A 30 Year Bibliometric Analysis: Regenerative Therapies In Peri-Implantitis Research

bibliometric analysis, peri-implantitis, regenerative therapy, VOS viewer, OpenRefine software ALL Metrics - Views Downloads How to cite this article Amanda RY, Lindo CE, Rachmasari R et al. A 30 Year Bibliometric Analysis: Regenerative Therapies In Peri-Implantitis Research [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2026, 15:431 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.171717.1) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente Select a format first ▬ ✚ Research Article [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] Rizki Yuli Amanda1, Cherry Erlin Lindo https://orcid.org/0009-0005-5615-5815 1, Rieska Rachmasari https://orcid.org/0009-0003-8248-233X 2, Yuniarti Soeroso2, Nadhia Anindhita Harsas https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3586-8788 2Rizki Yuli Amanda1, Cherry Erlin Lindo https://orcid.org/0009-0005-5615-5815 1, [...] Rieska Rachmasari https://orcid.org/0009-0003-8248-233X 2, Yuniarti Soeroso2, Nadhia Anindhita Harsas https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3586-8788 2 PUBLISHED 24 Mar 2026 Author details Author details 1 Periodontology, Periodontology Residency Program, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Indonesia, Central Jakarta, Jakarta, 10430, Indonesia 2 Periodontology Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Indonesia, Central Jakarta, Jakarta, 10430, Indonesia 2 Periodontology Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Indonesia, Central Jakarta, Jakarta, 10430, Indonesia Rizki Yuli Amanda Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Cherry Erlin Lindo Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Rieska Rachmasari Roles: Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Yuniarti Soeroso Roles: Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Nadhia Anindhita Harsas Roles: Conceptualization, Project Administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Project Administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW REVIEWER STATUS Peri-implantitis is a progressive inflammatory disease affecting tissues around dental implants, often leading to bone loss and implant failure. Bibliometric analysis, which applies quantitative methods to scientific publications, provides a macro-level view of research growth, key contributors, and evolving themes, offering insights to guide clinical applications. This bibliometric analysis examined publications on regenerative therapies for peri-implantitis over the past 30 years published in Scopus. Main parameters included publication output by decade, journal impact, keyword occurrences, highly cited articles, and geographic distribution of research outputs. The data will be filtered, divided and analyzed using VOSviewer to create keywords maps and perform bibliometric distribution analysis. A total of 186 articles were identified with a sharp rise in publications observed over time: 5.9% (1995–2005), 21.0% (2006–2015), and 73.1% (2016–2025), reflecting rapid research development in recent years. The United States was the top contributor (33 publications), followed by Germany (24) and Italy (20). Leading journals included Clinical Oral Implants Research and Journal of Clinical Periodontology. Keyword evolution showed a transition from basic biological concepts to advanced clinical methods and randomized controlled trials. Collaboration networks also expanded across countries, particularly in Europe and North America. The rapid growth in publications underscores escalating clinical and academic interest. Concentration of impactful research in select countries and journals reflects established expertise but also signals the need for broader international collaboration. Thematic prevalence suggests the field is progressing toward refining biomaterials and surgical protocols. Over the past three decades, research on regenerative therapy for peri-implantitis has grown substantially in both scale and scope. This study demonstrated how the field has shifted from basic science to clinical applications, identifying leading contributors, and offering insights to guide future investigations and improve therapeutic strategies. bibliometric analysis, peri-implantitis, regenerative therapy, VOS viewer, OpenRefine software Corresponding Author(s) Nadhia Anindhita Harsas ([email protected]) Grant information: The APC is funded by The Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Indonesia. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2026 Amanda RY et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Amanda RY, Lindo CE, Rachmasari R et al. A 30 Year Bibliometric Analysis: Regenerative Therapies In Peri-Implantitis Research [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2026, 15:431 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.171717.1) First published: 24 Mar 2026, 15:431 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.171717.1) Latest published: 24 Mar 2026, 15:431 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.171717.1) The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Peri-implantitis is an inflammatory complication affecting peri-implant tissues, often leading to progressive bone loss and implant failure.1,2 Its reported prevalence reaches up to 19.83% and continues to rise alongside the growing global demand for dental implants.3,4 This makes peri-implantitis a significant clinical concern, driving the need for effective therapeutic strategies.1,5 Current guidelines and recommendations for peri-implantitis therapy emphasize a multi-faceted approach. Among the various treatment modalities, regenerative therapy has gained increasing attention due to its potential to restore lost bone and soft tissue, thereby improving implant survival rates. While regenerative therapy has shown to improve clinical and radiographic outcomes compared to baseline, the superiority of a specific material or membrane for long-term benefits remains unproven.2,4,5 Achieving predictable and complete regeneration is still challenging, and complications such as membrane exposure have also been reported.1,2 Given the complexity and evolving nature of peri-implantitis management, especially in regenerative therapy, a comprehensive understanding of the research landscape is paramount.4,5 While numerous systematic reviews have addressed clinical outcomes of various peri-implantitis treatments, including regenerative approaches, a bibliometric analysis offers a unique macro-level perspective. This method allows for the quantitative evaluation of publication trends, identification of influential authors, institutions, and journals, and mapping of research clusters and emerging themes within the field.1,3–5 Bibliometric analysis applies quantitative analysis to scientific publications, enabling the identification of trends, key contributors, and research networks.6,7 In peri-implantitis, bibliometric studies have already been used to track publication growth and to highlight the increasing focus on regenerative therapy.6,7 Therefore, this study conducts a comprehensive bibliometric analysis to explore how research on regenerative therapy in peri-implantitis has evolved over time. By examining publication trends, identifying leading authors, institutions, countries, and journals, and mapping research clusters and emerging themes, we aim to provide an integrated overview of the field and highlight key developments and future research directions. Bibliometric analysis is a widely used scientific, computer-assisted review methodology that employs statistical calculations and scientific information to provide a clear overview of how a research field develops. By covering all publications related to a given topic, it can identify core research or authors and their relationships, as well as correlate scientific literature with current trends, leading to significant improvements in healthcare systems.8,9 This method helps researchers get an overall picture of how a research field develops, identify the most influential authors and institutions, and understand collaboration patterns and emerging topics. In recent years, bibliometric analysis has become increasingly popular as a valuable tool in health sciences and dentistry, providing comprehensive insights into research progress and guiding future study directions.9,10 In the context of peri-implant diseases, bibliometric studies have shown a significant increase in the number of publications over the past decade, reflecting development in implant procedures, therapies, and understanding of disease complications.6 These studies use bibliometric indicators to map networks of authors, collaborations between institutions, and keyword trends, helping to identify influential researchers and emerging areas of study. Tools like VOSviewer or Pajek make it easier to visualize these networks, providing a clear picture of how the research field is structured and evolving.8,9 Furthermore, bibliometric analysis helps show where research funding comes from and how public and private institutions support scientific work. This information is important for planning and making good decisions about future research.8,11 Peri-implantitis is an inflammatory condition affecting the tissues surrounding dental implants, characterized by progressive bone loss that can ultimately result in implant failure. Its pathogenesis involves bacterial biofilm accumulation and the host immune response, along with systemic and behavioral risk factors such as smoking, diabetes, and poor oral hygiene. Although we don’t have exact numbers, it’s clear that more dentists and researchers are focusing on this issue and trying to find better ways to manage it.1,5,6 Researchers have been working hard to figure out who is most at risk, how to catch peri-implantitis early, and which treatments work best. Most of this work is coming out of Europe and North America, which are leading the way in studying this condition.6,12 A lot of important findings are published in top dental journals, showing just how critical this topic is in implant dentistry. Regenerative therapy focuses on restoring the bone and soft tissues that have been lost around dental implants due to peri-implantitis.4,5 Various approaches have been developed, often involving bone grafts, barrier membranes, and, in some cases, biologic agents to enhance tissue healing.2,13 Recent studies show that these regenerative treatments can lead to better clinical results, such as reduced probing depths, more bone growth, and healthier soft tissues. For example, Mordini and colleagues (2021) highlighted guided bone regeneration (GBR) as a key approach for managing peri-implantitis defects.13 Similarly, Solderer and Schmidlin (2020) found that regenerative techniques improved both clinical and radiographic parameters, but no single material or protocol has demonstrated clear long-term superiority.14 Overall, regenerative therapy represents a valuable treatment modality for peri-implantitis but requires further high-quality studies to establish standardized protocols and enhance the predictability of clinical outcomes. As a world-leading scientific database, Scopus offers an abstract database in the form of peer reviewed citations to several literatures, scientific journals, books and conference proceedings. It also contains a number of publications published by international publishers such as Springer, Pubmed, Elsevier and many others. Thus, searching for scientific literature sources using Scopus can be done easily by exploring the sophisticated search features that allow searching by author, keyword, publisher, year of publication and geography. Scopus was chosen for this study due to its comprehensive coverage of peer-reviewed scientific literature and reliable citation data, making it an ideal source for bibliometric research in the field of dental science.6,10,12 This study uses a descriptive and analytical observational research approach. Bibliographic data was obtained from the Scopus online database, retrieved in May 2025. The study population consisted of all publications related to the keywords “peri-implantitis” AND (“regenerative therapy” OR “bone regeneration”) indexed in Scopus. The search strategy was to obtain all relevant articles by combining these specific terms, focusing on regenerative approaches to peri-implantitis. The extracted data served as the basis for identifying trends such as frequently used keywords, annual publication patterns, most frequently cited articles, leading countries in publication output, and the most productive journals in this field. Publications were collected from the Scopus database and screened using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The dataset was then refined with OpenRefine software to clean and standardize keywords and metadata, ensuring consistency for the analysis.15 To ensure data quality and relevance, exclusion criteria were applied to remove in vitro and in vivo experimental studies, non-article publications such as books and book series, and publications not written in English. The inclusion criteria were limited to original research articles and review papers published between 1995 and May 2025. Only peer-reviewed journal articles were considered to maintain the focus on scientific literature of consistent quality. Researchers divided the dataset into three different time periods—1995–2005, 2006–2015, and 2016–2025—to analyze developments and trends in regenerative therapy research for peri-implantitis over time. Each group was processed separately to identify trends based on keywords in those intervals. The filtered and divided data was analyzed using VOSviewer to create keyword maps and perform bibliometric distribution analysis. The data set included information on countries, institutions, journals, authors, and the number of citations. VOSviewer facilitated the creation of network visualizations, enabling the examination of author collaborations, co-occurrence of keywords, and collaboration patterns in the field of research. In addition to VOSviewer, Microsoft Excel was also used for descriptive statistical analysis and to organize data into tables and graphs. The analysis results are presented through tables, images, and graphs, each accompanied by detailed explanations. 4.1.1 Publication trends over time A total of 186 publications on regenerative therapy for peri-implantitis were identified from 1995 to 2025. As shown in Table 1, the largest increase in publications occurred in the last decade, from 2016 to 2025, with 136 papers published, accounting for over 70% of all studies included in this review. | Decade | Number of publications | Percentage (%) | |---|---|---| | 1995 – 2005 | 11 | 5,9 % | | 2006 – 2015 | 39 | 21,0 % | | 2016 – 2025 | 136 | 73,1 % | | Total | 186 | 100 % | Figure 1 further illustrates the pattern of annual publications from 1995-2025. A steady rise has been shown since 2010, reaching its highest levels in recent years. 4.1.2 Leading journals, keywords, and citation metrics The top journals that have significantly contributed to the domain regenerative therapy for peri-implantitis are listed in Table 2. Clinical Oral Implants Research has published the highest number of articles with 17 articles, and also has the highest H-index among the listed journals at 191. Right behind it is the International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry with 16 publications, and then the Journal of Clinical Periodontology with 13. Among these, the Journal of Clinical Periodontology recorded the highest citation count (1,412). In contrast, lower-ranked journals, such as Case Reports in Dentistry, published fewer papers with lower H-index and Q3 ranking. The prevalent keywords in the research domain of regenerative therapy for peri-implantitis from 1995 to 2025 are highlighted in Table 3, indicating the primary areas of investigation and the most discussed topics. These prevalences are based on author keywords extracted from the analyzed publications. Table 4 presents the top 10 most cited publications in the field of regenerative therapy for peri-implantitis. The list is ordered by the frequency of citations, with the top-ranked article being “Current knowledge and perspectives for the use of Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) and Platelet-Rich Fibrin (PRF) in oral and maxillofacial surgery part 2: Bone graft, implant and reconstructive surgery” cited 212 times, published in a journal ranked Q2. Most articles were published in journals ranked Q1, including Journal of Clinical Periodontology and Clinical Oral Implants Research. 4.1.3 Geographic distribution of publications When we look at the global distribution of research on regenerative therapy in peri-implantitis as shown in Table 5, it is clear that several countries are leading the field. The United States stands out as the main contributor, with 33 publications, followed by Germany with 24 and Italy with 20. Other countries, such as China, South Korea, and Switzerland, have also made significant contributions, although on a smaller scale. | Rank | Country | Number of publications | |---|---|---| | 1 | United States | 33 | | 2 | Germany | 24 | | 3 | Italy | 20 | | 4 | China | 11 | | 5 | South Korea | 9 | | 6 | Switzerland | 8 | | 7 | Turkey | 8 | | 8 | Spain | 8 | | 9 | Sweden | 5 | | 10 | India | 5 | The geographic visualization in Figure 2 highlights the dominance of North America and Europe, while also illustrating emerging contributions from Asia and South America. Countries such as India, Brazil, and Japan have contributed a smaller number of publications. 4.2.1 Keyword co-occurrence analysis To analyze trends and developments in regenerative therapy for peri-implantitis, we conducted a network analysis divided into three decades: 1995–2005, 2006–2015, and 2016–2025. Dividing the research into ten-year intervals allows for a clearer observation of how this field has evolved over time, highlighting shifts in research topics, methodologies, and technologies that often occur during these periods. This approach reduces the influence of short-term fluctuations and highlights more stable long-term trends. Additionally, the use of decade intervals aligns with common practices in bibliometric research and facilitates meaningful comparisons across disciplines and funding cycles.11,16 The images show a bibliometric analysis from different periods created using the VOS viewer application. Network visualization shown in Figures 3-5 represented keywords with high occurrences, as the dots become bigger and darker in color. As the time increases, we can observe that the network becomes more complex and it makes it harder to compare each keyword by decade. When we compare the decade of centrality and analyze the network visualization with the keywords, evolution in the research of regenerative therapy in peri-implantitis can be analyzed. Figure 3 (1995-2005) illustrates a network of terms associated with “peri-implantitis”, “guided tissue regeneration”, “bone regeneration”, “human” and its related fields. Figure 4 presents a network visualization of co-occurring terms in peri-implantitis research. The most prominent nodes include “peri-implantitis,” “dental implants,” “treatment outcome,” “bone graft,” and “collagen.” The map also shows clustered terms that group together based on their co-occurrence in the literature. It shows the interrelated research area linking various aspects of periodontal diseases, regenerative methods and dentistry. Figures 5 and 6 (2016-2025) illustrates a complex network of keywords related to regenerative therapy in peri-implantitis. Central keywords like “peri-implantitis,” “human,” “female,” and “adult” appear as prominent nodes. Terms like “randomized controlled trial,” “bone graft,” and “clinical trial” are also visible, along with keywords related to imaging techniques such as “cone beam computed tomography” and surgical procedures like “sinus floor augmentation” and “dental restoration.” The diverse clusters demonstrate how the field has expanded to various research methodologies, clinical outcomes, surgical procedures, and adjunctive therapeutic approaches. 4.2.2 Evolution of keywords over time This overlay visualization illustrates how research keywords in regenerative therapy for peri-implantitis have evolved from 1995 to 2025. The color gradient represents the average publication year of each keyword. Blue represents older studies and yellow represents newer studies. Keywords such as “peri-implantitis,” “dental implants”, “humans,” and “female,” have remained consistent and significant over the past 30 years. Newer keywords like “photodynamic therapy,” “bone graft,” “collagen,” and “sinus floor augmentation,” represented by yellow and green colors, reflect growing interest in these fields. The development of regenerative materials in peri-implantitis therapy is greatly influenced by the demographic characteristics of populations across major continents. In Europe and America, the increasing elderly population is a primary factor driving the adoption of more advanced implantation techniques, including computer-assisted implantology and minimally invasive surgical procedures tailored to the needs of older patients.17,18 This trend aligns with the increasing demand for effective regenerative therapies to address complications related to tissue aging and chronic diseases. Such therapies have become essential for patients with chronic conditions and the elderly, as the natural regenerative capacity of periodontal and peri-implant tissues declines with age. Consequently, interventions using biomaterials and regenerative techniques have been shown to improve clinical outcomes.4,13,18 Additionally, health policies and regulations in Europe strongly support the development of bioactive materials and precision technologies, further strengthening the region's position as a center of innovation in implantology.16,17 Meanwhile, Asia has seen significant growth in research and application of regenerative technologies, driven by rapid economic development and increased investment in healthcare, which responds to the needs of a relatively young but growing population both quantitatively and qualitatively.7,10 These demographic differences reflect distinct policy strategies on each continent in addressing health challenges related to peri-implantitis and evolving needs for regenerative therapies.6,19 The keyword analysis in this study reveals the main focus and emerging research trends in regenerative therapy for peri-implantitis. Among the identified keywords, several terms stand out as dominant and frequently occurring, “guided bone regeneration,” “bone regeneration,” and “collagen-based approaches”. These keywords reflect a strong emphasis on the biological and clinical aspects of tissue regeneration around implants. Furthermore, keywords related to surgical techniques and clinical methods, including “randomized controlled trial,” “clinical trial,” and “controlled study,” indicate an increasing trend toward more structured and evidence-based research in recent decades. This shift signifies a move from basic research to more complex and measurable clinical applications. Collectively, these findings demonstrate that research is increasingly driven by innovation in regenerative strategies while aligning with the global trend toward evidence-based peri-implantitis management. The Q1-ranked journals dominate the list of leading journals in the field of regenerative therapy for peri-implantitis. This indicates that most high-quality and impactful research is published in journals with strict scientific standards. Clinical Oral Implants Research contributes the largest number of publications (17 articles), while the Journal of Clinical Periodontology records the highest number of citations (1,412), reflecting its substantial influence and visibility in this field. Other journals, such as the International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry and the International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, also make notable contributions as reflected by their relatively high H-index scores and citation counts. Conversely, lower-ranked journals, such as Case Reports in Dentistry, have limited impact due to fewer publications and lower citation metrics. Overall, these findings demonstrate a concentration of high-quality research within a small group of leading journals and underscore the importance of selecting publication platforms with broader reach and higher credibility to maximize the visibility and impact of future studies. This bibliometric study has several limitations worth noting. First, the data were obtained exclusively from the Scopus database, which may exclude relevant publications indexed in other databases such as Web of Science or PubMed. Second, only articles published in English were included, potentially overlooking important research published in other languages. Third, experimental studies, including in vitro and in vivo research, as well as non-article publications, were excluded, limiting the scope of the analysis. Additionally, bibliometric analysis provides a quantitative overview of research trends and patterns but does not allow an in-depth evaluation of the quality and content of each study. Future research should consider combining quantitative bibliometric methods with qualitative assessments and expanding data sources to achieve a more comprehensive and representative understanding. Future bibliometric studies on regenerative therapy for peri-implantitis should expand the scope and depth of analysis. Using multiple databases beyond Scopus, such as Web of Science and PubMed, and including non-English publications would provide a more comprehensive and global view of research trends. Examining emerging topics like biomaterials enhanced with growth factors, stem cell therapies, and advanced surgical techniques through bibliometric mapping can highlight innovation areas and knowledge gaps. An interdisciplinary bibliometric approach linking regenerative therapy with related fields such as biomaterials science, immunology, and clinical dentistry will also help reveal collaboration networks and open new research directions. The advancements will offer deeper insights and better guidance for researchers and policymakers in advancing regenerative therapy for peri-implantitis. This bibliometric analysis highlights the significant growth and evolving trends in regenerative therapy research for peri-implantitis over the past three decades. The increasing number of publications, particularly since 2016, reflects heightened scientific interest and clinical relevance. Leading journals with high impact factors have played a pivotal role in disseminating influential research, while key countries such as the United States and Germany dominate publication output. Keyword analysis reveals a shift from foundational biological research toward more complex clinical applications, emphasizing evidence-based approaches. Despite progress, challenges remain in optimizing therapies and achieving consistent, predictable outcomes, underscoring the need for continued rigorous research. Overall, this study provides valuable insights to guide future investigations and improve therapeutic strategies for peri-implantitis. Figshare: Research Data (A 30 Year Bibliometric Analysis: Regenerative Therapies In Peri-Implantitis Research) https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3124532215 Data are avilable under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0). - 1. Rokaya D, Srimaneepong V, Wisitrasameewon W, et al.: Peri-implantitis update: risk indicators, diagnosis, and treatment. Eur. J. Dent. 2020; 14: 672–682. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 2. Khoury F, Keeve PL, Ramanauskaite A, et al.: Surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: consensus report of working group 4. Int. Dent. J. 2019; 69 Suppl 2(Suppl 2): 18–22. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 3. Lee CT, Huang YW, Zhu L, et al.: Prevalences of peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis: systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Dent. 2017; 62: 1–12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 4. Roccuzzo M, Layton DM, Roccuzzo A, et al.: Clinical outcomes of peri-implantitis treatment and supportive care: a systematic review. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2018; 29(Suppl 16): 331–350. Publisher Full Text - 5. Herrera D, Berglundh T, Schwarz F, et al.: Prevention and treatment of peri-implant diseases: the EFP S3 level clinical practice guideline. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2023; 50(Suppl 26): 4–76. Publisher Full Text - 6. Tarazona-Álvarez B, López-Roldan A, Vidal-Infer A, et al.: Bibliometric analysis of the scientific production of literature on peri-implant diseases in the Web of Science. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2021; 23(4): 625–634. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 7. Xiong Y, Huang CW, Cheng YT, et al.: Global research trends of peri-implantitis during the last two decades: a bibliometric and visualized study. Am. J. Transl. Res. 2023 [cited 2026 Feb]; 15: 6888–6896. PubMed Abstract Reference Source - 8. Alam BF, Najmi MA, Qasim SB, et al.: A bibliometric analysis of minimally invasive dentistry: a review of the literature from 1994 to 2021. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2023; 130(2): 179–186. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 9. Han J, Kang HJ, Kim M, et al.: Mapping the intellectual structure of research on surgery with mixed reality: bibliometric network analysis (2000–2019). J. Biomed. Inform. 2020; 109: 103516. - 10. Ali S, Alam BF, Alaithan AA, et al.: A bibliometric analysis of scientific publication on peri-implantitis from 1990 to 2020. J. Clin. Exp. Dent. 2024; 16(5): e570–e579. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 11. Donthu N, Kumar S, Mukherjee D, et al.: How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: an overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2021; 133: 285–296. - 12. Sabri H, Manouchehri N, Tavelli L, et al.: Five decades of research on immediate implant therapy: a modern bibliometric network analysis via Altmetric and level of evidence mapping. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2024; 35(7): 706–718. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 13. Mordini L, Sun N, Chang N, et al.: Peri-implantitis regenerative therapy: a review. Biol.-Basel. 2021; 10. Publisher Full Text - 14. Solderer A, Schmidlin PR: Regenerative surgical therapy of peri-implantitis: an umbrella review of answered/unanswered questions and future perspectives. Front. Dent. Med. 2020; 1. Publisher Full Text - 15. Amanda RY, Lindo CE, Harsas NA, et al.: Cleaned bibliometric dataset of regenerative therapies in peri-implantitis research (1995–2025). [dataset]. 2026. Reference Source - 16. Moral-Muñoz JA, Herrera-Viedma E, Santisteban-Espejo A, et al.: Software tools for conducting bibliometric analysis in science: an up-to-date review. Prof. Inferm. 2020; 29(1): e290103. Publisher Full Text - 17. Sanz M, Noguerol B, Sanz-Sanchez I, et al.: European Association for Osseointegration Delphi study on the trends in implant dentistry in Europe for the year 2030. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2019; 30(5): 476–486. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 18. Castro F, Bouzidi AS, Fernandes JCH, et al.: Bone tissue regeneration in peri-implantitis: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Saudi Dent. J. 2023; 35: 589–601. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - 19. Raabe C, Couso-Queiruga E, Tjokro J, et al.: Analysis of trends in the context of implant therapy in a university surgical specialty clinic: a 20-year retrospective study. Clin. Oral Investig. 2025; 29(1): 27. Author details Author details 1 Periodontology, Periodontology Residency Program, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Indonesia, Central Jakarta, Jakarta, 10430, Indonesia 2 Periodontology Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Indonesia, Central Jakarta, Jakarta, 10430, Indonesia 2 Periodontology Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Indonesia, Central Jakarta, Jakarta, 10430, Indonesia Rizki Yuli Amanda Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Cherry Erlin Lindo Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Rieska Rachmasari Roles: Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Yuniarti Soeroso Roles: Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Nadhia Anindhita Harsas Roles: Conceptualization, Project Administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Project Administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The APC is funded by The Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Indonesia. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright © 2026 Amanda RY et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. metrics | Views | Downloads | | |---|---|---| | F1000Research | - | - | | PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. | - | - | Citations CITE how to cite this article Amanda RY, Lindo CE, Rachmasari R et al. A 30 Year Bibliometric Analysis: Regenerative Therapies In Peri-Implantitis Research [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2026, 15:431 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.171717.1) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 24 Mar 2026 Views 0 How to cite this report: Isola G. Reviewer Report For: A 30 Year Bibliometric Analysis: Regenerative Therapies In Peri-Implantitis Research [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2026, 15:431 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.189355.r480037) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-431/v1#referee-response-480037 https://f1000research.com/articles/15-431/v1#referee-response-480037 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Reviewer Report 14 May 2026 Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 In the manuscript entitled: “A 30 Year Bibliometric Analysis: Regenerative Therapies In peri-Implantitis Research", the author aimed to analyze publications on regenerative therapies for peri-implantitis over the past 30 years published in Scopus. The authors found that over the ... Continue reading 2. Isola G, Polizzi A, Santagati M, Alibrandi A, et al.: Effect of Nonsurgical Mechanical Debridement With or Without Chlorhexidine Formulations in the Treatment of Peri‐Implant Mucositis. A Randomized Placebo‐Controlled Clinical Trial. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2025; 36 (5): 566-577 Publisher Full Text I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close The authors found that over the ... Continue reading In the manuscript entitled: “A 30 Year Bibliometric Analysis: Regenerative Therapies In peri-Implantitis Research", the author aimed to analyze publications on regenerative therapies for peri-implantitis over the past 30 years published in Scopus. The authors found that over the past three decades, research on regenerative therapy for peri-implantitis has grown substantially in both scale and scope. This study demonstrated how the field has shifted from basic science to clinical applications, identifying leading contributors, and offering insights to guide future investigations and improve therapeutic strategies. Major comments: In general, the idea and innovation of this study regards the analysis of the link between causes and diagnosis and treatment of peri implant diseases on this topic could be an innovative issue in this field could be open a creative matter of debate in literature by adding new information. Moreover, there are few reports in the literature that studied this interesting topic with this kind of study design. The study was well conducted by the authors; However, there are some concerns to revise that are described below. The introduction section resumes the existing knowledge regarding the important factor linked with the relationship between oral disorders and related factors. However, as the importance of the topic, the reviewer strongly recommends, before a further re-evaluation of the manuscript, to update the literature through read, discuss and cites in the references with great attention all of those recent interesting articles, that helps the authors to better introduce and discuss the impact of antibiotics and treatments of that could improve peri implant diseases by adding the relevant references below. The authors should be better specified, at the end of the introduction section, the rationale of the study and the aim of the study. In the central section, should better clarify inclusions and exclusions criteria of the selected studies. Please better state the results obtained in the abstract. The discussion section appears well organized with the relevant paper that support the conclusions, even if the authors should better discuss the relationship regarding biomarkers evolution linked with with peri implant conditions. The conclusion should reinforce in light of the discussions. In conclusion, I am sure that the authors are fine clinicians who achieve very nice results with their adopted protocol. However, this study, in my view does not in its current form satisfy a very high scientific requirement for publication in this journal and requests a revision before a futher re-evaluation of the manuscript. Minor Comments:

Introduction:

The authors found that over the past three decades, research on regenerative therapy for peri-implantitis has grown substantially in both scale and scope. This study demonstrated how the field has shifted from basic science to clinical applications, identifying leading contributors, and offering insights to guide future investigations and improve therapeutic strategies. Major comments: In general, the idea and innovation of this study regards the analysis of the link between causes and diagnosis and treatment of peri implant diseases on this topic could be an innovative issue in this field could be open a creative matter of debate in literature by adding new information. Moreover, there are few reports in the literature that studied this interesting topic with this kind of study design. The study was well conducted by the authors; However, there are some concerns to revise that are described below. The introduction section resumes the existing knowledge regarding the important factor linked with the relationship between oral disorders and related factors. However, as the importance of the topic, the reviewer strongly recommends, before a further re-evaluation of the manuscript, to update the literature through read, discuss and cites in the references with great attention all of those recent interesting articles, that helps the authors to better introduce and discuss the impact of antibiotics and treatments of that could improve peri implant diseases by adding the relevant references below. The authors should be better specified, at the end of the introduction section, the rationale of the study and the aim of the study. In the central section, should better clarify inclusions and exclusions criteria of the selected studies. Please better state the results obtained in the abstract. The discussion section appears well organized with the relevant paper that support the conclusions, even if the authors should better discuss the relationship regarding biomarkers evolution linked with with peri implant conditions. The conclusion should reinforce in light of the discussions. In conclusion, I am sure that the authors are fine clinicians who achieve very nice results with their adopted protocol. However, this study, in my view does not in its current form satisfy a very high scientific requirement for publication in this journal and requests a revision before a futher re-evaluation of the manuscript. Minor Comments:

- Better formulate the abstract section by better describing the aim of the study

- Please refer to major comments

- Please add a specific sentence that clarifies the results obtained in the first part of the discussion - Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly - Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly - Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly - If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly - Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly - Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No

1. Isola G, Polizzi A, Angjelova A, Jovanova E, et al.: Impact and efficacy of systemic antibiotics for peri‐implant diseases treatment: A systematic review and meta‐analysis on clinical and microbiological outcomes. Periodontology 2000. 2026. Publisher Full Text2. Isola G, Polizzi A, Santagati M, Alibrandi A, et al.: Effect of Nonsurgical Mechanical Debridement With or Without Chlorhexidine Formulations in the Treatment of Peri‐Implant Mucositis. A Randomized Placebo‐Controlled Clinical Trial. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2025; 36 (5): 566-577 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: dentistry CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Isola G. Reviewer Report For: A 30 Year Bibliometric Analysis: Regenerative Therapies In Peri-Implantitis Research [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2026, 15:431 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.189355.r480037) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-431/v1#referee-response-480037 https://f1000research.com/articles/15-431/v1#referee-response-480037 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Views 0 How to cite this report: Saini RS and Kaur K. Reviewer Report For: A 30 Year Bibliometric Analysis: Regenerative Therapies In Peri-Implantitis Research [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2026, 15:431 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.189355.r474544) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-431/v1#referee-response-474544 https://f1000research.com/articles/15-431/v1#referee-response-474544 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Reviewer Report 11 Apr 2026 Kanwalpreet Kaur, Dental, Rutgers School of Dental Medicine (Ringgold ID: 212493), Newark, New Jersey, USA Not Approved VIEWS 0 Following are the observations. it will help improve the manuscript 1. Literature is limited to Scopus-indexed, English-language clinical studies. Exclusion of other major databases. Relevant in vitro/in vivo research is not included. The authors should clarify this in the ... Continue reading We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to state that we do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close 1. Literature is limited to Scopus-indexed, English-language clinical studies. Exclusion of other major databases. Relevant in vitro/in vivo research is not included. The authors should clarify this in the ... Continue reading Following are the observations. it will help improve the manuscript 1. Literature is limited to Scopus-indexed, English-language clinical studies. Exclusion of other major databases. Relevant in vitro/in vivo research is not included. The authors should clarify this in the limitations. Conclusions should reflect the Scopus-indexed clinical literature. 2. Provide interpretation for each network visualization (Figures 3-5),.. what the visualization tells us about the research trends? how the centrality of certain keywords changes from one decade to the next? 3. The discussion of geographic trends is relevant. Factors such as aging population, health policy, and economic development not directly examined in the analysis. Align conclusions with direct findings from the bibliometric data. Discussion should be balanced and methodologically sound. 4. current wording may overstate the contribution of the study. analysis is limited to one database. Present findings within this scope. The authors may consider revising the conclusion to highlight the main contribution. Provide a bibliometric overview of regenerative therapies over the past 30 years. State that the insights are meaningful within the limits of the chosen methodology. 5. The bibliometric methodology need more detail OpenRefine, VOSviewer, and Excel are mentioned. paper does not clearly explain how these tools were applied. Important technical details are missing, the minimum keyword occurrence threshold, , how keywords were merged or standardized? how were author or institution names cleaned to avoid duplicates? Describe exact steps used to generate the country, journal, and keyword analyses. Without this it is difficult to reproduce and the reliability of the bibliometric maps. 6. Clarify the reason for including H index. 7. Introduction mentions that the study will identify leading authors, institutions, countries and journals. But the visible results focus mainly on journals, keywords, countries and highly cited papers. The author- and institution-level analyses are not clearly developed i. study feel incomplete relative to its stated aims 8. There is limited critical interpretation of why trends changed? how collaboration evolved quantitatively? what specific knowledge gaps remain? For a 30-year bibliometric study, readers would expect deeper analysis. 9. The search is on “peri-implantitis” AND (“regenerative therapy” OR “bone regeneration”). How about terms such as guided bone regeneration, reconstructive therapy, bone grafting, regenerative surgical treatment, defect fill, membrane, biomaterial, or peri-implant defect reconstruction. Justify. 10. Consider identifying the most productive and most influential authors, not only journals and countries. The paper says it intended to identify leading authors. This is not properly shown in the results. 11. consider identifying leading institutions. provide a clear table or maps showing which universities or research centers dominate the field. Institution productivity and collaboration patterns are standard in bibliometric work 12. include co authorship map of authors, institutions 13. Reference the papers in Table 4. complete bibliographic details should be provided .it will improve transparency, allow easier verification. It will also strengthen the scholarly presentation of the bibliometric findings. 1. Literature is limited to Scopus-indexed, English-language clinical studies. Exclusion of other major databases. Relevant in vitro/in vivo research is not included. The authors should clarify this in the limitations. Conclusions should reflect the Scopus-indexed clinical literature. 2. Provide interpretation for each network visualization (Figures 3-5),.. what the visualization tells us about the research trends? how the centrality of certain keywords changes from one decade to the next? 3. The discussion of geographic trends is relevant. Factors such as aging population, health policy, and economic development not directly examined in the analysis. Align conclusions with direct findings from the bibliometric data. Discussion should be balanced and methodologically sound. 4. current wording may overstate the contribution of the study. analysis is limited to one database. Present findings within this scope. The authors may consider revising the conclusion to highlight the main contribution. Provide a bibliometric overview of regenerative therapies over the past 30 years. State that the insights are meaningful within the limits of the chosen methodology. 5. The bibliometric methodology need more detail OpenRefine, VOSviewer, and Excel are mentioned. paper does not clearly explain how these tools were applied. Important technical details are missing, the minimum keyword occurrence threshold, , how keywords were merged or standardized? how were author or institution names cleaned to avoid duplicates? Describe exact steps used to generate the country, journal, and keyword analyses. Without this it is difficult to reproduce and the reliability of the bibliometric maps. 6. Clarify the reason for including H index. 7. Introduction mentions that the study will identify leading authors, institutions, countries and journals. But the visible results focus mainly on journals, keywords, countries and highly cited papers. The author- and institution-level analyses are not clearly developed i. study feel incomplete relative to its stated aims 8. There is limited critical interpretation of why trends changed? how collaboration evolved quantitatively? what specific knowledge gaps remain? For a 30-year bibliometric study, readers would expect deeper analysis. 9. The search is on “peri-implantitis” AND (“regenerative therapy” OR “bone regeneration”). How about terms such as guided bone regeneration, reconstructive therapy, bone grafting, regenerative surgical treatment, defect fill, membrane, biomaterial, or peri-implant defect reconstruction. Justify. 10. Consider identifying the most productive and most influential authors, not only journals and countries. The paper says it intended to identify leading authors. This is not properly shown in the results. 11. consider identifying leading institutions. provide a clear table or maps showing which universities or research centers dominate the field. Institution productivity and collaboration patterns are standard in bibliometric work 12. include co authorship map of authors, institutions 13. Reference the papers in Table 4. complete bibliographic details should be provided .it will improve transparency, allow easier verification. It will also strengthen the scholarly presentation of the bibliometric findings. - Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes - Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly - Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly - If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes - Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly - Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Dental , Dental Implants, Dental Materials , Restorative Dentistry CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Saini RS and Kaur K. Reviewer Report For: A 30 Year Bibliometric Analysis: Regenerative Therapies In Peri-Implantitis Research [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2026, 15:431 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.189355.r474544) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-431/v1#referee-response-474544 https://f1000research.com/articles/15-431/v1#referee-response-474544 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: - Approved - Approved with reservations - Not approved | Invited Reviewers | || |---|---|---| | 1 | 2 | | | Version 1 24 Mar 26 | read | read | Sign up for content alerts You are now signed up to receive this alert Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' - Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. - You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. - You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). - You work at the same institute as any of the authors. - You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. - You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' - You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. - You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. - You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Already registered? Sign in close Error Sign In If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. Email us for further assistance. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here. If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here. You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here. If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here. Code not correct, please try again Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait...