 418 0
DH. Nanoleakage: leakage within the hybrid layer. Oper Dent. 1995
Jan-Feb;20(1):18–25
13 Van Meerbeek B, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Mine A, Van Ende A, 499 38.38 531 1110 496 5
Neves A, De Munck J. Relationship between bond-strength tests
and clinical outcomes. Dent Mater. 2010 Feb;26(2):e100-21
14 Van Meerbeek B, Inokoshi S, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle 488 15.74 510 887 373 6
G. Morphological aspects of the resin-dentin interdiffusion
zone with different dentin adhesive systems. J Dent Res. 1992
Aug;71(8):1530–40
15 Hashimoto M, Ohno H, Kaga M, Endo K, Sano H, Oguchi H. In vivo 477 20.74 531 934 471 3
degradation of resin-dentin bonds in humans over 1 to 3 years. J
Dent Res. 2000 Jun;79(6):1385–91
16 Tay FR, Pashley DH, Yoshiyama M. Two modes of nanoleak- 475 22.62 512 766 449 3
age expression in single-step adhesives. J Dent Res. 2002
Jul;81(7):472–6
Clinical Oral Investigations (2024) 28:92 Page 5 of 18 92

Table 1  (continued)
Rank Article No. of citatitons
WOS Scopus Google scholar Dimension AAS
Total Avg. per year

17 De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, 463 23.15 504 912 440 0
Suzuki K, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Four-year water degrada-
tion of total-etch adhesives bonded to dentin. J Dent Res. 2003
Feb;82(2):136–40
18 Tay FR, Pashley DH, Suh BI, Carvalho RM, Itthagarun A. Single- 462 22 496 924 446 0
step adhesives are permeable membranes. J Dent. 2002 Sep-
Nov;30(7–8):371–82
19 Moszner N, Salz U, Zimmermann J. Chemical aspects of self-etching 457 25.39 502 898 491 9
enamel-dentin adhesives: a systematic review. Dent Mater. 2005
Oct;21(10):895–910
20 Ito S, Hashimoto M, Wadgaonkar B, Svizero N, Carvalho RM, Yiu 431 23.94 468 737 459 6
C, Rueggeberg FA, Foulger S, Saito T, Nishitani Y, Yoshiyama
M, Tay FR, Pashley DH. Effects of resin hydrophilicity on water
sorption and changes in modulus of elasticity. Biomaterials. 2005
Nov;26(33):6449–59
21 Pashley DH, Carvalho RM. Dentine permeability and dentine adhe- 408 15.69 446 1006 406 0
sion. J Dent. 1997 Sep;25(5):355–72
22 Labella R, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B, Vanherle G. Polymeri- 404 16.83 452 970 411 0
zation shrinkage and elasticity of flowable composites and filled
adhesives. Dent Mater. 1999 Mar;15(2):128–37
23 Van Meerbeek B, Perdigão J, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. The clinical 400 16 444 1037 338 3
performance of adhesives. J Dent. 1998 Jan;26(1):1–20
24 Pashley DH, Sano H, Ciucchi B, Yoshiyama M, Carvalho RM. Adhe- 393 14.04 428 970 376 ?
sion testing of dentin bonding agents: a review. Dent Mater. 1995
Mar;11(2):117–25
25 Pashley DH, Tay FR. Aggressiveness of contemporary self-etching 383 17.41 444 862 373 0
adhesives. Part II: etching effects on unground enamel. Dent Mater.
2001 Sep;17(5):430–44
26 Hebling J, Pashley DH, Tjäderhane L, Tay FR. Chlorhexidine arrests 381 21.17 427 782 426 0
subclinical degradation of dentin hybrid layers in vivo. J Dent Res.
2005 Aug;84(8):741–6
27 Carrilho MR, Geraldeli S, Tay F, de Goes MF, Carvalho RM, Tjä- 380 23.75 423 733 425 0
derhane L, Reis AF, Hebling J, Mazzoni A, Breschi L, Pashley D.
In vivo preservation of the hybrid layer by chlorhexidine. J Dent
Res. 2007 Jun;86(6):529–33
28 Sano H, Yoshikawa T, Pereira PN, Kanemura N, Morigami M, Tag- 370 15.42 417 708 363 0
ami J, Pashley DH. Long-term durability of dentin bonds made with
a self-etching primer, in vivo. J Dent Res. 1999 Apr;78(4):906–11
29 Malacarne J, Carvalho RM, de Goes MF, Svizero N, Pashley DH, 363 21.35 409 728 402 3
Tay FR, Yiu CK, Carrilho MR. Water sorption/solubility of dental
adhesive resins. Dent Mater. 2006 Oct;22(10):973–80
30 Goracci C, Tavares AU, Fabianelli A, Monticelli F, Raffaelli O, Car- 358 18.84 418 856 432 0
doso PC, Tay F, Ferrari M. The adhesion between fiber posts and
root canal walls: comparison between microtensile and push-out
bond strength measurements. Eur J Oral Sci. 2004 Aug;112(4):353–
61
31 Bouillaguet S, Troesch S, Wataha JC, Krejci I, Meyer JM, Pashley 356 17.8 410 807 380 0
DH. Microtensile bond strength between adhesive cements and root
canal dentin. Dent Mater. 2003 May;19(3):199–205
32 Van Meerbeek B, Willems G, Celis JP, Roos JR, Braem M, Lambre- 356 11.87 388 640 315 ?
chts P, Vanherle G. Assessment by nano-indentation of the hardness
and elasticity of the resin-dentin bonding area. J Dent Res. 1993
Oct;72(10):1434–42
92 Page 6 of 18 Clinical Oral Investigations (2024) 28:92

Table 1  (continued)
Rank Article No. of citatitons
WOS Scopus Google scholar Dimension AAS
Total Avg. per year

33 Imazato S. Antibacterial properties of resin composites and dentin 326 16.3 349 575 342 8
bonding systems. Dent Mater. 2003 Sep;19(6):449–57
34 Spencer P, Wang Y. Adhesive phase separation at the dentin interface 324 15.43 347 500 321 ?
under wet bonding conditions. J Biomed Mater Res. 2002 Dec
5;62(3):447–56
35 Watanabe I, Nakabayashi N, Pashley DH. Bonding to ground 315 10.86 369 653 296 3
dentin by a phenyl-P self-etching primer. J Dent Res. 1994
Jun;73(6):1212–20
36 Van Landuyt KL, De Munck J, Snauwaert J, Coutinho E, Poitevin 310 17.22 347 565 310 0
A, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Peumans M, Suzuki K, Lambrechts P, Van
Meerbeek B. Monomer-solvent phase separation in one-step self-
etch adhesives. J Dent Res. 2005 Feb;84(2):183–8
37 Spencer P, Ye Q, Park J, Topp EM, Misra A, Marangos O, Wang Y, 308 23.69 325 531 347 6
Bohaty BS, Singh V, Sene F, Eslick J, Camarda K, Katz JL. Adhe-
sive/Dentin interface: the weak link in the composite restoration.
Ann Biomed Eng. 2010 Jun;38(6):1989–2003
38 Scherrer SS, Cesar PF, Swain MV. Direct comparison of the bond 303 23.31 326 657 300 ?
strength results of the different test methods: a critical literature
review. Dent Mater. 2010 Feb;26(2):e78-93
39 Tay FR, Pashley DH. Water treeing–a potential mechanism for degra- 302 15.1 325 595 309 0
dation of dentin adhesives. Am J Dent. 2003 Feb;16(1):6–12
40 Nakabayashi N, Takarada K. Effect of HEMA on bonding to dentin. 302 9.74 318 583 297 3
Dent Mater. 1992 Mar;8(2):125–30
41 Van Meerbeek B, Dhem A, Goret-Nicaise M, Braem M, Lambrechts 296 9.87 311 516 223 3
P, VanHerle G. Comparative SEM and TEM examination of the
ultrastructure of the resin-dentin interdiffusion zone. J Dent Res.
1993 Feb;72(2):495–501
42 Tjäderhane L, Nascimento FD, Breschi L, Mazzoni A, Tersariol IL, 291 29.1 339 507 335 3
Geraldeli S, Tezvergil-Mutluay A, Carrilho MR, Carvalho RM,
Tay FR, Pashley DH. Optimizing dentin bond durability: control
of collagen degradation by matrix metalloproteinases and cysteine
cathepsins. Dent Mater. 2013 Jan;29(1):116–35
43 Geurtsen W. Biocompatibility of resin-modified filling materials. Crit 290 12.61 319 536 321 0
Rev Oral Biol Med. 2000;11(3):333–55
44 Mazzoni A, Pashley DH, Nishitani Y, Breschi L, Mannello F, 286 16.82 321 500 301 0
Tjäderhane L, Toledano M, Pashley EL, Tay FR. Reactivation of
inactivated endogenous proteolytic activities in phosphoric acid-
etched dentine by etch-and-rinse adhesives. Biomaterials. 2006
Sep;27(25):4470–6
45 Hashimoto M, Ohno H, Sano H, Kaga M, Oguchi H. In vitro deg- 285 14.25 302 522 277 0
radation of resin-dentin bonds analyzed by microtensile bond test,
scanning and transmission electron microscopy. Biomaterials. 2003
Sep;24(21):3795–803
46 Eick JD, Gwinnett AJ, Pashley DH, Robinson SJ. Current concepts 285 10.96 319 589 261 3
on adhesion to dentin. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 1997;8(3):306–35
47 Carrilho MR, Carvalho RM, de Goes MF, di Hipólito V, Geraldeli S, 279 17.44 316 613 321 3
Tay FR, Pashley DH, Tjäderhane L. Chlorhexidine preserves dentin
bond in vitro. J Dent Res. 2007 Jan;86(1):90–4
48 Rosa WL, Piva E, Silva AF. Bond strength of universal adhesives: A 276 34.5 324 637 343 12
systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2015 Jul;43(7):765–76
49 Orchardson R, Gillam DG. Managing dentin hypersensitivity. J Am 274 16.12 359 778 336 9
Dent Assoc. 2006 Jul;137(7):990–8; quiz 1028–9
Clinical Oral Investigations (2024) 28:92 Page 7 of 18 92

Table 1  (continued)
Rank Article No. of citatitons
WOS Scopus Google scholar Dimension AAS
Total Avg. per year

50 Sarrett DC. Clinical challenges and the relevance of materials testing 274 15.22 285 582 302 9
for posterior composite restorations. Dent Mater. 2005 Jan;21(1):9–
20
51 Wang Y, Spencer P. Hybridization efficiency of the adhesive/dentin 274 13.7 296 489 273 3
interface with wet bonding. J Dent Res. 2003 Feb;82(2):141–5
52 Nakajima M, Sano H, Burrow MF, Tagami J, Yoshiyama M, Ebisu 274 9.79 299 549 260 0
S, Ciucchi B, Russell CM, Pashley DH. Tensile bond strength and
SEM evaluation of caries-affected dentin using dentin adhesives. J
Dent Res. 1995 Oct;74(10):1679–88
53 Goldberg M. In vitro and in vivo studies on the toxicity of dental 268 17.87 295 503 306 4
resin components: a review. Clin Oral Investig. 2008 Mar;12(1):1–8
54 Nishitani Y, Yoshiyama M, Wadgaonkar B, Breschi L, Mannello F, 267 15.71 298 464 274 0
Mazzoni A, Carvalho RM, Tjäderhane L, Tay FR, Pashley DH.
Activation of gelatinolytic/collagenolytic activity in dentin by self-
etching adhesives. Eur J Oral Sci. 2006 Apr;114(2):160–6
55 Versluis A, Tantbirojn D, Douglas WH. Why do shear bond tests pull 262 10.08 279 510 240 0
out dentin? J Dent Res. 1997 Jun;76(6):1298–307
56 Pashley DH, Tay FR, Carvalho RM, Rueggeberg FA, Agee KA, Car- 256 16 280 442 267 0
rilho M, Donnelly A, García-Godoy F. From dry bonding to water-
wet bonding to ethanol-wet bonding. A review of the interactions
between dentin matrix and solvated resins using a macromodel of
the hybrid layer. Am J Dent. 2007 Feb;20(1):7–20
57 Tjäderhane L, Nascimento FD, Breschi L, Mazzoni A, Tersariol IL, 251 25.1 283 450 283 3
Geraldeli S, Tezvergil-Mutluay A, Carrilho M, Carvalho RM, Tay
FR, Pashley DH. Strategies to prevent hydrolytic degradation of the
hybrid layer-A review. Dent Mater. 2013 Oct;29(10):999–1011
58 Van Meerbeek B, Van Landuyt K, De Munck J, Hashimoto M, 251 13.94 270 555 256 0
Peumans M, Lambrechts P, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Suzuki K.
Technique-sensitivity of contemporary adhesives. Dent Mater J.
2005 Mar;24(1):1–13
59 Ratanasathien S, Wataha JC, Hanks CT, Dennison JB. Cytotoxic 251 8.96 269 450 252 3
interactive effects of dentin bonding components on mouse fibro-
blasts. J Dent Res. 1995 Sep;74(9):1602–6
60 Dietschi D, Duc O, Krejci I, Sadan A. Biomechanical considera- 246 16.4 257 653 242 0
tions for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a sys-
tematic review of the literature, Part II (Evaluation of fatigue
behavior, interfaces, and in vivo studies). Quintessence Int. 2008
Feb;39(2):117–29
61 Kanemura N, Sano H, Tagami J. Tensile bond strength to and SEM 245 10.21 286 496 242 0
evaluation of ground and intact enamel surfaces. J Dent. 1999
Sep;27(7):523–30
62 Inoue S, Koshiro K, Yoshida Y, De Munck J, Nagakane K, Suzuki 244 13.56 255 422 242 0
K, Sano H, Van Meerbeek B. Hydrolytic stability of self-etch adhe-
sives bonded to dentin. J Dent Res. 2005 Dec;84(12):1160–4
63 Sano H, Shono T, Takatsu T, Hosoda H. Microporous dentin 244 8.41 259 460 200 0
zone beneath resin-impregnated layer. Oper Dent. 1994 Mar-
Apr;19(2):59–64
64 Breschi L, Mazzoni A, Nato F, Carrilho M, Visintini E, Tjäderhane 241 18.54 270 483 269 0
L, Ruggeri A Jr, Tay FR, Dorigo Ede S, Pashley DH. Chlorhexidine
stabilizes the adhesive interface: a 2-year in vitro study. Dent Mater.
2010 Apr;26(4):320–5
65 Yoshida Y, Yoshihara K, Nagaoka N, Hayakawa S, Torii Y, Ogawa 235 21.36 263 489 270 0
T, Osaka A, Meerbeek BV. Self-assembled Nano-layering at the
Adhesive interface. J Dent Res. 2012 Apr;91(4):376–81
92 Page 8 of 18 Clinical Oral Investigations (2024) 28:92

Table 1  (continued)
Rank Article No. of citatitons
WOS Scopus Google scholar Dimension AAS
Total Avg. per year

66 Fukegawa D, Hayakawa S, Yoshida Y, Suzuki K, Osaka A, Van 235 13.82 253 371 243 0
Meerbeek B. Chemical interaction of phosphoric acid ester with
hydroxyapatite. J Dent Res. 2006 Oct;85(10):941–4
67 Uno S, Asmussen E. Marginal adaptation of a restorative 235 7.34 259 422 227 3
resin polymerized at reduced rate. Scand J Dent Res. 1991
Oct;99(5):440–4
68 Sano H, Yoshiyama M, Ebisu S, Burrow MF, Takatsu T, Ciucchi B, 234 8.36 246 388 183 0
Carvalho R, Pashley DH. Comparative SEM and TEM observa-
tions of nanoleakage within the hybrid layer. Oper Dent. 1995
Jul-Aug;20(4):160–7
69 Cadenaro M, Antoniolli F, Sauro S, Tay FR, Di Lenarda R, 233 12.94 256 443 243 ?
Prati C, Biasotto M, Contardo L, Breschi L. Degree of conver-
sion and permeability of dental adhesives. Eur J Oral Sci. 2005
Dec;113(6):525–30
70 Shono Y, Ogawa T, Terashita M, Carvalho RM, Pashley EL, Pashley 232 9.67 265 396 235 0
DH. Regional measurement of resin-dentin bonding as an array. J
Dent Res. 1999 Feb;78(2):699–705
71 Cardoso MV, de Almeida Neves A, Mine A, Coutinho E, Van Lan- 231 19.25 248 580 236 7
duyt K, De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B. Current aspects on bonding
effectiveness and stability in adhesive dentistry. Aust Dent J. 2011
Jun;56 Suppl 1:31–44
72 Hikita K, Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Ikeda T, Van Landuyt K, 231 14.44 261 670 254 0
Maida T, Lambrechts P, Peumans M. Bonding effectiveness of
adhesive luting agents to enamel and dentin. Dent Mater. 2007
Jan;23(1):71–80
73 Ceballo L, Toledano M, Osorio R, Tay FR, Marshall GW. Bonding to 231 11 253 418 180 0
Er-YAG-laser-treated dentin. J Dent Res. 2002 Feb;81(2):119–22
74 Tay FR, Gwinnett JA, Wei SH. Micromorphological spectrum from 229 8.48 258 460 231 ?
overdrying to overwetting acid-conditioned dentin in water-free
acetone-based, single-bottle primer/adhesives. Dent Mater. 1996
Jul;12(4):236–44
75 Hanabusa M, Mine A, Kuboki T, Momoi Y, Van Ende A, Van Meer- 225 20.45 254 541 258 0
beek B, De Munck J. Bonding effectiveness of a new 'multi-mode'
adhesive to enamel and dentine. J Dent. 2012 Jun;40(6):475–84
76 Ausiello P, Apicella A, Davidson CL. Effect of adhesive layer proper- 225 10.71 272 466 236 3
ties on stress distribution in composite restorations–a 3D finite
element analysis. Dent Mater. 2002 Jun;18(4):295–303
77 Van Meerbeek B, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G, Duke ES, 225 9 234 406 194 0
Eick JD, Robinson SJ. A TEM study of two water-based adhe-
sive systems bonded to dry and wet dentin. J Dent Res. 1998
Jan;77(1):50–9
78 Marshall SJ, Bayne SC, Baier R, Tomsia AP, Marshall GW. A review 224 17.23 252 496 234 3
of adhesion science. Dent Mater. 2010 Feb;26(2):e11-6
79 Heintze SD, Rousson V. Clinical effectiveness of direct class II resto- 222 20.18 239 457 242 15
rations—a meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent. 2012 Aug;14(5):407–31
80 Van Landuyt KL, Kanumilli P, De Munck J, Peumans M, Lambrechts 220 12.94 241 433 203 0
P, Van Meerbeek B. Bond strength of a mild self-etch adhesive with
and without prior acid-etching. J Dent. 2006 Jan;34(1):77–85. d
81 Armstrong S, Geraldeli S, Maia R, Raposo LH, Soares CJ, 219 16.85 245 569 258 ?
Yamagawa J. Adhesion to tooth structure: a critical review
of "micro" bond strength test methods. Dent Mater. 2010
Feb;26(2):e50-62
Clinical Oral Investigations (2024) 28:92 Page 9 of 18 92

Table 1  (continued)
Rank Article No. of citatitons
WOS Scopus Google scholar Dimension AAS
Total Avg. per year

82 Watts DC, Cash AJ. Determination of polymerization shrinkage 219 6.84 241 408 222 12
kinetics in visible-light-cured materials: methods development.
Dent Mater. 1991 Oct;7(4):281–7
83 Sanares AM, Itthagarun A, King NM, Tay FR, Pashley DH. Adverse 217 10.33 246 446 222 3
surface interactions between one-bottle light-cured adhesives and
chemical-cured composites. Dent Mater. 2001 Nov;17(6):542–56
84 Boschian Pest L, Cavalli G, Bertani P, Gagliani M. Adhesive post- 214 10.19 255 557 209 0
endodontic restorations with fiber posts: push-out tests and SEM
observations. Dent Mater. 2002 Dec;18(8):596–602
85 Choi KK, Condon JR, Ferracane JL. The effects of adhesive thick- 214 9.3 239 466 230 3
ness on polymerization contraction stress of composite. J Dent Res.
2000 Mar;79(3):812–7
86 Martínez-Insua A, Da Silva Dominguez L, Rivera FG, Santana-Penín 213 9.26 232 428 241 0
UA. Differences in bonding to acid-etched or Er:YAG-laser-treated
enamel and dentin surfaces. J Prosthet Dent. 2000 Sep;84(3):280–8
87 Gwinnett AJ, Matsui A. A study of enamel adhesives. The physical 213 3.8 227 507 230 1
relationship between enamel and adhesive. Arch Oral Biol. 1967
Dec;12(12):1615–20
88 Tay FR, Suh BI, Pashley DH, Prati C, Chuang SF, Li F. Factors con- 207 10.35 141 254 123 0
tributing to the incompatibility between simplified-step adhesives
and self-cured or dual-cured composites. Part II. Single-bottle,
total-etch adhesive. J Adhes Dent. 2003 Summer;5(2):91–105
89 Yoshiyama M, Tay FR, Doi J, Nishitani Y, Yamada T, Itou K, 206 9.81 224 435 205 0
Carvalho RM, Nakajima M, Pashley DH. Bonding of self-etch
and total-etch adhesives to carious dentin. J Dent Res. 2002
Aug;81(8):556–60
90 Imazato S, Kinomoto Y, Tarumi H, Ebisu S, Tay FR. Antibacterial 205 10.25 224 346 220 6
activity and bonding characteristics of an adhesive resin containing
antibacterial monomer MDPB. Dent Mater. 2003 Jun;19(4):313–9
91 Van Noort R, Cardew GE, Howard IC, Noroozi S. The effect of 205 6.41 211 355 175 ?
local interfacial geometry on the measurement of the tensile bond
strength to dentin. J Dent Res. 1991 May;70(5):889–93
92 Imazato S. Bio-active restorative materials with antibacterial effects: 204 14.57 218 311 232 0
new dimension of innovation in restorative dentistry. Dent Mater J.
2009 Jan;28(1):11–9
93 Carvalho RM, Chersoni S, Frankenberger R, Pashley DH, Prati C, 204 11.33 227 431 214 0
Tay FR. A challenge to the conventional wisdom that simultaneous
etching and resin infiltration always occurs in self-etch adhesives.
Biomaterials. 2005 Mar;26(9):1035–42
94 Oliveira SS, Pugach MK, Hilton JF, Watanabe LG, Marshall SJ, 204 10.2 236 432 205 0
Marshall GW Jr. The influence of the dentin smear layer on adhe-
sion: a self-etching primer vs. a total-etch system. Dent Mater. 2003
Dec;19(8):758–67. d
95 Chen C, Niu LN, Xie H, Zhang ZY, Zhou LQ, Jiao K, Chen JH, 202 25.25 229 406 206 3
Pashley DH, Tay FR. Bonding of universal adhesives to dentine–
Old wine in new bottles? J Dent. 2015 May;43(5):525–36
96 Fusayama T, Nakamura M, Kurosaki N, Iwaku M. Non-pressure 201 4.57 241 691 249 0
adhesion of a new adhesive restorative resin. J Dent Res. 1979
Apr;58(4):1364–70
97 Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin A, Lambre- 199 15.31 216 425 211 0
chts P, Van Meerbeek B. Eight-year clinical evaluation of a 2-step
self-etch adhesive with and without selective enamel etching. Dent
Mater. 2010 Dec;26(12):1176–84
92 Page 10 of 18 Clinical Oral Investigations (2024) 28:92

Table 1  (continued)
Rank Article No. of citatitons
WOS Scopus Google scholar Dimension AAS
Total Avg. per year

98 Yiu CK, Pashley EL, Hiraishi N, King NM, Goracci C, Ferrari M, 199 11.06 219 341 204 1
Carvalho RM, Pashley DH, Tay FR. Solvent and water retention
in dental adhesive blends after evaporation. Biomaterials. 2005
Dec;26(34):6863–72
99 Yoshikawa T, Sano H, Burrow MF, Tagami J, Pashley DH. Effects of 199 8.29 221 408 204 ?
dentin depth and cavity configuration on bond strength. J Dent Res.
1999 Apr;78(4):898–905
100 Breschi L, Maravic T, Cunha SR, Comba A, Cadenaro M, Tjäderhane 198 39.6 222 343 238 0
L, Pashley DH, Tay FR, Mazzoni A. Dentin bonding systems: From
dentin collagen structure to bond preservation and clinical applica-
tions. Dent Mater. 2018 Jan;34(1):78–96
101 Spencer P, Wang Y, Walker MP, Wieliczka DM, Swafford JR. 198 8.61 208 276 184 0
Interfacial chemistry of the dentin/adhesive bond. J Dent Res. 2000
Jul;79(7):1458–63

number of top-cited articles (n = 33) was the Journal of Den- first authors. The most cited articles were published by Van
tal Research, followed by Dental Materials (n = 32) and the Meerbeek B. (9 articles; 4650 citations), followed by those
Journal of Dentistry (n = 8). The top 100 most cited articles by Pashley D.H. (6 articles; 2769 citations) and Tay F.R.
were published between 1967 and 2018 (Fig. 2). Sixty-two (6 articles; 2184 citations) (Table 2). Regarding the total
of these articles were published between 2000 and 2010. author network, Pashley D.H. was leading with 37 articles
The year 2005 had the highest number of top-cited articles and 12517 citations, followed by Tay F.R. (30 articles; 9607
(n = 12), followed by 2003 (n = 10), 2002, and 2010 (n = 7). citations), Van Meerbeek B. (24 articles; 11,088 citations),
The oldest article, written by Gwinnett et al., was published Carvalho R.M. (19 articles; 6804 citations), De Munck J.
in the Archives of Oral Biology in 1967. The newest article (16 articles; 8444 citations), and Lambrechts P. (16 articles;
was written by Breschi et al. and published in Dental Mate- 7811 citations; Fig. 3).
rials in 2018. The first author's address was used to ascertain the coun-
try of origin. Accordingly, the top 100 articles originated
Authors, countries, and institutions of origin from 16 countries (Table 3), of which Japan had the highest
number of articles (25 articles; 7847 citations), followed by
In total, 244 unique authors contributed to the 100 most Belgium (20 articles; 9572 citations), the United States (18
cited articles. Five articles were attributed to a single articles; 5805 citations), Italy (9 articles; 2784 citations),
author; 13 articles to two authors; and 83 articles to three and Brazil (6 articles; 1883 citations).
or more authors. The top 100 list consisted of 65 different On the basis of the first authors' addresses, 38 institutions
contributed to the top 100 most cited publications, of which
10 had at least 3 publications (Table 4). Among the 10 insti-
Table 2  First authors with three or more top-cited articles tutions, the most contributions were made by the Catholic
University of Leuven (20 articles; 9572 citations), followed
Authors No. of No. of citations* Cita- H index*
articles tions per by Tokyo Medical and Dental University (10 articles; 3118
article* citations), the University of Hong Kong, and Prince Philip
Dental Hospital (7 articles; 2393 citations).
Van Meerbeek, B 9 4620 513,33 72
Pashley, DH 6 2769 461,5 77
Type and field of study
Tay, FR 6 2184 364 91
Sano, H 5 1952 390,4 55
With 69 articles, basic science research had the highest
Van Landuyt, KL 3 1417 472,33 51
number of articles among the top 100 most cited articles.
Breschi, L 3 1261 420,33 58
Twenty-five articles were reviews, 3 articles were system-
Spencer, P 3 830 276,67 45
atic reviews, 1 article was a meta-analysis, 1 article was a
Imazato, S 3 735 245 47
systematic review and meta-analysis, 1 article was a lec-
*
for WOS ture, and 2 articles reported clinical trials (Table 5). One
Clinical Oral Investigations (2024) 28:92 Page 11 of 18 92

Fig. 1  Journal citation map of the 101 most cited articles; bubbles lay Visualisation' section, "LinLog/modularity" was selected as the
indicate the number of publications and colour indicates the aver- analysis method, the number of articles contributed by the journals as
age normalised citation. (Using VOSviewer interface, in the 'Over- 'Weights' and the average normalised citation count as ‘Scores’)

Fig. 2  The number of articles by years and the total number of citations of the top 100 articles by years

of the two clinical trials included both in vivo and in vitro structures of dentin and adhesive interfaces (39 arti-
studies. The major topic of interest in the top 69 most cles), followed by bond strength to dentin (34 articles)
cited basic science articles was the ultramorphological and hybrid layers (25 articles). The major topic of interest
92 Page 12 of 18 Clinical Oral Investigations (2024) 28:92

Fig. 3  A co-authorship map shows all the contributor authors of in the ‘Weights’ drop-down list from Visualization section, ‘Docu-
the 101 top-cited articles. From VOSviewer interface; in analysis ments’ option was selected to determine the label sizes of the authors
option “LinLog/modularity” selected as normalization method and depending on the number of articles to which they contributed

Table 3  Countries with two or more top-cited articles structures of dentin and adhesive interfaces (8 articles) and
Countries No. of articles No. of citations* Citation per year*
bonding to dentin (7 articles). Of the two clinical studies,
one was related to the clinical performances of total-etch
Japan 25 7847 313.88 adhesive systems, and the other was on the clinical perfor-
Belgium 20 9572 478.6 mance of multimode adhesive systems (Table 5).
USA 18 5805 322.5
Italy 9 2784 309.33
Brazil 6 1883 313.83 Altmetric assessment
Hong Kong 5 1629 325.8
China 3 966 322 Among the top 100 most-cited articles, 43 had AASs.
Switzerland 3 905 301,67 Forty-nine articles had interactions that were not men-
Liechtenstein 2 679 339.5 tioned, and nine had interactions that were not included
Finland 2 542 271 in the calculation of the AAS. The AASs of the 43 articles
Spain 2 444 222 were as follows: 1–5 in 27 articles, 6–10 in 12, and 10
UK 2 424 212 or higher in 4. The article with the highest AAS (24), a
*
for WoS
review on dentin adhesive/aging written by Breschi et al.,
was published in Dental Materials in 2008. This is fol-
lowed by a meta-analysis on clinical performance written
in the top 25 most cited review articles was the hybrid by Heintze et al. and published in the Journal of Adhesive
layer (11 articles), followed by the ultramorphological Dentistry in 2012 (AAS = 15).
Clinical Oral Investigations (2024) 28:92 Page 13 of 18 92

Table 4  Institutions with three Institutions No. of articles No. of citations* Citation per year*
or more top-cited articles
Catholic University of Leuven 20 9572 478.6
Tokyo Medical and Dental University 10 3118 311.8
University of Hong Kong, Prince Philip 7 2393 341.86
Dental Hospital
Hokkaido University 6 2042 340.33
Medical College of Georgia 6 2769 461.5
Okayama University 5 1720 344
University of Missouri-Kansas City 4 1081 270.25
University of Trieste 3 1296 432
Osaka University 3 735 245
University of Geneva 3 905 301.67
*
for WoS

Discussion in other studies on dentistry areas such as pediatric dentistry

(between 182 and 42 citations) [22], oral medicine and radi-
In our study, the citation count of the top 100 articles was ology (between 624 and 86 citations) [26], and orthodontics
between 1288 and 198 on WoS, between 1464 and 208 on (between 545 and 89 citations) [28]. In fact, the citation rates
Scopus, between 3118 and 276 on Google Scholar, and differed for each specialization depending on the number
between 1100 and 184 on Dimensions. The total number of of researchers working in a specific field [15]. In addition,
citations was highest on Google Scholar, followed by Sco- the wide variety of subdisciplines in specific fields may be
pus, WoS, and Dimensions. However, the number of cita- another influencing factor in the citation rate.
tions for the same article differed between the databases. Of the most cited articles in our study, 89.1% (90 articles)
In addition to scientific articles, Google Scholar includes were published before 2010. Our findings are consistent with
citations from books, theses, and other works, so the results those of other studies [15, 17, 19, 28, 29]. Contrary to our
from the database should be interpreted with caution. Cur- findings, the most cited articles in some studies were pub-
rently, Scopus only counts citations from 1996 onwards, lished in the past decade [11, 12, 22]. The oldest articles
which is a major shortcoming for identifying the most have more time to be cited than recent articles, regardless
cited journal articles, but expansion of the citation count to of their scientific significance, hence the risk of exemption
before 1996 has been planned for the near future [29]. On from the recent influential articles [25]. As supported by
the other hand, the database indexes more international and our findings and previous studies, it can be considered that
open-access journals than the WoS [5]. In accordance with an article needs a publication period of at least 6 to 15 years
another study, the Dimensions database was assessed using to receive sufficient citations and become a citation classic
a free application that does not provide entry to the web- [19]. This may explain why none of the 100 most cited arti-
site's functionalities, including grants, patents, clinical trials cles in our study were published in the last 5 years. Accord-
data, and analytical tools [7]. By contrast, citations were col- ing to Kuhn's philosophy, the scientific community has a
lected using the complete versions of WoS and Scopus [46]. tendency to stick to a paradigm[47]. In this context, this
Moreover, while the number of citations on WoS, Scopus, means that citations have a “snowball effect” because other
and Dimensions showed no correlation with the AASs, the authors are more inclined to cite articles on the basis of their
number of citations on Dimensions strongly correlated with numbers of earlier citations and not their content or qual-
those on WoS and Scopus. Both Dimensions and Altmetric ity [48]. On the other hand, a publication with more than
can provide a more comprehensive assessment of research 400 citations should be considered a classic, but in some
effects [46]. In parallel with the main logic of our study, areas where researchers have fewer, 100 citations may merit
the “all databases” section of the ISI Web of Knowledge a study [15, 49]. The first 13 most cited articles in our study
database was selected as the main database in other studies were cited more than 400 times, whereas the 100th article
because it can count citations in scientific articles over a was cited 198 times. Therefore, in our study, the attribu-
wide period from 1945 to the present [12, 22, 29]. In our tion rate was influenced not just by the snowball effect but
study, the number of citations was lower than those in stud- also by the article's content or quality. Moreover, when the
ies conducted in different dentistry areas such as endodontics AASs were analyzed, the rate of mentioning articles pub-
(between 2115 and 246 citations) [17] and implant dentistry lished after 2010 on social media was 23.3% (8 articles),
(between 2229 and 199 citations) [19], but higher than those which is higher than the citation rates. One study found a
92 Page 14 of 18 Clinical Oral Investigations (2024) 28:92

Table 5  Numbers of the top-cited articles categorized on basis of type and specific field
Field of study Type of study
Clinical Basic Review Systematic review Meta analysis Sys- Lecturer
and Meta analysis tematic
review

2 69 25 1 1 3 1
Acid etching 1 10 3 1 1
Etch and rinse adhesives 13 5 1 1 2 1
Self-etch adhesives 12 5 1 3 1
Multi-mode adhesives 1 1
Universal adhesives 1
Glass ionomer adhesives 2 1
Dentin adhesive / Micro-Bond Strength Testing 4 1
Dentin adhesive / Micro-shear testing 1 4
Dentin adhesive / Macro-tensile/push-out 1 2
Bonding to Enamel 1 2 1
Bonding to Dentin 1 7 1
Dentin adhesive / Durability 2 6
Dentin adhesive / Aging 4 3 1 1
Dentin adhesive / Degradation 9 4
Dentin adhesive / MMP inhibitors 4 3
Dentin adhesive / Collagen cross-linking 2
Dentin adhesive / Chemistry 1 2
Dentin adhesive / Classification 3 1
Dentin adhesive / Hybrid layer 25 11 1
Dentin adhesive / Nanoleakage 6 3 1
Dentin adhesive / Sealing effectiveness 3 2 1
Dentin adhesive / Microleakage 3 2
Dentin adhesive / Bond strength to enamel 8 1 1 1
Dentin adhesive / Bond strength to dentin 34 5 1 1
Dentin adhesive / Push out strength 1
Dentin adhesive / Bond strength to composite 1 1
Dentin adhesive / Diametral compressive strength 1
Dentin adhesive / Fatigue 1
Dentin adhesive / Fatigue strength 2 1
Dentin adhesive / Clinical performance 2 4 1 2
Dentin adhesive / Nano-layer 1 1
Dentin adhesive / Smear layer 4 6
Dentin adhesive / Ultramorphological structure of dentin 39 8
adhesive interface
Dentin adhesive / Microanalysis 2 1
Dentin adhesive / Functional monomers 3
Dentin adhesive / Collagenolytic activity of dentin (host- 4 5
derived enzymes)
Dentin adhesive / Wet bonding 6 4
Dentin adhesive / Dry bonding 4 1
Dentin adhesive / Phase separation 2 1
Dentin adhesive / Solvent 1 1
Dentin adhesive / Relationship between laboratory and clini- 1
cal bonding effectiveness
Dentin adhesive / Resin–dentin interdiffusion zone 3
Dentin adhesive / Monomer convertion 3
Clinical Oral Investigations (2024) 28:92 Page 15 of 18 92

Table 5  (continued)
Field of study Type of study
Clinical Basic Review Systematic review Meta analysis Sys- Lecturer
and Meta analysis tematic
review

Dentin adhesive / Water sorption & solubility 3 1

Dentin adhesive / Modulus of elasticity 4
Dentin adhesive / Hardness 1
Dentin adhesive / Microhardness 1
Dentin adhesive / Dentin permeability 1 2
Dentin adhesive / Polymerization shrinkage 4
Dentin adhesive / Antibacterial properties 1 2
Dentin adhesive / Biocompatibility 1 2
Dentin adhesive / Hypersensitivity 2
Dentin adhesive / Remineralization 2
Dentin adhesive/pH 1

high correlation between the citation count in Dimensions explains why only a few journals in a subject area are most
and those in WOS and Scopus but found no correlation frequently cited and consequently most likely to be of inter-
between the citation counts in WOS, Scopus, Dimensions, est to researchers in the discipline [22, 50, 51]. In line with
and Altmetric [46]. Another study reported a weak but posi- our findings, similar results have been observed in other
tive correlation between the AAS and the number of citation studies [17, 25, 26].
[50]. In Altmetric, behavior is completely different from the This study shows that 25 of the 100 most cited arti-
classic citation system, allowing recently published works to cles originated in Japan. The introduction of resin bond-
achieve more recognition and visibility quickly. Thus, Alt- ing to etched dentin by Fusuyama et al. [41], along with
metric can highlight newly published research articles with extensive research conducted in the following decade, and
higher prevalence rather than top-cited articles, which are later, the definition of hybrid layer by Nakbayashi [52],
usually at least 1 or 2 decades old [46]. had a significant influence on most of the highly cited
In our study, 70% of the first 100 most cited articles (71 articles, all of which had Japanese origins. In our study,
articles) were published in journals with an impact factor 20 of the 100 most cited articles were affiliated with
greater than 5 and a high impact factor for the field of den- the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium and were
tistry. Except for one, the other 29 most cited articles were published between 1992 and 2012. This was followed by
published in journals with impact factors higher than 2, of 10 articles from Tokyo Medical and Dental University,
which 15 were in journals with impact factors greater than spanning the years 1979 to 1999, and 7 articles from the
3, which indicates a relatively high impact. This result was University of Hong Kong, Prince Philip Dental Hospital,
consistent with those of other studies [4, 24, 35]. It is well covering the period between 1996 and 2005. These uni-
known that researchers choose high-impact journals for their versities are particularly focused on the subspecialty of
article submissions and that journals with high impact fac- dental adhesion. Remarkably, although nearly one-fifth
tors attract high-quality articles [26]. However, no correla- of the 100 most cited articles were produced by institu-
tion was found between the journal impact factor and the tions in Japan, the most cited articles were from Belgium
number of articles that received the most citations [17, 26]. (Catholic University of Leuven), particularly considering
On the contrary, the number of citations and the relevant that Japanese articles were among the earliest and most
impact factor have been found to be closely correlated in pioneering contributions to the field. Despite Belgium's
a limited number of journals, especially in areas with high modest population, researchers from this country have
citation intensity [4, 24]. This can be attributable to the fact been comparatively prolific in operative dentistry-related
that articles with high citation rates tend to be published in publications during the study period [29, 53], aligning
journals with high impact factors [35]. In addition, more with our finding that researchers affiliated with this center
than a third of the articles have been published in specialty had two or more highly referenced articles (Fig. 3). Also,
journals, including the subjects of our study, and this result the reasons for the high citation rates of Belgian articles
may justify why fewer journals have attracted more atten- could be attributed to factors such as international col-
tion [26]. Therefore, this conforms to Bradford's law, which laboration, research infrastructure, and visibility within
92 Page 16 of 18 Clinical Oral Investigations (2024) 28:92

the global scientific community. In addition, in line with Conclusion

the results of other studies [15, 17], approximately one-
third of the most cited articles (28 articles) in our study Most top-cited articles (89.1%) were published before
were produced by independent institutions. It's essential 2010. In our study, the most frequently cited articles
to consider the extent of international collaboration in were concentrated in a few journals. As first author, Van
dentin adhesive research. Articles resulting from collabo- Meerbeek B. has the highest number of articles with nine
rative efforts between researchers from various countries articles and a total number of 4650 citations. The high-
might have received more citations due to their diverse est top-cited 100 articles originated from Japan. The most
perspectives and broad relevance. top-cited articles originated from the Catholic University
In our study, most of the top-cited articles were in the of Leuven in Belgium. Basic science research had the
field of basic research (69 articles), followed by reviews highest number of articles, followed by reviews. The pri-
(25 articles) and systematic review and/or meta-analysis mary foci of basic research were the ultramorphological
(5 articles). Only two of the top cited articles reported structures of dentin and adhesive interfaces. The major
clinical experiences. Consistent with our findings, other topic of the reviews was hybrid layers. Only 2 RCTs and a
studies have reported that most of the top-cited articles few systematic reviews and meta-analyses were published.
were in the field of basic science [15, 17, 39]. On the Thus, in the future, studies with high levels of evidence,
other hand, other studies found that most top-cited arti- such as systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and RCTs, are
cles reported clinical experiences [4, 19, 25, 28]. How- required.
ever, one study found that the most top-cited articles were
reviews [13]. These differences may be due to differences
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplemen-
in subspecialties in the field of dentistry. Most of the top-
tary material available at https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 007/s​ 00784-0​ 24-0​ 5498-5.
cited articles in our study were in the field of basic sci-
ence. In the early stages of dentin adhesive development, Acknowledgements We to thank Altmetric LLP (London, UK) for
the papers that formed the foundation of the field gener- their support and permission to access the Altmetric data used in this
study.
ally focused on basic research, investigating the princi-
ples of adhesion, the composition of adhesives, and their Author contributions Conceptualization: [Mustafa Demirci]; Meth-
interactions with dentin. Some of the pioneering articles odology: [Ferda Karabay]; Formal analysis and investigation: [Ferda
from this period, while groundbreaking, may have been Karabay, Mustafa Demirci]; Writing—original draft preparation:
[Mustafa Demrici, Ferda Karabay]; Writing—review and editing: [Safa
more cited because of their age. Basic research in dentin
Tuncer, Neslihan Tekçe, Meriç Berkman].
adhesives, a subspecialty of operative dentistry, is crucial
to investigating the efficacy of new materials or modi- Funding Open access funding provided by the Scientific and Tech-
fied techniques [15]. In vitro studies play an important nological Research Council of Türkiye (TÜBİTAK). The author(s)
received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or pub-
role in enhancing methods and providing early data on
lication of this article.
which later research with greater evidence can be based
[11]. In our study, most topics in basic science were on Declarations
the ultramorphological structures of dentin and adhesive
interfaces (39 articles), followed by bond strength to Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.
dentin (34 articles) and hybrid layers (25 articles). The
Ethical approval This article does not contain any studies with human
integration of knowledge from new basic science research participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
into the subspecialty practices of operative dentistry pro-
vides the opportunity to address major clinical issues Informed consent For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
[15]. However, the fact that our study detected very few
systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and RCTSs among Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
the most cited papers suggests that more such studies on bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
dentin adhesives are needed. tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
As with other citation analyses, this study has some lim-
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
itations. By including many databases, the differences in were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
the number of citations between databases were tried to be included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
eliminated. The current study excluded several articles, as otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
indicated by the title, due to its focus on including only the
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
top 100 most-cited articles. In addition, articles written in need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
languages other than English and books or conference pro- copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
ceedings as document type were not included in the study.
Clinical Oral Investigations (2024) 28:92 Page 17 of 18 92

References 19. Fardi A, Kodonas K, Lillis T, Veis A (2017) Top-Cited Articles

in Implant Dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 32:555–564.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​11607/​jomi.​5331
1. Godin B (2006) On the origins of bibliometrics. Scientometrics
20. Yeung A, Leung W (2018) Citation Network Analysis of Den-
68:109–133. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11192-​006-​0086-0
tal Implant Literature from 2007 to 2016. Int J Oral Maxillofac
2. Moed HF (2009) New developments in the use of citation analy-
Implants 33:1240–1246. https://​doi.​org/​10.​11607/​jomi.​6727
sis in research evaluation. Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz)
21. García E, Paredes V, Bellot C, García V, Aura JI, Borrell C,
57:13–18. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00005-​009-​0001-5
Dioguardi M, Garcovich D, Aiuto R, Marqués L (2022) Bib-
3. Azer SA (2017) Top-Cited Articles in Problem-Based Learning:
liometric analysis in paediatric dental journals listed in journal
A Bibliometric Analysis and Quality of Evidence Assessment.
citation reports. Current trends. Eur J Paediatr Dent 23:262–268.
J Dent Educ 81:458–478. https://​doi.​org/​10.​21815/​jde.​016.​011
https://​doi.​org/​10.​23804/​ejpd.​2022.​23.​04.​02
4. Feijoo JF, Limeres J, Fernández-Varela M, Ramos I, Diz P
22. Perazzo MF, Otoni ALC, Costa MS, Granville-Granville AF,
(2013) The 100 most cited articles in dentistry. Clin Oral Inves-
Paiva SM, Martins-Júnior PA (2019) The top 100 most-cited
tig 18:699–706. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00784-​013-​1017-0
papers in Paediatric Dentistry journals: A bibliometric analysis.
5. Bakkalbasi N, Bauer K, Glover J, Wang L (2006) Three
Int J Paediatr Dent 29:692–711. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 111/i​ pd.1​ 2563
options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web
23. Ahmad P, Slots J (2020) A bibliometric analysis of periodontology.
of Science. Biomed Digit Libr 3:7–7. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​
Periodontol 2000(85):237–240. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 111/p​ rd.1​ 2376
1742-​5581-3-7
24. Chiang HS, Huang RY, Weng PW, Mau LP, Su CC, Tsai YWC,
6. Melero R (2015) Altmetrics - a complement to conventional
Wu YC, Chung CH, Shieh YS, Cheng WC (2018) Increasing
metrics. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 25:152–160. https://​doi.​org/​
prominence of implantology research: A chronological trend
10.​11613/​BM.​2015.​016
analysis of 100 top-cited articles in periodontal journals. Eur J
7. Resources D (2019) A guide to the dimensions data approach
Oral Implantol 11:97–110
10.6084/m9.figshare.5783094.v7
25. Gondivkar SM, Sarode SC, Gadbail AR, Gondivkar RS, Chole R,
8. Patil SS, Sarode SC, Sarode GS, Gadbail AR, Gondivkar S,
Sarode GS (2018) Bibliometric analysis of 100 most cited arti-
Kontham UR, Alqahtani KM (2020) A bibliometric analysis
cles on oral submucous fibrosis. J Oral Pathol Med 47:781–787.
of the 100 most cited articles on early childhood caries. Int J
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​jop.​12742
Paediatr Dent 30:527–535. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​ipd.​12641
26. Gondivkar SM, Sarode SC, Gadbail AR, Gondivkar RS, Choud-
9. Bratu DC, Nikolajevic-Stoican N, Popa G, Pop SI, Dragoș B,
hary N, Patil S (2018) Citation Classics in Cone Beam Com-
Luca M-M (2022) A Bibliometric Analysis (2010–2020) of the
puted Tomography: The 100 Top-Cited Articles. Int J Dent
Dental Scientific Literature on Chemo-Mechanical Methods
2018:9423281–9423281. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​2018/​94232​81
of Caries Removal Using Carisolv and BRIX3000. Medicina
27. Wu Y, Tiwana H, Durrani M, Tiwana S, Gong B, Hafeez K, Khosa
(Kaunas) 58:788. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​medic​ina58​060788
F (2018) Hallmark of success: top 50 classics in oral and maxillo-
10. Nijakowski K, Jankowski J, Lehmann A (2023) Bibliometric
facial cone-beam computed tomography. Pol J Radiol 83:e11–e18.
analysis of literature on Bulk-Fill Composite Resins in Den-
https://​doi.​org/​10.​5114/​pjr.​2018.​74343
tistry. J Endod Restor Dent 1:2–7. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​5 281/​
28. Hui J, Han Z, Geng G, Yan W, Shao P (2013) The 100 top-cited
zenodo.​83060​21
articles in orthodontics from 1975 to 2011. Angle Orthod 83:491–
11. Adnan S, Ullah R (2018) Top-cited Articles in Regenerative
499. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2319/​040512-​284.1
Endodontics: A Bibliometric Analysis. J Endod 44:1650–1664.
29. Jafarzadeh H, Sarraf Shirazi A, Andersson L (2015) The most-
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​joen.​2018.​07.​015
cited articles in dental, oral, and maxillofacial traumatology dur-
12. Ahmad P, Dummer PMH, Chaudhry A, Rashid U, Saif S, Asif
ing 64 years. Dent Traumatol 31:350–360. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
JA (2019) A bibliometric study of the top 100 most-cited rand-
1111/​edt.​12195
omized controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses
30. Rocha AdO, Santos PS, Machado BA, Bolan M, Cardoso M,
published in endodontic journals. Int Endod J 52:1297–1316.
Martins-Júnior PA, Santana CM (2022) The Top 100 Most-Cited
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​iej.​13131
Papers in Erosive Tooth Wear: A Bibliometric Analysis. Caries
13. Ahmad P, Dummer PMH, Noorani TY, Asif JA (2019) The top 50
Res 56:29–35. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1159/​00052​1877
most-cited articles published in the International Endodontic Jour-
31. Alam BF, Najmi MA, Qasim SB, Almulhim KS, Ali S (2023) A
nal. Int Endod J 52:803–818. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​iej.​13083
bibliometric analysis of minimally invasive dentistry: A review
14. Aksoy U, Küçük M, Versiani MA, Orhan K (2020) Publication
of the literature from 1994 to 2021. J Prosthet Dent 130:179–186.
trends in micro-CT endodontic research: a bibliometric analysis
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​prosd​ent.​2021.​09.​023
over a 25-year period. Int Endod J 54:343–353. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.​
32. Robert C, Caillieux N, Wilson CS, Gaudy JF, Arreto CD (2008)
1111/​iej.​13433
World orofacial pain research production: a bibliometric study
15. Fardi A, Kodonas K, Gogos C, Economides N (2011) Top-cited
(2004–2005). J Orofac Pain 22:181–189
Articles in Endodontic Journals. J Endod 37:1183–1190. https://​
33. Ullah R, Adnan S, Afzal AS (2019) Top-Cited Articles from Den-
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​joen.​2011.​05.​037
tal Education Journals, 2009 to 2018: A Bibliometric Analysis. J
16. Ordinola-Zapata R, Peters OA, Nagendrababu V, Azevedo B,
Dent Educ 83:1382–1391. https://​doi.​org/​10.​21815/​jde.​019.​153
Dummer PMH, Neelakantan P (2019) What is of interest in Endo-
34. Allareddy V, Shah A, Lin C-Y, Elangovan S, Lee MK, Chung
dontology? A bibliometric review of research published in the
K, Vasudavan S, Karimbux NY (2010) Randomized Trials Pub-
International Endodontic Journal and the Journal of Endodontics
lished in the Journal of Dental Research are Cited More Often
from 1980 to 2019. Int Endod J 53:36–52. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 111/​
Compared with Those in Other Top-Tier Non–Specialty-Specific
iej.​13210
Dental Journals. J Evid Based Dent Pract 10:71–77. https://​doi.​
17. Yılmaz B, Dinçol ME, Yalçın TY (2019) A bibliometric analysis
org/​10.​1016/j.​jebdp.​2009.​12.​001
of the 103 top-cited articles in endodontics. Acta Odontol Scand
35. Gogos C, Kodonas K, Fardi A, Economides N (2019) Top 100
77:574–583. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00016​357.​2019.​16213​78
cited systematic reviews and meta-analyses in dentistry. Acta
18. Alarcón M, Esparza D, Montoya C, Monje A, Faggion C (2017)
Odontol Scand 78:87–97. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 080/0​ 00163​ 57.2​ 019.​
The 300 Most-Cited Articles in Implant Dentistry. Int J Oral Max-
16534​95
illofac Implants 32:e1–e8. https://​doi.​org/​10.​11607/​jomi.​5104
92 Page 18 of 18 Clinical Oral Investigations (2024) 28:92

36. Jayaratne YSN, Zwahlen RA (2015) The evolution of dental 45. Van Meerbeek B, Yoshihara K, Yoshida Y, Mine A, De Munk J,
journals from 2003 to 2012: a bibliometric analysis. PLoS One Van Landuyt KL (2011) State of the art of self-etch adhesives.
10:e0119503–e0119503. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1371/​journ​al.​pone.​ Dent Mater 27:17–28. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​dental.​2010.​10.​
01195​03 023
37. Mayta-Tovalino F, Quispe-Vicuña C, Cabanillas-Lazo M, Munive- 46. Garcovich D, Ausina Marquez V, Adobes Martin M (2020) The
Degregori A, Guerrero ME, Mendoza R (2023) A Bibliometric online attention to research in periodontology: An Altmetric study
Analysis of the International Dental Journal (2011–2020). Int on the most discussed articles on the web. J Clin Periodontol
Dent J 73:157–162. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​identj.​2022.​05.​003 47:330–342. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​jcpe.​13221
38. Yang L-C, Liu F-H, Liu C-M, Yu C-H, Chang Y-C (2023) Biblio- 47. Kuhn TS (1962) Historical Structure of Scientific Discovery. Sci-
metric analysis of top-cited articles in Journal of Dental Sciences. ence 136:760–764. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1126/​scien​ce.​136.​3518.​760
J Dent Sci 18:338–344. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jds.​2022.​09.​017 48. Lefaivre KA, Shadgan B, O’Brien PJ (2011) 100 most cited arti-
39. Ahmad P, Alam MK, Jakubovics NS, Schwendicke F, Asif JA cles in orthopaedic surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:1487–
(2019) 100 Years of the Journal of Dental Research: A Bibliomet- 1497. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11999-​010-​1604-1
ric Analysis. J Dent Res 98:1425–1436. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​ 49. Garfield E (1977 to 1993.) What is a Citation Classic? Book title.,
00220​34519​880544 https://​garfi​eld.​libra​ry.​upenn.​edu/​class​ics.​html
40. Buonocore MG (1955) A Simple Method of Increasing the 50. Kolahi J, Khazaei S, Iranmanesh P, Kim J, Bang H, Khademi A
Adhesion of Acrylic Filling Materials to Enamel Surfaces. (2021) Meta-Analysis of Correlations between Altmetric Atten-
J Dent Res 34:849–853. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​00220​34555​ tion Score and Citations in Health Sciences. Biomed Res Int
03400​60801 2021:6680764–6680764. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​2021/​66807​64
41. Fusayama T, Nakamura M, Kurosaki N, Iwaku M (1979) Non- 51. Bradford SC (1934) Sources of information on specific subjects.
Pressure Adhesion of a New Adhesive Restorative Resin. J Dent Eng 137(4):85–86
Res 58:1364–1370. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​00220​34579​05800​ 52. Nakabayashi N, Nakamura M, Yasuda N (1991) Hybrid Layer
41101 as a Dentin-Bonding Mechanism. J Esthetic Restor Dentistry
42. Hayashi M (2020) Adhesive Dentistry: Understanding the Science 3:133–138. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1708-​8240.​1991.​tb009​85.x
and Achieving Clinical Success. Dent Clin N Am 64:633–643. 53. Ahmad P, Vincent Abbott P, Khursheed Alam M, Ahmed Asif J
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​cden.​2020.​05.​001 (2019) A bibliometric analysis of the top 50 most cited articles
43. Peumans M, De Munck J, Mine A, Van Meerbeek B (2014) Clini- published in the Dental Traumatology. Dent Traumatol 36:89–99.
cal effectiveness of contemporary adhesives for the restoration https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​edt.​12534
of non-carious cervical lesions A systematic review. Dent Mater
30:1089–1103. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​dental.​2014.​07.​007 Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
44. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Vijay P, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G (2003) Buono-
core memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current
status and future challenges. Oper Dent 28:215–235