Dental publications on the treatment of temporomandibular disorders: A bibliometric analysis

Dental publications on the treatment of... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/15-296" }, "headline": "Dental publications on the treatment of temporomandibular disorders: A bibliometric analysis", "datePublished": "2026-02-18T10:54:56", "dateModified": "2026-04-16T11:28:15", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Fredy Hugo Cruzado-Oliva" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Elmo Linder Cruzado-Oliva" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Heber Isac Arbildo-Vega" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Franz Tito Coronel-Zubiate" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are a common cause of orofacial pain, and research on therapeutic approaches has grown substantially in recent years. This bibliometric study aimed to assess the scientific output of Scopus-indexed articles on temporomandibular disorder (TMD) treatment, highlighting research trends, key authors, keywords and influential patterns. Methods A comprehensive search was conducted in the Scopus database from January 2014 to Au-gust 2024. Results The search retrieved 621 articles; after excluding those not related to TMD treatment, 220 were analyzed. The main topics were treatment types and classifications of TMD. The journal contributing the most scientific content was the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. The leading institutions in this field were three universities from Brazil. Conclusions The analysis reveals a steady increase in research related to TMD treatment. Although significant advances have been made, ongoing research is still necessary in order to establish appropriate treatment protocols that contribute to safeguarding global health. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/15-296/v1", "name": "Dental publications on the treatment of temporomandibular disorders:..." } } ] } Home Browse Dental publications on the treatment of temporomandibular disorders:... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Cruzado-Oliva FH, Cruzado-Oliva EL, Arbildo-Vega HI and Coronel-Zubiate FT. Dental publications on the treatment of temporomandibular disorders: A bibliometric analysis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :296 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.177216.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Review Dental publications on the treatment of temporomandibular disorders: A bibliometric analysis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] Fredy Hugo Cruzado-Oliva https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1575-0077 1 , Elmo Linder Cruzado-Oliva 2 , Heber Isac Arbildo-Vega 3 , Franz Tito Coronel-Zubiate https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4747-947X 4 Fredy Hugo Cruzado-Oliva https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1575-0077 1 , Elmo Linder Cruzado-Oliva 2 , Heber Isac Arbildo-Vega 3 , Franz Tito Coronel-Zubiate https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4747-947X 4 PUBLISHED 18 Feb 2026 Author details Author details 1 Faculty of Stomatology, Stomatology School, Universidad Nacional de Trujillo, Trujillo, La Libertad, 13001, Peru 2 Faculty of Engineering, School of Industrial Engineering, Universidad Nacional de Trujillo, Trujillo, La Libertad, 13001, Peru 3 Faculty of Dentistry, Dentistry School, Universidad San Martin de Porres, Chiclayo, Lambayeque, 14012, Peru 4 Faculty of Health Sciences, Stomatology School, Universidad Nacional Toribio Rodríguez de Mendoza de Amaazonas, Chachapoyas, Amazonas / Chachapoyas, 01001, Peru Fredy Hugo Cruzado-Oliva Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Elmo Linder Cruzado-Oliva Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Heber Isac Arbildo-Vega Roles: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Resources, Software, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Franz Tito Coronel-Zubiate Roles: Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the AI in Medicine and Healthcare collection. Abstract Background Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are a common cause of orofacial pain, and research on therapeutic approaches has grown substantially in recent years. This bibliometric study aimed to assess the scientific output of Scopus-indexed articles on temporomandibular disorder (TMD) treatment, highlighting research trends, key authors, keywords and influential patterns. Methods A comprehensive search was conducted in the Scopus database from January 2014 to Au-gust 2024. Results The search retrieved 621 articles; after excluding those not related to TMD treatment, 220 were analyzed. The main topics were treatment types and classifications of TMD. The journal contributing the most scientific content was the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. The leading institutions in this field were three universities from Brazil. Conclusions The analysis reveals a steady increase in research related to TMD treatment. Although significant advances have been made, ongoing research is still necessary in order to establish appropriate treatment protocols that contribute to safeguarding global health. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords bibliometrics, research, temporomandibular joint, temporomandibular joint disorders, evidence-based dentistry Corresponding Author(s) Franz Tito Coronel-Zubiate ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Franz Tito Coronel-Zubiate Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2026 Cruzado-Oliva FH 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: Cruzado-Oliva FH, Cruzado-Oliva EL, Arbildo-Vega HI and Coronel-Zubiate FT. Dental publications on the treatment of temporomandibular disorders: A bibliometric analysis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :296 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.177216.1 ) First published: 18 Feb 2026, 15 :296 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.177216.1 ) Latest published: 16 Apr 2026, 15 :296 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.177216.3 )  There is a newer version of this article available. Suppress this message for one day. Introduction Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are a worldwide public health problem, affecting approximately 5% to 12% of the population. 1 It does not distinguish between age and sex, affecting up to 11% in children and 31% in adults, 2 and appears to be three times more frequent in women. 3 TMD is the second most common musculoskeletal condition after chronic low back pain, with an overall prevalence of 90%, which can affect daily activities, psychosocial functioning and quality of life of the individual. 1 TMDs refer to various neuromuscular and musculoskeletal conditions of the temporomandibular joint complex, including surrounding muscular and skeletal structures. 4 Its etiology is complex, probably multifactorial and biopsychosocial, and a number of predisposing or precipitating factors have been described in relation to anatomy, occlusion, parafunction, trauma and psycho-emotional conditions. 5 It is associated with a variety of painful symptoms, such as ear and facial pain, headache in the temporal region and tooth sensitivity, as well as non-painful symptoms such as clicking, popping or crackling of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ), limited jaw movements and muscle fatigue or stiffness. 6 The diagnosis of TMD is based on a detailed medical examination, aided by imaging tests. 4 Diagnostic criteria with simple, clear, reliable and valid operational definitions are needed for clinical history, examination and imaging procedures to make physical diagnoses in both clinical and research settings. 7 In 2014, new diagnostic criteria such as the dual-axis criteria for temporomandibular disorder (CD/TMD) were established. Which today is the gold standard for examining TMD patients. Based on the patient's signs and symptoms, the DC/TMD defines two axes. Axis I, categorizing as Group I muscular (including myofascial pain with or without limitation of mouth opening) and arthrogenic TMD; as Group II, disc displacement with or without reduction and limitation of mouth opening and Group III, arthralgia, arthritis and osteoarthritis; Axis II, evaluating disability due to TMD pain through assessment of behavioral and psychological status. This diagnosis is complemented through cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations. MRI is accepted as the gold standard for evaluating inflammatory conditions and soft tissue areas, including muscles, ligaments, and the cartilaginous disc of the TMJ; on the other hand, CBCT is recommended for evaluating hard skeletal and dental tissues. 8 Regarding the treatment of patients with TMD, the main goals to focus on are to reduce TMJ and masticatory muscle pain, improve TMJ function and prevent further TMJ deterioration. 1 In this scenario, there are several common treatments including conservative treatment (pharmacotherapy and non-pharmacotherapy), minimally invasive surgical procedures and invasive surgical procedures. Non-pharmacotherapy should be the first-line treatment in patients with TMD due to its low risk of side effects and reversibility. 9 Within which we have; education therapy, consists of a variety of educational techniques where “how pain works” is explained. This includes the notion of variable sensitivity and therefore the potential overprotection offered by pain, the multifactorial nature of contributions to pain, and the biological justification for strategies to reduce sensitivity over time. Studies show that it can decrease pain, disability, fear of movement, and pain-related self-efficacy in patients with chronic musculoskeletal disorders. 10 Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) refers to a psychological treatment to correct poor cognition by modifying patients' thinking, beliefs and behavior, and to eliminate bad emotions and negative behaviors. Characterized by integrity, initiative, enthusiasm and brief treatment, it is suitable for patients without mental disorders. Studies show that CBT not only identifies and corrects errors in patients with automatic thinking and cognitive misbehavior, but also reduces anxiety and depression, improves physical activity and quality of life of patients with TMD. 11 Manual therapy is any movement applied by the clinician on joints and other structures such as joint mobilization or manipulation (thrust), massage, myofascial release/soft tissue mobilization techniques, muscle energy techniques, passive stretching and others, using the hands and/or any assistive device. In a recent systematic review, positive effects of manual therapy modalities have been found for pain intensity, maximum mouth opening and disability in TMDs. 12 The occlusal splint is a device that covers all the maxillary teeth and the mandibular teeth have uniform and simultaneous contact. The therapeutic justification is that it produces a change in functional muscle patterns due to an increase in the vertical distance between the upper and lower jaw, which leads to an altered load distribution on the TMJ and jaw muscles. This relieves the overloaded areas of these structures and alleviates pain. 13 , 14 Photobiomodulation therapy consists of the application of low power light, which does not produce thermal effects and can promote the increase of cellular mitochondrial activity, leading to the synthesis and release of various metabolic substances involved in the process of pain, inflammation and tissue repair. Leading to an increase of the maximum mouth opening and a reduction of pain caused during the performance of the stomatognathic system functions. 15 Dry needling, also known as acupuncture, is based on the insertion of a low caliber needle, without any additional substance, in painful muscle points. The process behind this technique is the generation of controlled microspasms in the affected muscle area, alternating with periods of muscle relaxation, and there are several studies that support its therapeutic effectiveness in the reduction of facial pain and the notable reduction of muscle activity after the puncture of trigger points. 16 Pharmacological treatment can play a crucial role in pain management and improvement of overall quality of life in patients with painful TMD. Fifty percent of patients with painful TMD have reported the use of medications. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, corticosteroids, anxiolytics, antidepressants, muscle relaxants and anticonvulsants are the most frequently prescribed pharmacological agents by physicians. 6 Minimally invasive surgical procedures include injections into the temporomandibular joint (TMJ). The use of botulinum toxin type A (BoNT/A) inhibits presynaptic acetylcholine release at the neuromuscular junction, resulting in a reduction of postsynaptic muscle contraction. It also has an antinociceptive effect, and its main mechanism of action is mediated by the blockade of neuropeptides and the release of inflammatory mediators, in addition to its analgesic effects. 5 , 17 The injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) is a polymer recognized as a critical component of synovial fluid that lubricates the joints and surrounding tissues. It reduces joint pain by lowering the levels of inflammatory mediators and has long-lasting positive effects. 18 Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection is a concentrate of platelets suspended in plasma that contains growth factors. These platelets actively secrete protein growth factors that initiate wound healing. It helps restore intra-articular hyaluronic acid and stimulates cartilage cells to produce glycosaminoglycans. It also regulates the balance of angiogenesis within the joint. Moreover, it has anti-inflammatory, antibiotic, and analgesic properties, demonstrating efficacy in the treatment of joint clicking in patients with internal temporomandibular joint disorders. 19 Sodium hyaluronate (SH) injection is the main component of synovial fluid and can reduce friction caused by joint movement, lubricate the joints, improve the physiological function of the joints, and protect them through anti-inflammatory mechanisms. SH is the most commonly used drug for intra-articular injections in TMJ treatment. 20 Invasive surgical procedures include minimally invasive arthroscopic procedures or invasive open joint surgeries such as disc plication, discectomy and arthroplasty. 21 Bibliometrics is a method for assessing and monitoring the progress of specific disciplines through statistical analysis of published data. It can also be used to determine the results and citations of authors, institutions and countries, and the keyword frequency of hotspots and research frontiers in particular fields. It plays a fundamental role in helping relevant people to categorize research trajectories, discover disciplinary boundaries, and identify research hotspots. 22 This research presents a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of current scientific research related to the treatment of TMDs. We explore the evolution of this research area, identifying the main trends, highlighting the best researchers, journals and institutions, and evaluate the influence of this research on the scientific community. Our goal is to provide a comprehensive overview of how science is addressing this global health problem. By understanding the trajectory and scope of this research, we hope to contribute to the advancement of knowledge in this critical area and facilitate future research, attempting to seek a solution to this highly prevalent disease. Methods Data source and search strategy For this analysis, an electronic search was performed since January 2014, using Elsevier's Scopus database ( https://www.scopus.com ), due to its broad coverage of scientific journals and its focus on health sciences, including dentistry. The search string used was: (TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“Temporomandibular Joint Dysfunction Syndrome” OR “Temporomandibular Joint Disorders” OR “Temporomandibular Disorder” OR “TMD” OR “Temporomandibular Joint” OR “TMJ”)) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“Clinical Trial” OR “Randomized Clinical Trial”))) AND PUBYEAR > 2013 AND PUBYEAR < 2025 AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “humans”)). The authors carefully reviewed the titles and abstracts of prospective publications related to the treatment of TMDs. The full list of selected articles and the selection process are available as extended data (Table S1). 23 Inclusion criteria for this bibliometric analysis included a focus on articles without language restriction, but conducted within the last 10 years. In terms of publication type, clinical trials were specified in the search. Exclusion criteria included animal studies, literature review, systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Throughout the initial screening process by the investigators, articles were further disqualified if the publications were not related to the treatment domain of TMD. As the research was conducted in October 2024, all articles from 2014 to 2024 (the last 10 years) were counted. Bibliometric analysis and visualization Since this research did not involve any human or animal interaction, no ethical approval was required for this analysis. After article selection, data were exported from the Scopus database in BibTeX format. The search results were analyzed using “bibliometrix” ( https://www.bibliometrix.org/home/ ) which provides the tools to perform a complete bibliometric analysis, following the Scientific Mapping workflow. VOSviewer software (version 1.6.19) was also used to construct and visualize bibliometric networks. In the visual maps, nodes represent authors and keywords; lines represent co-occurrence or co-citation; and node sizes were determined by frequency of occurrence while line thickness was determined by the strength of the co-occurrence relationship. The maps present elements that received different colors based on the average year of occurrence, with blue and green elements appearing earlier, and yellow and red elements appearing later. For the analysis and visualization of the data, we analyzed the evolution of the total publications, the analysis of the treatments performed in each article, the most studied TTMs, the main journals where they were published, as well as the collaboration network between authors, the main academic institutions and the most frequent keywords in the research (2014-2024). Results This study allowed us to know the scientific activity regarding the management of TMD treatments. Numerical data were calculated from the bibliographic characteristics observed in the documents published in the Scopus database. A total of 621 articles were retrieved and 220 were selected based on the selection criteria ( Figure 1 ). The synthesis of the results and the detailed characteristics of the included studies are provided as extensive data (Table S2). 23 Figure 1. Flowchart of the data extraction and filtering process for publications related to the treatment of temporomandibular disorders (TMD). During the period analyzed, a variation in the number of articles published can be observed. From 2014 to 2019, the number of publications was moderate, with a maximum of 16 articles in 2016; however, the rate of the number of articles increased progressively from 2020, reaching the maximum number of publications of 35 articles in 2024. This increase in the number of studies is probably due to the high prevalence rates of TMD and the search of researchers around the world to provide a solution to this disease ( Figure 2 ). Figure 2. Graph illustrating the trend in the number of articles published over the past 10 years. The treatments performed in the different journals analyzed in the last 10 years (2014-2024) were conservative, non-pharmacological treatments with a number of 135 papers, of which 127 had a parallel study design and 123 were randomized; They involved the use of education, self-care, jaw and physical exercises, manual therapies, physiotherapy, acupuncture, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), occlusal splints (conventional, milled and printed), low-intensity laser (red, infrared and LED), ultrasound and ozone therapy. This was followed by minimally invasive treatments with 66 papers, of which 64 were in parallel and 56 randomized; they consisted of the infiltration of intra-articular substances (hyaluronic acid, platelet-rich plasma, growth factors, stem cells, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs-NSAIDs, corticosteroids, dextrose) and intramuscular (botulinum toxin). The most commonly used conservative pharmacological treatments were NSAIDs and muscle relaxants. Finally, invasive treatments, where all were parallel and randomized, were condylectomy and arthroscopy. For more details on the types of treatment and study characteristics, see Table 1 . Table 1. Table detailing the types of treatments and characteristics of the included studies. Type of treatment Study design Randomized studies Total Parallel Crusader Yes No Conservative treatment Non-pharmacological 127 8 123 12 135 Pharmacological 13 1 13 1 14 Minimally invasive treatment 64 2 56 10 66 Invasive treatment 5 0 5 0 5 209 11 197 23 220 The number of articles published in different scientific journals between the years 2014 to 2024 regarding TMD treatment research was Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery with 14 papers, followed by two journals with the same number of papers Lasers in medical science and the Journal of oral rehabilitation with 11. More than 85% of the journals only contributed with 1 paper. For more details on the journals and the number of publications, see Table 2 . Table 2. Table listing the journals and the number of studies published in each. Scientific journals Articles Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery 14 Lasers in medical science 11 Journal of oral rehabilitation 11 Journal of cranio-maxillofacial surgery 10 Cranio - journal of craniomandibular and sleep practice 10 BMC oral health 9 Toxins 7 Cranio - journal of craniomandibular practice 7 Trials 6 Pain research and management 5 Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery 5 International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery 5 Medicine (United States) 4 Journal of oral and facial pain and headache 4 British journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery 3 Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology 3 Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics 3 Journal of craniofacial surgery 3 Clinical oral investigations 3 Brazilian dental science 3 Acta odontologica scandinavica 2 Bangladesh medical research council bulletin 2 Brazilian oral research 2 Codas 2 Indian journal of dental research 2 Journal of applied oral science 2 Journal of clinical medicine 2 Journal of indian academy of oral medicine and radiology 2 Journal of indian prosthodontic society 2 Journal of photochemistry and photobiology b: biology 2 Oral diseases 2 Pain medicine (united states) 2 Scientific reports 2 Acta clinica croatica 1 Advances in medical sciences 1 Alternative therapies in health and medicine 1 American journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation 1 Annals of anatomy 1 Applied sciences (switzerland) 1 Bioengineering 1 Biomedicines 1 BMC musculoskeletal disorders 1 BMC sports science, medicine and rehabilitation 1 Brain stimulation 1 Brazilian journal of oral sciences 1 Chiropractic and manual therapies 1 Clinical and experimental dental research 1 Comparative exercise physiology 1 Complementary therapies in medicine 1 Dentistry journal 1 Diagnostics 1 Disability and rehabilitation 1 European journal of clinical and experimental medicine 1 European review for medical and pharmacological sciences 1 Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine 1 Frontiers in dentistry 1 Frontiers in neurology 1 Head and face medicine 1 Healthcare (switzerland) 1 Indian journal of public health research and development 1 International dental journal 1 International journal of environmental research and public health 1 International journal of pharmacy and technology 1 International journal of prosthodontics 1 Jama network open 1 Jams journal of acupuncture and meridian studies 1 Jmir research protocols 1 Journal of back and musculoskeletal rehabilitation 1 Journal of biological regulators and homeostatic agents 1 Journal of biomedical science 1 Journal of bodywork and movement therapies 1 Journal of clinical and diagnostic research 1 Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry 1 Journal of complementary and integrative medicine 1 Journal of headache and pain 1 Journal of indian prosthodontist society 1 Journal of lasers in medical sciences 1 Journal of oral research 1 Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy 1 Journal of photochemistry and photobiology 1 Journal of prosthetic dentistry 1 Journal of research in dental and maxillofacial sciences 1 Journal of stomatology, oral and maxillofacial surgery 1 Journal of taibah university medical sciences 1 Journal of the formosan medical association 1 Journal of ultrasound in medicine 1 Lasers in dental science 1 Life 1 Medical forum monthly 1 Medicina (lithuania) 1 Medicina clinica 1 National journal of maxillofacial surgery 1 Odovtos - international journal of dental sciences 1 Oral and maxillofacial surgery 1 Pain 1 Pediatric rheumatology 1 Photobiomodulation, photomedicine, and laser surgery 1 Photomedicine and laser surgery 1 Physiotherapy theory and practice 1 Pilot and feasibility studies 1 Plastic and reconstructive surgery 1 Scientific world journal 1 Total 220 The institutions that have contributed research on the treatment of temporomandibular disorders are headed by Brazilian universities, University of São Paulo, University of São Paulo, University of Nueve de Julio (UNINOVE) and Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul with 13, 11 and 7 articles respectively, suggesting a strong commitment to research in this area. Followed by institutions from Turkey, University of Gaziantep and Iran, Tehran University of Medical Sciences with 5 articles both. However, there are several other institutions that also have an interest in the subject. For more details on the institutions and the number of publications, see Table 3 . Table 3. Table listing the institutions and the number of studies associated with each. Affiliation Articles University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil 13 Nueve de Julio University (UNINOVE), São Paulo, Brazil 11 Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil 7 Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Türkiye 5 Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran 5 Ataturk University, Erzurum, Türkiye 4 Istanbul University, Türkiye 4 Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Natal, Brazil 3 Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland 3 Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland 3 Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Iran 3 Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt 3 Xi’an Jiaotong University, China 3 Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden 3 Methodist University of Piracicaba, Brazil 2 Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Brazil 2 Federal University of Minas Gerais – UFMG, Brazil 2 Federal University of the Vales of Jequitinhonha and Mucuri, Minas Gerais, Brazil 2 Rio de Janeiro State University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 2 University of Campinas, Sao Paulo, Brazil 2 University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal 2 University of Amsterdam, Netherlands 2 University of Milan, Milan, Italy 2 University of Padova, Padova, Italy 2 University of Rome, Rome, Italy 2 Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran 2 Baghdad University, Baghdad, Iraq 2 Silesian Medical University, Katowice, Poland 2 Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Türkiye 2 Afyonkarahisar University of Health Sciences, Afyonkarahisar, Türkiye 2 Turkish University of Health Sciences, Ankara, Türkiye 2 University of North Carolina, North Carolina, USA 2 Emory University, Atlanta, USA 2 King Abdul Aziz University, Saudi Arabia 2 Al-Azhar University, Egypt 2 Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt 2 University of Erlangen Nuremberg, Germany 2 KAHER Institute of Dental Sciences KLE VK, India 2 Tamil Nadu Government Dental College and Hospital, Nadu, India 2 Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Sciences, New Delhi, India 2 SRM Dental Hospital, Chennai, India 2 College of Dental Sciences and Research, Thrissur, Kerala, India 2 Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain 2 University of Seville, Seville, Spain 2 Andrés Bello University, Viña del Mar, Chile 2 University of Groningen, Netherlands 1 Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 1 Western Paraná State University, Paraná, Brazil 1 Brazilian Lutheran University, Brazil 1 Municipal of Santo Antônio do Pinhal, São Paulo, Brazil 1 Fluminense Federal University, Brazil 1 Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil. 1 Federal University of Alfenas, Brazil 1 Federal University of Ceará, Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil 1 State University of the West of Paraná, Paraná, Brazil 1 University Center of the Hermínio Ometto Foundation, Brazil 1 Federal University of Paraíba, Brazil 1 University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal 1 University of Lisbon, Portugal 1 University of Health Sciences, Gandra, Portugal 1 Egas Moniz Interdisciplinary Research Center, Caparica, Portugal 1 Sassari University Hospital, Sassari, Italy 1 University of Udine, Udine, Italy 1 Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy 1 “Paolo Giaccone” Polyclinic, Palermo, Italy 1 University of Rome and Eurekacademy ETS, Rome, Italy 1 Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Iran 1 Damascus University, Damascus, Syria 1 Gajju Khan Medical College, Swabi, Pakistan 1 Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poland 1 Ege University, Türkiye 1 Harran University, Sanlıurfa, Türkiye 1 Aichi Gakuin University, Japan 1 National Hospital, Kyoto Medical Center, Japan 1 University School of Dentistry, Nagoya, Japan 1 University of Florida, Gainesville, USA 1 Weill Cornell Graduate School of Medical Sciences, New York, USA 1 Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA 1 University of Michigan, Michigan, USA 1 University of Washington, Washington, USA 1 Boston University, Boston, USA 1 Baylor University, Waco, Texas 1 University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland 1 Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taiwan 1 University of Calabar/Calabar University Hospital, Nigeria 1 Ain Shams University, Egypt 1 Beni-Suef University, Egypt 1 Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt 1 Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt 1 Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf, Germany 1 Maximilian Ludwig University, Munich, Germany 1 Greifswald University, Germany 1 University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany 1 Karolinska Institute and Scandinavian Center for Orofacial Neurosciences, Huddinge, Sweden 1 Wenzhou Medical University, Zhejiang, China 1 Sichuan University, Sichuan, China 1 China PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China 1 Chongqing Medical University, China 1 Riphah International University, Lahore, Pakistan 1 Seoul National University, South Korea 1 University of Chile, Santiago, Chile. 1 Daejeon University, Daejeon, Republic of Korea 1 University of Freiburg, Germany 1 University of Delhi, New Delhi, India 1 College of Dental Sciences and SDM Hospital, Karnataka, India 1 Surendera Research Institute, Rajasthan, India 1 Mujib Medical University, Bangladesh, Iraq 1 Government Hospital, Gujarat, India 1 Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences, Odisha, India 1 Dental Institute, RIMS, Jharkhand, India 1 ATM Consulting Services, Madhya Pradesh, India 1 Government Dental College and Hospital, Mumbai, India 1 Army Hospital, New Delhi, India 1 National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico 1 Autonomous University of San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, Mexico 1 Yonsei University, Republic of Korea 1 University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain 1 Abat Oliva University, Barcelona 1 University of Jaén, in Jaén, Andalusia, Spain 1 King Juan Carlos University, Alcorcón, Spain 1 Francisco de Vitoria University, Madrid, Spain 1 University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain 1 La Princesa University Hospital, Madrid, Spain 1 Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain 1 Stefan cel Mare University of Suceava, Suceava, Romania 1 University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland 1 University of Eastern Finland, Finland 1 Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania 1 Catholic University of Uruguay, Montevideo, Uruguay 1 Stockholm Public Dental Health, Stockholm, Sweden 1 Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden 1 Zagreb University Hospital Center, Zagreb, Croatia 1 Norwegian Arctic University, Tromso, Norway 1 Total 220 The various relationships identified and the nodes in the co-authorship analysis were examined using the VOSviewer software. The analysis showed that the most prominent co-authors were Bussadori, Sandra Kalil; Politti, Fabiano; and Biasotto-Gonzalez, Daniela, with 9, 8, and 6 co-authorships, respectively ( Figure 3 ). Figure 3. Graph showing co-authorship connections. The different relationships and nodes identified in the keyword or term analysis were also examined using VOSviewer. The most frequently used terms were: humans (study population); temporomandibular joint disorder (signs and symptoms related to the TMJ); treatment (outcomes of interventions to reduce TMD); and pain (most common symptom in TMD). The timeline view also reveals the evolution of keywords related to TMD treatment, where blue indicates older terms and red represents more recent or updated ones ( Figure 4 ). Figure 4. Graph illustrating the most frequently used terms and their connections. Discussion The present research aimed to evaluate the bibliometric profile of the scientific production, of the documents published between 2014 and 2024 (the last 10 years) on the treatment of TMDs, obtaining as a result 220 documents. The bibliometric indicators were only obtained from the Scopus database, because it provides a broader and more inclusive content coverage; it presents the availability of individual profiles for all authors, institutions and sources of periodicals, as well as the interrelated interface of the database; the implemented impact indicators perform as well or even better than metrics in other databases, are less susceptible to manipulation, and are available for all journal sources in all disciplines; and finally, it is more open to society, as it provides free access to author and source information, including metrics. 24 The number of scientific publications in the last 10 years on the treatment of TMDs has increased markedly, with an average of 15 papers in 2014 to 35 papers so far in 2024, but the gradient was not constant throughout all these years. However, this indicates a significant and rapid development in this area. Similarly, the growth of papers in recent years was found in several bibliometric studies relating orthognathic surgery to temporomandibular disorders, 25 on the temporomandibular joint and occlusion, 26 and on joint disc displacement as the most common TMD condition. 22 An increase in the publication of scientific literature indicates the speed of progress in science and technology. In addition, it helps researchers in making treatment decisions based on up-to-date scientific output. 27 These publications have changed over the years from conservative or non-invasive therapies such as manual therapy, 28 , 29 laser therapies, 30 , 31 occlusal splints, 32 , 33 acupuncture, 34 , 35 and use of drugs 36 , 37 ; to minimally invasive, such as intra-articular 38 , 39 or intramuscular 40 , 41 injection of solutions; and invasive, such as surgical treatments. 42 , 43 The most frequent treatments found on TMJ in the analyzed papers were conservative non-pharmacological treatments, probably due to their characteristics of being non-invasive, having no known side effects and absence of interactions as in most conservative pharmacological treatments 15 ; furthermore, more than 90% of these clinical trials were in parallel and randomized, suggesting that patients received a single treatment in different groups at random, with the purpose of comparing results. Similar to a bibliometric study conducted in 2024 on the trends and development of articles on the temporomandibular joint. 44 Occlusal splint therapy and laser photobiomodulation splint therapy (PBMT) are the most commonly used. The splints, in their different varieties; functional (muscle relaxation, anterior repositioning, non-occlusal), therapeutic purpose (with and without condylar position programming), method of manufacture (conventional, milled and printed) and hardness (rigid, semi-rigid and resistant), are the first line therapy performed by dentists, due to their fast manufacture and low cost, besides collaborating with muscle relaxation, helping the positioning of the condyle and giving functional stability to the mandible. 45 Laser PBMT has been shown to be effective because it consists of the application of low power light, which promotes the increase of cellular mitochondrial activity, leading to the synthesis and release of various metabolic substances involved in the process of pain, inflammation and tissue repair. 15 This may be due to the development of established protocols without complications. The majority of TMD treatments are aimed at relieving the patient's pain, with more than 50% being muscle type, myalgia (myofascial); followed by the combination of muscle disorders (myalgia) and TMJ disorder (joint pain and/or disc disorder). Pain is the most significant feature of TMD and the main cause for which patients seek treatment, 46 the most common type is related to pain in the masticatory, temporal and masseter muscles, with irritable trigger points that become painful with compression; it is aggravated with function, decreasing mouth opening and limiting mandibular movements. 47 Thus, these problems directly and negatively influence the physical and mental health of patients, affecting their school, professional and social activities, even causing affective and cognitive imbalance. Therefore, there are detrimental consequences for the quality of life of these people (QOL) and, in particular, for their oral health quality of life (OHQOL), with greater impairments depending on the magnitude of TMD pain. 48 The most influential journals in scientific production on the treatment of TMDs are the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, with 14 papers, 41 , 49 – 61 is a US journal with an impact factor of 2.1 in 2023, H-index of 140 and is in the first quartile. It is also the official scientific journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (AAOMS), the American Academy of Craniomaxillofacial Surgery (AACMFS) and the Canadian Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (CAOMS); is focused on devel-oping the methods and techniques used in the management of dentoalveolar surgery, facial trauma, deformities, oral cancer, mandibular and facial reconstruction, anesthesia, analgesia and temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorders. Most of the analyzed papers used minimally invasive treatments; however, three articles used conservative non-pharmacological treatments; mandibular exercises, 60 rigid splint 54 and low intensity laser 51 ; and one with invasive treatment, condylectomy. 59 The Journal of oral rehabilitation with 11 papers, is a British journal with an impact factor of 3.5 in 2023, an H index of 109 and is also in the first quartile; this journal covers all aspects of oral rehabilitation and applied oral physiology, diagnostic and clinical management aspects necessary to restore harmonious oral function, both subjectively and objectively. In which 8 papers used non-pharmacological conservative treatment; manual therapy, 62 – 64 splints, 65 – 67 ozone 68 and acupuncture 69 ; one pharmacological conservative treatment 70 and two minimally invasive treatment 71 , 72 ; probably the large number of papers is due to the mixed scope presented by these journals. However, the journal Lasers in Medical Science with 11 papers, 73 – 83 is an Iranian journal with an impact factor of 2.1 in 2023, an H-index of 32 and is in the second quartile; of which in all papers they used low level laser therapy, because it is a leading journal in the rapidly expanding field of medical and dental applications, in exclusivity of laser and light. This indicates that research in this field is highly valued in this journal. Out of a total of 133 institutions published relevant literature, it was found that universities produce more scientific publications than institutes, hospitals or private clinics. This is attributed to the physical resources, financial support and variety of cases available at universities compared to hospitals and private clinics. The leading institutions with the most published papers on TMD treatments are the University of São Paulo, Universidade Nueve de Julho (UNINOVE) and Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul with 13, 11 and 7 papers respectively; all entities in Brazil. In two bibliometric studies of the Web of Science database, one on articular disc displacement 22 and the other on trends and development of ATM articles, 44 where they placed the University of São Paulo in third place after the great Asian and American powers, Jiao Tong University of Shanghai, China and University of Rochester, USA. This could be related to the progressive and slow progress of research in Latin America; however, at present it shows us that Brazilian universities have a solid research capacity in this field; in addition to financial resources, university support, international collaborations and the number of academic staff. The co-occurrence of authorship and its association with other authors were evaluated with the VOS-viewer software, where the author Bussadori, Sandra presents 9 co-authorships, followed by Politti, Fabiano, with 8 and Biasotto-Gonzalez, Daniela, with 6. Where, Bussadori, Sandra shares 3 co-authorships with Politti, Fabiano, one with Bi-asotto-Gonzalez, Daniela and another with both. Politti, Fabiano, shares 4 co-authorships with Biasotto-Gonzalez, Daniela. This suggests the commitment of certain research groups on a certain topic. In addition, we can observe the evolution in time of the re-searches where Politti, Fabiano and Biasotto-Gonzalez, Daniela are in red color which indicates the early start in this field, while Bussadori, Sandra is in green color, which suggests that her participation has been very active in this field in the last years. The keywords or descriptors were also evaluated by the same software, where the words with the highest scores were temporomandibular joint disorder and human, followed by a medium score temporomandibular joint and treatment or results, and with lower scores pain, adults, masticatory muscles, therapies, etc. This suggests that it is an essential two-way tool for those who write and those who search for information, i.e., it helps to deepen the search for a particular subject area. Among the main limitations; the data were only collected from Scopus, with the risk of omitting studies included in other databases; due to the limitations of the VOSviewer software, self-citations could not be excluded, which could lead to bias. Finally, given that some excellent recently published articles may have been omitted due to the delay, there is a possibility that the study findings may not be up to date. Periodic updates of bibliometric analyses are recommended to incorporate recently published articles, ensuring that findings accurately reflect current trends and emerging research in the treatment of temporomandibular disorder (TMD). Ethical considerations This bibliometric study did not require ethical approval, as it analyzed only data from publicly available literature and did not involve human or animal subjects. Data availability The bibliometric datasets supporting the findings of this study, including Tables S1 and S2, are publicly available in Zenodo at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18250981 . 84 Extended data Zenodo: Bibliometric datasets supporting the findings of this study, including Tables S1 and S2. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18250981 . The dataset is shared under a CC-BY 4.0 license. References 1. Ferrillo M: Temporomandibular disorders: Current and future concepts in diagnosis and management. Medicina (Kaunas). 2023; 59 (2): 223. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 2. Valesan LF, Da-Cas CD, Réus JC, et al. : Prevalence of temporomandibular joint disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Oral Investig. 2021; 25 (2): 441–453. Publisher Full Text 3. Häggman-Henrikson B, Liv P, Ilgunas A, et al. : Increasing gender differences in the prevalence and chronification of orofacial pain in the population. Pain. 2020; 161 (8): 1768–1775. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 4. Wang S, Jiang H, Qi H, et al. : Association between periodontitis and temporomandibular joint disorders. Arthritis Res. Ther. 2023; 25 (1): 143. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 5. Kim SR, Chang M, Kim AH, et al. : Effect of botulinum toxin on masticatory muscle pain in patients with temporomandibular disorders: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study. Toxins (Basel). 2023; 15 (10). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 6. Christidis N, Al-Moraissi EA, Barjandi G, et al. : Pharmacological treatments of temporomandibular disorders: A systematic review including a network meta-analysis. Drugs. 2024; 84 (1): 59–81. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 7. Christidis N, Al-Moraissi EA, Al-Ak’hali MS, et al. : Psychological treatments for temporomandibular disorder pain-A systematic review. J. Oral Rehabil. 2024; 51 (7): 1320–1336. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 8. Schiffman E, Ohrbach R, Truelove E, et al. : Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) for clinical and research applications: Recommendations of the international RDC/TMD consortium network* and orofacial pain special interest group. J. Oral Facial Pain Headache. 2014 Winter; 28 (1): 6–27. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 9. Liu L, Chen Q, Lyu T, et al. : Effect of acupuncture for temporomandibular disorders: a randomized clinical trial. QJM. 2024; 117 (9): 647–656. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 10. Aguiar ADS, Moseley GL, Bataglion C, et al. : Education-enhanced conventional care versus conventional care alone for temporomandibular disorders: A randomized controlled trial. J. Pain. 2023; 24 (2): 251–263. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 11. Zhang Q, Zhang J, Ran W, et al. : Effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy on kinesiophobia and oral health-related quality of life in patients with temporomandibular disorders, study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020; 99 (47): e23295. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 12. Vieira LS, Pestana PRM, Miranda JP, et al. : The efficacy of manual therapy approaches on pain, maximum mouth opening and disability in temporomandibular disorders: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Life (Basel). 2023; 13 (2): 292. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 13. Florjanski W, Malysa A, Orzeszek S, et al. : Evaluation of biofeedback usefulness in masticatory muscle activity management-A Systematic Review. J. Clin. Med. 2019; 8 (6): 766. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 14. Rabel K, Lüchtenborg J, Linke M, et al. : 3D printed versus milled stabilization splints for the management of bruxism and temporomandibular disorders: study protocol for a randomized prospective single-blinded crossover trial. Trials . 2024; 25 1: 589. Publisher Full Text 15. Carvalho FR, Barros RQ, Gonçalves AS, et al. : Photobiomodulation therapy on the palliative care of temporomandibular disorder and orofacial/cervical skull pain: Preliminary results from a randomized controlled clinical trial. Healthcare (Basel). 2023; 11 (18). Publisher Full Text 16. Dib-Zakkour J, Flores-Fraile J, Montero-Martin J, et al. : Evaluation of the effectiveness of dry needling in the treatment of myogenous temporomandibular joint disorders. Medicina (Kaunas). 2022; 58 (2): 256. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 17. De la Torre Canales G, Poluha RL, Bonjardim LR, et al. : Botulinum toxin-A effects on pain, somatosensory and psychosocial features of patients with refractory masticatory myofascial pain: a randomized double-blind clinical trial. Sci. Rep. 2024; 14 (1): 4201. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 18. Mosleh AA: Treatment of temporomandibular joint internal derangement using MESNA injection. BMC Oral Health. 2024; 24 (1): 894. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 19. Manafikhi M, Ataya J, Heshmeh O: Evaluation of the efficacy of platelet rich fibrin (I-PRF) intra-articular injections in the management of internal derangements of temporomandibular joints - a controlled preliminary prospective clinical study. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2022; 23 (1): 454. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 20. Jia X-Y, Jing S-L, Sun Y, et al. : A randomized controlled clinical trial of concentrated growth factor combined with sodium hyaluronate in the treatment of temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis. BMC Oral Health. 2024; 24 (1): 540. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 21. Al-Moraissi EA, Wolford LM, Ellis E 3rd, et al. : The hierarchy of different treatments for arthrogenous temporomandibular disorders: A network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 2020; 48 (1): 9–23. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 22. Wang Q, Jia J, Zhou C, et al. : A bibliometric analysis of research on temporomandibular joint disc displacement from 1992 to 2022. Healthcare (Basel). 2023; 11 (14): 2108. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 23. Cruzado-Oliva FHH, Cruzado-Oliva EL, Arbildo-Vega HI, et al. : Bibliometric Datasets Supporting the Study on Temporomandibular Disorder Treatment: Table S1 – List and Selection of Articles, and Table S2 – Extracted Bibliometric Data.2026. Publisher Full Text 24. Pranckutė R: Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The titans of bibliographic information in today’s academic world. Publica. 2021; 9 (1): 12. Publisher Full Text 25. Grillo R, Brozoski MA, Samieirad S, et al. : Global network mapping research findings on orthognathic surgery and temporomandibular disorder. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2023; 124 (5): 101531. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 26. Xiong X, Gao X, Zhong J, et al. : Bibliometric analysis of research on temporomandibular joint and occlusion from 2000 to 2022. J. Pain Res. 2023; 16 : 2847–2860. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 27. Bornmann L, Haunschild R, Mutz R: Growth rates of modern science: a latent piecewise growth curve approach to model publication numbers from established and new literature databases. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2021; 8 (1). Publisher Full Text 28. Packer AC, Pires PF, Dibai-Filho AV, et al. : Effects of upper thoracic manipulation on pressure pain sensitivity in women with temporomandibular disorder: a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2014; 93 (2): 160–168. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 29. Gomes CAF d P, El Hage Y, Amaral AP, et al. : Effects of massage therapy and occlusal splint therapy on electromyographic activity and the intensity of signs and symptoms in individuals with temporomandibular disorder and sleep bruxism: a randomized clinical trial. Chiropr Man Therap. 2014; 22 (1): 43. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 30. Madani AS, Ahrari F, Nasiri F, et al. : Low-level laser therapy for management of TMJ osteoarthritis. Cranio. 2014; 32 (1): 38–44. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 31. Herpich CM, Leal-Junior ECP, Amaral AP, et al. : Effects of phototherapy on muscle activity and pain in individuals with temporomandibular disorder: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2014; 15 (1): 491. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 32. Ahmed MA, Rahman QB, Uddin MW, et al. : Efficacy of acrylic splint in management of internal derangement of temperomandibular joint. Bangladesh Med. Res. Counc. Bull. 2017; 42 (2): 72–77. Publisher Full Text 33. Pho Duc JM, Hüning SV, Grossi ML: Parallel randomized controlled clinical trial in patients with Temporomandibular Disorders treated with a CAD/CAM versus a conventional stabilization splint. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2016; 29 (4): 340–350. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 34. Ferreira LA, Grossmann E, Januzzi E, et al. : Ear acupuncture therapy for masticatory myofascial and temporomandibular pain: A controlled clinical trial. Evid. Based Complement. Alternat. Med. 2015; 2015 : 342507. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 35. Huang Y-F, Lin J-C, Yang H-W, et al. : Clinical effectiveness of laser acupuncture in the treatment of temporomandibular joint disorder. J. Formos. Med. Assoc. 2014; 113 (8): 535–539. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 36. Alencar FGP Jr, Viana PG, Zamperini C, et al. : Patient education and self-care for the management of jaw pain upon awakening: a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of adding pharmacologic treatment with cyclobenzaprine or tizanidine. J. Oral Facial Pain Headache. 2014 Spring; 28 (2): 119–127. Publisher Full Text 37. Christidis N, Omrani S, Fredriksson L, et al. : Repeated tender point injections of granisetron alleviate chronic myofascial pain--a randomized, controlled, double-blinded trial. J. Headache Pain. 2015; 16 : 104. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 38. Işık G, Kenç S, Özveri Koyuncu B, et al. : Injectable platelet-rich fibrin as treatment for temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled clinical trial. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 2022; 50 (7): 576–582. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 39. Leketas M, Dvylys D, Sakalys D, et al. : Different intra-articular injection substances following temporomandibular joint arthroscopy and their effect on early postoperative period: A randomized clinical trial. Cranio. 2025; 43 (1): 85–90. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 40. Sitnikova V, Kämppi A, Teronen O, et al. : Effect of botulinum toxin injection on EMG activity and bite force in masticatory muscle disorder: A randomized clinical trial. Toxins (Basel). 2022; 14 (8): 545. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 41. Cömert Kiliç S, Kiliç N, Güngörmüş M: Botulinum toxin versus dextrose prolotherapy: Which is more effective for temporomandibular joint subluxation? A randomized clinical trial. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2023; 81 (4): 389–395. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 42. Shen P, Bai G, Xie Q, et al. : Efficacy of arthroscopic diskopexy on condylar growth in temporomandibular joint anterior disk displacement: A randomized clinical trial. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2024; 154 (3): 544e–555e. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 43. Mosleh AAE-L, Nowair IM, Saad KAE-H, et al. : Arthroscopic assisted release of lateral pterygoid versus scarification of retrodiscal tissue in management of internal derangement of temporomandibular joint-A randomized clinical trial. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 2023; 51 (5): 303–308. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 44. Dere KA, Vatandaş S: Trend changes of studies on Temporomandibular joint between 2013-2023: A bibliometric analysis. ADO Klinik Bilimler Dergisi. 2024; 13. Publisher Full Text 45. Rodríguez CI, Angeles F, Borges SA, et al. : Randomized clinical trial of electrostimulation therapies as an adjuvant for the treatment of temporomandibular disorders. Dent. J. 2024; 12 (8): 273. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 46. Reynolds B, Puentedura EJ, Kolber MJ, et al. : Effectiveness of cervical spine high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust added to behavioral education, soft tissue mobilization, and exercise for people with temporomandibular disorder with myalgia: A randomized clinical trial. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 2020; 50 (8): 455–465. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 47. Al-Quisi AF, Jamil FA, Abdulhadi BN, et al. : The reliability of using light therapy compared with LASER in pain reduction of temporomandibular disorders: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Oral Health. 2023; 23 (1): 91. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 48. Dias WCFG d S, Cavalcanti RVA, Magalhães Júnior HV, et al. : Efeitos da fotobiomodulação associada a terapia miofuncional orofacial na qualidade de vida de indivíduos com disfunção temporomandibular. CoDAS. 2022; 34 (5): e20200313. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 49. Bhargava D: Is single puncture superior to double puncture arthrocentesis in patients with Wilkes III internal derangement?. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2023; 81 (10): 1204–1214. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 50. Reeve GS, Insel O, Thomas C, et al. : Does the use of botulinum toxin in treatment of myofascial pain disorder of the masseters and temporalis muscles reduce pain, improve function, or enhance quality of life?. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2024; 82 (4): 393–401. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 51. Ekici Ö, Dündar Ü, Büyükbosna M: Comparison of the efficiency of high-intensity laser therapy and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation therapy in patients with symptomatic temporomandibular joint disc displacement with reduction. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2022; 80 (1): 70–80. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 52. Sembronio S, Tel A, Tremolada C, et al. : Temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis and microfragmented adipose tissue injection for the treatment of internal derangement and osteoarthritis: A randomized clinical trial. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2021; 79 (7): 1447–1456. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 53. Dolwick MF, Diaz D, Freburg-Hoffmeister DL, et al. : A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the efficacy of steroid supplementation after temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2020; 78 (7): 1088–1099. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 54. Prathap V, Tarun S, Logitha Sri S, et al. : Do splints play a role in the management of condylar postfracture syndrome after mandibular angle fractures? - A randomized controlled clinical trial. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2020; 78 (2): 241–247. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 55. Shandilya S, Mohanty S, Sharma P, et al. : Effect of preoperative intramuscular injection of botulinum toxin A on pain and mouth opening after surgical intervention in temporomandibular joint ankylosis cases: A controlled clinical trial. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2020; 78 (6): 916–926. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 56. Bouloux GF, Chou J, Krishnan D, et al. : Is hyaluronic acid or corticosteroid superior to lactated Ringer solution in the short-term reduction of temporomandibular joint pain after arthrocentesis? Part 1. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2017; 75 (1): 52–62. Publisher Full Text 57. Cömert KS: Does injection of corticosteroid after arthrocentesis improve outcomes of temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis? A randomized clinical trial. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2016; 74 (11): 2151–2158. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 58. Bouloux GF, Chou J, Krishnan D, et al. : Is hyaluronic acid or corticosteroid superior to lactated Ringer solution in the short term for improving function and quality of life after arthrocentesis? Part 2. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2017; 75 (1): 63–72. Publisher Full Text 59. Mehra P, Arya V, Henry C: Temporomandibular joint condylar osteochondroma: Complete condylectomy and joint replacement versus low condylectomy and joint preservation. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2016; 74 (5): 911–925. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 60. Anyanechi CE, Osunde OD, Bassey GO: Management of extra-capsular temporo-mandibular joint ankylosis: does conservative approach to treatment have a role?. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2015; 14 (2): 339–343. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 61. Cömert Kiliç S, Güngörmüş M, Sümbüllü MA: Is arthrocentesis plus platelet-rich plasma superior to arthrocentesis alone in the treatment of temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis? A randomized clinical trial. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2015; 73 (8): 1473–1483. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 62. Şahin D, Kaya Mutlu E, Şakar O, et al. : The effect of the ischaemic compression technique on pain and functionality in temporomandibular disorders: A randomised clinical trial. J. Oral Rehabil. 2021; 48 (5): 531–541. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 63. Olbort C, Pfanne F, Schwahn C, et al. : Training of the lateral pterygoid muscle in the treatment of temporomandibular joint disc displacement with reduction: A randomised clinical trial. J. Oral Rehabil. 2023; 50 (10): 921–930. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 64. Serrano-Hernanz G, Angulo-Carrere T, Ardizone-García I, et al. : Pressure release technique versus placebo applied to cervical and masticatory muscles in patients with chronic painful myofascial temporomandibular disorder: A randomised clinical trial. J. Oral Rehabil. 2023; 50 (9): 782–791. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 65. Hasanoglu Erbasar GN, Alpaslan C, Eroglu Inan G: Can an NTI-tss device be effective as a first-line therapy in patients with TMD myofascial pain?. J. Oral Rehabil. 2017; 44 (8): 589–593. Publisher Full Text 66. Wänman A, Marklund S: Treatment outcome of supervised exercise, home exercise and bite splint therapy, respectively, in patients with symptomatic disc displacement with reduction: A randomised clinical trial. J. Oral Rehabil. 2020; 47 (2): 143–149. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 67. El-Shaheed NH, Mostafa AZH, Aboelez MA: Efficacy of stabilisation splint and low-level laser therapy for patients with chronic closed lock from non-reducible displaced temporo-mandibular joint discs: A parallel randomised clinical trial. J. Oral Rehabil. 2023; 50 (3): 177–193. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 68. Celakil T, Muric A, Gokcen Roehlig B, et al. : Effect of high-frequency bio-oxidative ozone therapy for masticatory muscle pain: a double-blind randomised clinical trial. J. Oral Rehabil. 2017; 44 (6): 442–451. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 69. de Salles-Neto FT , de Paula JS , de Romero JG , et al. : Acupuncture for pain, mandibular function and oral health-related quality of life in patients with masticatory myofascial pain: A randomised controlled trial. J. Oral Rehabil. 2020; 47 (10): 1193–201. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 70. Ferreira DMAO, Soares FFC, Raimundini AA, et al. : Prediction of duloxetine efficacy in addition to self-management in painful temporomandibular disorders: A randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial. J. Oral Rehabil. 2024; 51 (3): 476–486. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 71. Guarda-Nardini L, Rossi A, Arboretti R, et al. : Single- or multiple-session viscosupplementation protocols for temporomandibular joint degenerative disorders: a randomized clinical trial. J. Oral Rehabil. 2015; 42 (7): 521–528. Publisher Full Text 72. Isacsson G, Schumann M, Nohlert E, et al. : Pain relief following a single-dose intra-articular injection of methylprednisolone in the temporomandibular joint arthralgia-A multicentre randomised controlled trial. J. Oral Rehabil. 2019; 46 (1): 5–13. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 73. Borges MMF, Malta CEN, Carlos ACAM, et al. : Photobiomodulation therapy in the treatment of radiotherapy-related trismus of the head and neck. Lasers Med. Sci. 2023; 38 (1): 259. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 74. Palizgir R, Najafi S, Modiri F, et al. : Comparison of therapeutic effects of 940 nm diode laser acupuncture with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in the myofascial pain dysfunction syndrome: a comparative randomized clinical trial. Lasers Med. Sci. 2023; 38 (1): 233. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 75. de Sousa DFM , Malavazzi TCDS, Deana AM, et al. : Simultaneous red and infrared light-emitting diodes reduced pain in individuals with temporomandibular disorder: a randomized, controlled, double-blind, clinical trial. Lasers Med. Sci. 2022; 37 (9): 3423–3431. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 76. Costa DR, Pessoa DR, Seefeldt VB, et al. : Orofacial evaluation of individuals with temporomandibular disorder after LED therapy associated or not of occlusal splint: a randomized double-blind controlled clinical study. Lasers Med. Sci. 2021; 36 (8): 1681–1689. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 77. Herpich CM, Leal-Junior ECP, Politti F, et al. : Intraoral photobiomodulation diminishes pain and improves functioning in women with temporomandibular disorder: a randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind clinical trial: Intraoral photobiomodulation diminishes pain in women with temporomandibular disorder: Intraoral photobiomodulation diminishes pain in women with temporomandibular disorder. Lasers Med. Sci. 2020; 35 (2): 439–445. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 78. Madani A, Ahrari F, Fallahrastegar A, et al. : A randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and laser acupuncture therapy (LAT) in patients with temporomandibular disorders. Lasers Med. Sci. 2020; 35 (1): 181–192. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 79. Borges RMM, Cardoso DS, Flores BC, et al. : Effects of different photobiomodulation dosimetries on temporomandibular dysfunction: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Lasers Med. Sci. 2018; 33 (9): 1859–1866. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 80. Magri LV, Carvalho VA, Rodrigues FCC, et al. : Non-specific effects and clusters of women with painful TMD responders and non-responders to LLLT: double-blind randomized clinical trial. Lasers Med. Sci. 2018; 33 (2): 385–392. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 81. Rodrigues JH, Marques MM, Biasotto-Gonzalez DA, et al. : Evaluation of pain, jaw movements, and psychosocial factors in elderly individuals with temporomandibular disorder under laser phototherapy. Lasers Med. Sci. 2015; 30 (3): 953–959. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 82. Ahrari F, Madani AS, Ghafouri ZS, et al. : The efficacy of low-level laser therapy for the treatment of myogenous temporomandibular joint disorder. Lasers Med. Sci. 2014; 29 (2): 551–557. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 83. Demirkol N, Sari F, Bulbul M, et al. : Effectiveness of occlusal splints and low-level laser therapy on myofascial pain. Lasers Med. Sci. 2015; 30 (3): 1007–1012. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 84. Cruzado-Oliva FH, Cruzado-Oliva EL, Arbildo-Vega HI, et al. : Bibliometric datasets of dental publications on the treatment of temporomandibular disorders (2014–2024). [Dataset]. Zenodo. 2026. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 18 Feb 2026 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Faculty of Stomatology, Stomatology School, Universidad Nacional de Trujillo, Trujillo, La Libertad, 13001, Peru 2 Faculty of Engineering, School of Industrial Engineering, Universidad Nacional de Trujillo, Trujillo, La Libertad, 13001, Peru 3 Faculty of Dentistry, Dentistry School, Universidad San Martin de Porres, Chiclayo, Lambayeque, 14012, Peru 4 Faculty of Health Sciences, Stomatology School, Universidad Nacional Toribio Rodríguez de Mendoza de Amaazonas, Chachapoyas, Amazonas / Chachapoyas, 01001, Peru Fredy Hugo Cruzado-Oliva Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Elmo Linder Cruzado-Oliva Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Heber Isac Arbildo-Vega Roles: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Resources, Software, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Franz Tito Coronel-Zubiate Roles: Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (3) version 3 Revised Published: 16 Apr 2026, 15:296 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.177216.3 version 2 Revised Published: 23 Mar 2026, 15:296 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.177216.2 version 1 Published: 18 Feb 2026, 15:296 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.177216.1 Copyright © 2026 Cruzado-Oliva FH 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. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Cruzado-Oliva FH, Cruzado-Oliva EL, Arbildo-Vega HI and Coronel-Zubiate FT. Dental publications on the treatment of temporomandibular disorders: A bibliometric analysis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :296 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.177216.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE 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 Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 18 Feb 2026 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Leonan-Silva B. Reviewer Report For: Dental publications on the treatment of temporomandibular disorders: A bibliometric analysis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :296 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.195404.r462665 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-296/v1#referee-response-462665 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 14 Mar 2026 Brender Leonan-Silva , Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri (UFVJM), Diamantina, Brazil Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.195404.r462665 Dear Authors, Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript, which presents a bibliometric analysis of clinical trials addressing treatments for temporomandibular disorders (TMD). The topic is relevant, and the manuscript provides a useful overview of ... Continue reading READ ALL Dear Authors, Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript, which presents a bibliometric analysis of clinical trials addressing treatments for temporomandibular disorders (TMD). The topic is relevant, and the manuscript provides a useful overview of research activity in this field over the past decade. However, several methodological and structural issues should be addressed to improve clarity, transparency, and the overall scientific contribution of the study. Below are specific comments and suggestions for improvement. 1. Search period and update of the literature The study aims to analyze publications from the last ten years, and the search was limited to the period 2014–2024. While the search date (October 2024) explains this timeframe, the manuscript is now being considered in a later publication context. Considering the rapidly expanding literature on TMD treatments, particularly in recent years, an update of the search to include 2025 and possibly early 2026 publications would strengthen the relevance and timeliness of the study. If updating the search is not feasible, the authors should clearly justify this limitation in the methods and discussion sections. 2. Structure and focus of the Introduction The Introduction currently presents several treatment modalities in a fragmented manner, with multiple paragraphs describing individual interventions (e.g., education, cognitive behavioral therapy, laser therapy, pharmacological approaches, injections, etc.). This structure weakens the narrative flow and partially overlaps with what should be explored in the Discussion. I suggest restructuring the Introduction to: provide a general overview of TMD management strategies, briefly mention the main categories of treatment, such as: conservative non-invasive therapies, pharmacological management, minimally invasive procedures, surgical interventions. Specific therapies could then be explored more thoroughly in the Discussion, particularly when interpreting the bibliometric findings. 3. Terminology regarding TMD etiology The Introduction states that the etiology of TMD is “probably multifactorial and biopsychosocial.” However, current scientific consensus generally recognizes TMD as a multifactorial and biopsychosocial condition, rather than a hypothetical assumption. Revising this wording would improve conceptual accuracy. 4. Transparency of the study selection process Although this study is a bibliometric analysis rather than a systematic review, the flow diagram describing the selection process lacks sufficient transparency. The transition between the initially identified records and the final sample of included articles is not clearly explained. In particular, it would be helpful to indicate: how many articles were excluded after title/abstract screening, how many were excluded after full-text assessment, the reasons for exclusion at each stage. Providing these details would improve methodological transparency and reproducibility. 5. Search strategy and study design restrictions The search strategy appears to restrict the results to clinical trials or randomized clinical trials. This methodological decision should be clarified and justified. Bibliometric studies often aim to capture broader patterns in the literature, and limiting the search exclusively to clinical trials may exclude relevant research on TMD treatments. The authors should explain the rationale for this restriction and discuss its potential impact on the interpretation of the results. 6. Interpretation of treatment-related findings The manuscript identifies the most frequently studied treatment modalities in the analyzed literature. However, the discussion could be strengthened by exploring the clinical implications of these findings in greater depth. For example, when discussing treatments such as occlusal splints or photobiomodulation, it would be valuable to consider: whether their high frequency reflects greater clinical effectiveness, whether they are typically used as isolated therapies or as part of multimodal management, whether there are controversies or conflicting findings in the literature. This type of analysis would help connect the bibliometric results with clinical relevance and evidence-based practice. 7. Integration between bibliometric findings and clinical context Finally, the discussion could benefit from a more explicit connection between the bibliometric trends identified and the current clinical understanding of TMD management. For instance, contemporary guidelines often emphasize multimodal and conservative approaches, including patient education, behavioral strategies, physiotherapy, and splint therapy. Reflecting on whether the bibliometric patterns align with these clinical principles would add interpretative depth to the study. The manuscript addresses an important topic and provides a valuable overview of research trends in TMD treatment. However, improvements in methodological transparency, conceptual clarity, and discussion depth are necessary to strengthen the contribution of the study. I encourage the authors to address the points raised above to enhance the clarity and impact of the manuscript. Is the topic of the review discussed comprehensively in the context of the current literature? Partly Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations? Partly Is the review written in accessible language? Yes Are the conclusions drawn appropriate in the context of the current research literature? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: TMDs, Bruxism, Epidemiology 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 READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Leonan-Silva B. Reviewer Report For: Dental publications on the treatment of temporomandibular disorders: A bibliometric analysis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :296 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.195404.r462665 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-296/v1#referee-response-462665 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 23 Mar 2026 Franz Tito Coronel-Zubiate , Faculty of Health Sciences, Stomatology School, Universidad Nacional Toribio Rodríguez de Mendoza de Amaazonas, Chachapoyas, 01001, Peru 23 Mar 2026 Author Response We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive and valuable comments. We have revised the manuscript accordingly and believe that these suggestions ... Continue reading We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive and valuable comments. We have revised the manuscript accordingly and believe that these suggestions have significantly improved the clarity and quality of the paper. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each comment. All modifications have been incorporated into the revised manuscript. Comment 1: 1. Search period and update of the literature The study aims to analyze publications from the last ten years, and the search was limited to the period 2014–2024. While the search date (October 2024) explains this timeframe, the manuscript is now being considered in a later publication context. Considering the rapidly expanding literature on TMD treatments, particularly in recent years, an update of the search to include 2025 and possibly early 2026 publications would strengthen the relevance and timeliness of the study. If updating the search is not feasible, the authors should clearly justify this limitation in the methods and discussion sections. Response: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. The search period (2014–2024) was predefined because the bibliometric analysis was designed using a standardized 10-year time window, and the data collection was completed in October 2024. Updating the search to include 2025–2026 publications would modify the dataset and affect the reproducibility and comparability of the bibliometric mapping. To clarify this point, we have added an explicit justification in the Methods section and expanded the limitation statement in the Discussion, acknowledging that recently published studies may not have been included and that periodic updates are recommended. Comment 2: 2. Structure and focus of the Introduction The Introduction currently presents several treatment modalities in a fragmented manner, with multiple paragraphs describing individual interventions (e.g., education, cognitive behavioral therapy, laser therapy, pharmacological approaches, injections, etc.). This structure weakens the narrative flow and partially overlaps with what should be explored in the Discussion. I suggest restructuring the Introduction to: provide a general overview of TMD management strategies, briefly mention the main categories of treatment, such as: conservative non-invasive therapies, pharmacological management, minimally invasive procedures, surgical interventions. Specific therapies could then be explored more thoroughly in the Discussion, particularly when interpreting the bibliometric findings. Response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. Following the recommendation, the Introduction has been reorganized to provide a clearer overview of TMD management strategies. Treatment approaches are now presented using a hierarchical structure, grouping them into four main categories: conservative non-invasive therapies, pharmacological management, minimally invasive procedures, and invasive surgical interventions. The individual therapies are still briefly described to provide clinical context, but the narrative flow has been improved to avoid fragmentation and to better distinguish the background section from the Discussion. Comment 3: 3. Terminology regarding TMD etiology The Introduction states that the etiology of TMD is “probably multifactorial and biopsychosocial.” However, current scientific consensus generally recognizes TMD as a multifactorial and biopsychosocial condition, rather than a hypothetical assumption. Revising this wording would improve conceptual accuracy. Response: We thank the reviewer for this important clarification. The wording has been revised to reflect the current scientific consensus that TMD has a multifactorial and biopsychosocial etiology, rather than presenting it as a hypothetical assumption. The corresponding sentence in the Introduction has been modified accordingly. Comment 4: 4. Transparency of the study selection process Although this study is a bibliometric analysis rather than a systematic review, the flow diagram describing the selection process lacks sufficient transparency. The transition between the initially identified records and the final sample of included articles is not clearly explained. In particular, it would be helpful to indicate: how many articles were excluded after title/abstract screening, how many were excluded after full-text assessment, the reasons for exclusion at each stage. Providing these details would improve methodological transparency and reproducibility. Response: We thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. The flow diagram has been revised to improve transparency in the selection process. The updated figure now shows the number of records removed before screening, the number assessed for eligibility, the number excluded after full-text evaluation, and the final number of included studies, together with the reasons for exclusion. In addition, the Methods section has been clarified to describe the selection process in detail. Comment 5: 5. Search strategy and study design restrictions The search strategy appears to restrict the results to clinical trials or randomized clinical trials. This methodological decision should be clarified and justified. Bibliometric studies often aim to capture broader patterns in the literature, and limiting the search exclusively to clinical trials may exclude relevant research on TMD treatments. The authors should explain the rationale for this restriction and discuss its potential impact on the interpretation of the results. Response: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. The search strategy was intentionally restricted to clinical trials and randomized clinical trials in order to focus the bibliometric analysis on studies evaluating therapeutic interventions with higher levels of clinical evidence. This approach allowed a more precise assessment of trends in treatment modalities for TMD. We agree that this restriction may exclude other types of publications, and this has now been clarified in both the Methods and Discussion sections as a methodological limitation. Comment 6: 6. Interpretation of treatment-related findings The manuscript identifies the most frequently studied treatment modalities in the analyzed literature. However, the discussion could be strengthened by exploring the clinical implications of these findings in greater depth. For example, when discussing treatments such as occlusal splints or photobiomodulation, it would be valuable to consider: whether their high frequency reflects greater clinical effectiveness, whether they are typically used as isolated therapies or as part of multimodal management, whether there are controversies or conflicting findings in the literature. This type of analysis would help connect the bibliometric results with clinical relevance and evidence-based practice. Response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. The Discussion has been expanded to better interpret the clinical implications of the bibliometric findings. We have clarified that the frequency of certain treatments in the literature does not necessarily reflect superior clinical effectiveness, and that many therapies are commonly used as part of multimodal management strategies rather than as isolated interventions. In addition, we have discussed the presence of controversies and variability in the literature, emphasizing the need to interpret bibliometric results in the context of evidence-based clinical practice. Comment 7: 7. Integration between bibliometric findings and clinical context Finally, the discussion could benefit from a more explicit connection between the bibliometric trends identified and the current clinical understanding of TMD management. For instance, contemporary guidelines often emphasize multimodal and conservative approaches, including patient education, behavioral strategies, physiotherapy, and splint therapy. Reflecting on whether the bibliometric patterns align with these clinical principles would add interpretative depth to the study. Response: We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. The Discussion has been expanded to better relate the bibliometric findings to the current clinical understanding of TMD management. A new paragraph has been added to explain that the predominance of conservative and minimally invasive treatments in the literature is consistent with contemporary clinical guidelines, which recommend a multimodal and reversible approach as first-line management. We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive and valuable comments. We have revised the manuscript accordingly and believe that these suggestions have significantly improved the clarity and quality of the paper. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each comment. All modifications have been incorporated into the revised manuscript. Comment 1: 1. Search period and update of the literature The study aims to analyze publications from the last ten years, and the search was limited to the period 2014–2024. While the search date (October 2024) explains this timeframe, the manuscript is now being considered in a later publication context. Considering the rapidly expanding literature on TMD treatments, particularly in recent years, an update of the search to include 2025 and possibly early 2026 publications would strengthen the relevance and timeliness of the study. If updating the search is not feasible, the authors should clearly justify this limitation in the methods and discussion sections. Response: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. The search period (2014–2024) was predefined because the bibliometric analysis was designed using a standardized 10-year time window, and the data collection was completed in October 2024. Updating the search to include 2025–2026 publications would modify the dataset and affect the reproducibility and comparability of the bibliometric mapping. To clarify this point, we have added an explicit justification in the Methods section and expanded the limitation statement in the Discussion, acknowledging that recently published studies may not have been included and that periodic updates are recommended. Comment 2: 2. Structure and focus of the Introduction The Introduction currently presents several treatment modalities in a fragmented manner, with multiple paragraphs describing individual interventions (e.g., education, cognitive behavioral therapy, laser therapy, pharmacological approaches, injections, etc.). This structure weakens the narrative flow and partially overlaps with what should be explored in the Discussion. I suggest restructuring the Introduction to: provide a general overview of TMD management strategies, briefly mention the main categories of treatment, such as: conservative non-invasive therapies, pharmacological management, minimally invasive procedures, surgical interventions. Specific therapies could then be explored more thoroughly in the Discussion, particularly when interpreting the bibliometric findings. Response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. Following the recommendation, the Introduction has been reorganized to provide a clearer overview of TMD management strategies. Treatment approaches are now presented using a hierarchical structure, grouping them into four main categories: conservative non-invasive therapies, pharmacological management, minimally invasive procedures, and invasive surgical interventions. The individual therapies are still briefly described to provide clinical context, but the narrative flow has been improved to avoid fragmentation and to better distinguish the background section from the Discussion. Comment 3: 3. Terminology regarding TMD etiology The Introduction states that the etiology of TMD is “probably multifactorial and biopsychosocial.” However, current scientific consensus generally recognizes TMD as a multifactorial and biopsychosocial condition, rather than a hypothetical assumption. Revising this wording would improve conceptual accuracy. Response: We thank the reviewer for this important clarification. The wording has been revised to reflect the current scientific consensus that TMD has a multifactorial and biopsychosocial etiology, rather than presenting it as a hypothetical assumption. The corresponding sentence in the Introduction has been modified accordingly. Comment 4: 4. Transparency of the study selection process Although this study is a bibliometric analysis rather than a systematic review, the flow diagram describing the selection process lacks sufficient transparency. The transition between the initially identified records and the final sample of included articles is not clearly explained. In particular, it would be helpful to indicate: how many articles were excluded after title/abstract screening, how many were excluded after full-text assessment, the reasons for exclusion at each stage. Providing these details would improve methodological transparency and reproducibility. Response: We thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. The flow diagram has been revised to improve transparency in the selection process. The updated figure now shows the number of records removed before screening, the number assessed for eligibility, the number excluded after full-text evaluation, and the final number of included studies, together with the reasons for exclusion. In addition, the Methods section has been clarified to describe the selection process in detail. Comment 5: 5. Search strategy and study design restrictions The search strategy appears to restrict the results to clinical trials or randomized clinical trials. This methodological decision should be clarified and justified. Bibliometric studies often aim to capture broader patterns in the literature, and limiting the search exclusively to clinical trials may exclude relevant research on TMD treatments. The authors should explain the rationale for this restriction and discuss its potential impact on the interpretation of the results. Response: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. The search strategy was intentionally restricted to clinical trials and randomized clinical trials in order to focus the bibliometric analysis on studies evaluating therapeutic interventions with higher levels of clinical evidence. This approach allowed a more precise assessment of trends in treatment modalities for TMD. We agree that this restriction may exclude other types of publications, and this has now been clarified in both the Methods and Discussion sections as a methodological limitation. Comment 6: 6. Interpretation of treatment-related findings The manuscript identifies the most frequently studied treatment modalities in the analyzed literature. However, the discussion could be strengthened by exploring the clinical implications of these findings in greater depth. For example, when discussing treatments such as occlusal splints or photobiomodulation, it would be valuable to consider: whether their high frequency reflects greater clinical effectiveness, whether they are typically used as isolated therapies or as part of multimodal management, whether there are controversies or conflicting findings in the literature. This type of analysis would help connect the bibliometric results with clinical relevance and evidence-based practice. Response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. The Discussion has been expanded to better interpret the clinical implications of the bibliometric findings. We have clarified that the frequency of certain treatments in the literature does not necessarily reflect superior clinical effectiveness, and that many therapies are commonly used as part of multimodal management strategies rather than as isolated interventions. In addition, we have discussed the presence of controversies and variability in the literature, emphasizing the need to interpret bibliometric results in the context of evidence-based clinical practice. Comment 7: 7. Integration between bibliometric findings and clinical context Finally, the discussion could benefit from a more explicit connection between the bibliometric trends identified and the current clinical understanding of TMD management. For instance, contemporary guidelines often emphasize multimodal and conservative approaches, including patient education, behavioral strategies, physiotherapy, and splint therapy. Reflecting on whether the bibliometric patterns align with these clinical principles would add interpretative depth to the study. Response: We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. The Discussion has been expanded to better relate the bibliometric findings to the current clinical understanding of TMD management. A new paragraph has been added to explain that the predominance of conservative and minimally invasive treatments in the literature is consistent with contemporary clinical guidelines, which recommend a multimodal and reversible approach as first-line management. Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 23 Mar 2026 Franz Tito Coronel-Zubiate , Faculty of Health Sciences, Stomatology School, Universidad Nacional Toribio Rodríguez de Mendoza de Amaazonas, Chachapoyas, 01001, Peru 23 Mar 2026 Author Response We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive and valuable comments. We have revised the manuscript accordingly and believe that these suggestions ... Continue reading We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive and valuable comments. We have revised the manuscript accordingly and believe that these suggestions have significantly improved the clarity and quality of the paper. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each comment. All modifications have been incorporated into the revised manuscript. Comment 1: 1. Search period and update of the literature The study aims to analyze publications from the last ten years, and the search was limited to the period 2014–2024. While the search date (October 2024) explains this timeframe, the manuscript is now being considered in a later publication context. Considering the rapidly expanding literature on TMD treatments, particularly in recent years, an update of the search to include 2025 and possibly early 2026 publications would strengthen the relevance and timeliness of the study. If updating the search is not feasible, the authors should clearly justify this limitation in the methods and discussion sections. Response: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. The search period (2014–2024) was predefined because the bibliometric analysis was designed using a standardized 10-year time window, and the data collection was completed in October 2024. Updating the search to include 2025–2026 publications would modify the dataset and affect the reproducibility and comparability of the bibliometric mapping. To clarify this point, we have added an explicit justification in the Methods section and expanded the limitation statement in the Discussion, acknowledging that recently published studies may not have been included and that periodic updates are recommended. Comment 2: 2. Structure and focus of the Introduction The Introduction currently presents several treatment modalities in a fragmented manner, with multiple paragraphs describing individual interventions (e.g., education, cognitive behavioral therapy, laser therapy, pharmacological approaches, injections, etc.). This structure weakens the narrative flow and partially overlaps with what should be explored in the Discussion. I suggest restructuring the Introduction to: provide a general overview of TMD management strategies, briefly mention the main categories of treatment, such as: conservative non-invasive therapies, pharmacological management, minimally invasive procedures, surgical interventions. Specific therapies could then be explored more thoroughly in the Discussion, particularly when interpreting the bibliometric findings. Response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. Following the recommendation, the Introduction has been reorganized to provide a clearer overview of TMD management strategies. Treatment approaches are now presented using a hierarchical structure, grouping them into four main categories: conservative non-invasive therapies, pharmacological management, minimally invasive procedures, and invasive surgical interventions. The individual therapies are still briefly described to provide clinical context, but the narrative flow has been improved to avoid fragmentation and to better distinguish the background section from the Discussion. Comment 3: 3. Terminology regarding TMD etiology The Introduction states that the etiology of TMD is “probably multifactorial and biopsychosocial.” However, current scientific consensus generally recognizes TMD as a multifactorial and biopsychosocial condition, rather than a hypothetical assumption. Revising this wording would improve conceptual accuracy. Response: We thank the reviewer for this important clarification. The wording has been revised to reflect the current scientific consensus that TMD has a multifactorial and biopsychosocial etiology, rather than presenting it as a hypothetical assumption. The corresponding sentence in the Introduction has been modified accordingly. Comment 4: 4. Transparency of the study selection process Although this study is a bibliometric analysis rather than a systematic review, the flow diagram describing the selection process lacks sufficient transparency. The transition between the initially identified records and the final sample of included articles is not clearly explained. In particular, it would be helpful to indicate: how many articles were excluded after title/abstract screening, how many were excluded after full-text assessment, the reasons for exclusion at each stage. Providing these details would improve methodological transparency and reproducibility. Response: We thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. The flow diagram has been revised to improve transparency in the selection process. The updated figure now shows the number of records removed before screening, the number assessed for eligibility, the number excluded after full-text evaluation, and the final number of included studies, together with the reasons for exclusion. In addition, the Methods section has been clarified to describe the selection process in detail. Comment 5: 5. Search strategy and study design restrictions The search strategy appears to restrict the results to clinical trials or randomized clinical trials. This methodological decision should be clarified and justified. Bibliometric studies often aim to capture broader patterns in the literature, and limiting the search exclusively to clinical trials may exclude relevant research on TMD treatments. The authors should explain the rationale for this restriction and discuss its potential impact on the interpretation of the results. Response: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. The search strategy was intentionally restricted to clinical trials and randomized clinical trials in order to focus the bibliometric analysis on studies evaluating therapeutic interventions with higher levels of clinical evidence. This approach allowed a more precise assessment of trends in treatment modalities for TMD. We agree that this restriction may exclude other types of publications, and this has now been clarified in both the Methods and Discussion sections as a methodological limitation. Comment 6: 6. Interpretation of treatment-related findings The manuscript identifies the most frequently studied treatment modalities in the analyzed literature. However, the discussion could be strengthened by exploring the clinical implications of these findings in greater depth. For example, when discussing treatments such as occlusal splints or photobiomodulation, it would be valuable to consider: whether their high frequency reflects greater clinical effectiveness, whether they are typically used as isolated therapies or as part of multimodal management, whether there are controversies or conflicting findings in the literature. This type of analysis would help connect the bibliometric results with clinical relevance and evidence-based practice. Response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. The Discussion has been expanded to better interpret the clinical implications of the bibliometric findings. We have clarified that the frequency of certain treatments in the literature does not necessarily reflect superior clinical effectiveness, and that many therapies are commonly used as part of multimodal management strategies rather than as isolated interventions. In addition, we have discussed the presence of controversies and variability in the literature, emphasizing the need to interpret bibliometric results in the context of evidence-based clinical practice. Comment 7: 7. Integration between bibliometric findings and clinical context Finally, the discussion could benefit from a more explicit connection between the bibliometric trends identified and the current clinical understanding of TMD management. For instance, contemporary guidelines often emphasize multimodal and conservative approaches, including patient education, behavioral strategies, physiotherapy, and splint therapy. Reflecting on whether the bibliometric patterns align with these clinical principles would add interpretative depth to the study. Response: We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. The Discussion has been expanded to better relate the bibliometric findings to the current clinical understanding of TMD management. A new paragraph has been added to explain that the predominance of conservative and minimally invasive treatments in the literature is consistent with contemporary clinical guidelines, which recommend a multimodal and reversible approach as first-line management. We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive and valuable comments. We have revised the manuscript accordingly and believe that these suggestions have significantly improved the clarity and quality of the paper. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each comment. All modifications have been incorporated into the revised manuscript. Comment 1: 1. Search period and update of the literature The study aims to analyze publications from the last ten years, and the search was limited to the period 2014–2024. While the search date (October 2024) explains this timeframe, the manuscript is now being considered in a later publication context. Considering the rapidly expanding literature on TMD treatments, particularly in recent years, an update of the search to include 2025 and possibly early 2026 publications would strengthen the relevance and timeliness of the study. If updating the search is not feasible, the authors should clearly justify this limitation in the methods and discussion sections. Response: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. The search period (2014–2024) was predefined because the bibliometric analysis was designed using a standardized 10-year time window, and the data collection was completed in October 2024. Updating the search to include 2025–2026 publications would modify the dataset and affect the reproducibility and comparability of the bibliometric mapping. To clarify this point, we have added an explicit justification in the Methods section and expanded the limitation statement in the Discussion, acknowledging that recently published studies may not have been included and that periodic updates are recommended. Comment 2: 2. Structure and focus of the Introduction The Introduction currently presents several treatment modalities in a fragmented manner, with multiple paragraphs describing individual interventions (e.g., education, cognitive behavioral therapy, laser therapy, pharmacological approaches, injections, etc.). This structure weakens the narrative flow and partially overlaps with what should be explored in the Discussion. I suggest restructuring the Introduction to: provide a general overview of TMD management strategies, briefly mention the main categories of treatment, such as: conservative non-invasive therapies, pharmacological management, minimally invasive procedures, surgical interventions. Specific therapies could then be explored more thoroughly in the Discussion, particularly when interpreting the bibliometric findings. Response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. Following the recommendation, the Introduction has been reorganized to provide a clearer overview of TMD management strategies. Treatment approaches are now presented using a hierarchical structure, grouping them into four main categories: conservative non-invasive therapies, pharmacological management, minimally invasive procedures, and invasive surgical interventions. The individual therapies are still briefly described to provide clinical context, but the narrative flow has been improved to avoid fragmentation and to better distinguish the background section from the Discussion. Comment 3: 3. Terminology regarding TMD etiology The Introduction states that the etiology of TMD is “probably multifactorial and biopsychosocial.” However, current scientific consensus generally recognizes TMD as a multifactorial and biopsychosocial condition, rather than a hypothetical assumption. Revising this wording would improve conceptual accuracy. Response: We thank the reviewer for this important clarification. The wording has been revised to reflect the current scientific consensus that TMD has a multifactorial and biopsychosocial etiology, rather than presenting it as a hypothetical assumption. The corresponding sentence in the Introduction has been modified accordingly. Comment 4: 4. Transparency of the study selection process Although this study is a bibliometric analysis rather than a systematic review, the flow diagram describing the selection process lacks sufficient transparency. The transition between the initially identified records and the final sample of included articles is not clearly explained. In particular, it would be helpful to indicate: how many articles were excluded after title/abstract screening, how many were excluded after full-text assessment, the reasons for exclusion at each stage. Providing these details would improve methodological transparency and reproducibility. Response: We thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. The flow diagram has been revised to improve transparency in the selection process. The updated figure now shows the number of records removed before screening, the number assessed for eligibility, the number excluded after full-text evaluation, and the final number of included studies, together with the reasons for exclusion. In addition, the Methods section has been clarified to describe the selection process in detail. Comment 5: 5. Search strategy and study design restrictions The search strategy appears to restrict the results to clinical trials or randomized clinical trials. This methodological decision should be clarified and justified. Bibliometric studies often aim to capture broader patterns in the literature, and limiting the search exclusively to clinical trials may exclude relevant research on TMD treatments. The authors should explain the rationale for this restriction and discuss its potential impact on the interpretation of the results. Response: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. The search strategy was intentionally restricted to clinical trials and randomized clinical trials in order to focus the bibliometric analysis on studies evaluating therapeutic interventions with higher levels of clinical evidence. This approach allowed a more precise assessment of trends in treatment modalities for TMD. We agree that this restriction may exclude other types of publications, and this has now been clarified in both the Methods and Discussion sections as a methodological limitation. Comment 6: 6. Interpretation of treatment-related findings The manuscript identifies the most frequently studied treatment modalities in the analyzed literature. However, the discussion could be strengthened by exploring the clinical implications of these findings in greater depth. For example, when discussing treatments such as occlusal splints or photobiomodulation, it would be valuable to consider: whether their high frequency reflects greater clinical effectiveness, whether they are typically used as isolated therapies or as part of multimodal management, whether there are controversies or conflicting findings in the literature. This type of analysis would help connect the bibliometric results with clinical relevance and evidence-based practice. Response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. The Discussion has been expanded to better interpret the clinical implications of the bibliometric findings. We have clarified that the frequency of certain treatments in the literature does not necessarily reflect superior clinical effectiveness, and that many therapies are commonly used as part of multimodal management strategies rather than as isolated interventions. In addition, we have discussed the presence of controversies and variability in the literature, emphasizing the need to interpret bibliometric results in the context of evidence-based clinical practice. Comment 7: 7. Integration between bibliometric findings and clinical context Finally, the discussion could benefit from a more explicit connection between the bibliometric trends identified and the current clinical understanding of TMD management. For instance, contemporary guidelines often emphasize multimodal and conservative approaches, including patient education, behavioral strategies, physiotherapy, and splint therapy. Reflecting on whether the bibliometric patterns align with these clinical principles would add interpretative depth to the study. Response: We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. The Discussion has been expanded to better relate the bibliometric findings to the current clinical understanding of TMD management. A new paragraph has been added to explain that the predominance of conservative and minimally invasive treatments in the literature is consistent with contemporary clinical guidelines, which recommend a multimodal and reversible approach as first-line management. Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Patra R. Reviewer Report For: Dental publications on the treatment of temporomandibular disorders: A bibliometric analysis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :296 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.195404.r462669 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-296/v1#referee-response-462669 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 04 Mar 2026 Ramesh Patra , Lovely Professional University, Punjab, India Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.195404.r462669 This manuscript presents a bibliometric analysis of clinical trial publications on the treatment of temporomandibular disorders (TMD) indexed in Scopus between 2014 and 2024. The authors analyzed 220 eligible articles and examined publication trends, treatment types, journals, institutional productivity, ... Continue reading READ ALL This manuscript presents a bibliometric analysis of clinical trial publications on the treatment of temporomandibular disorders (TMD) indexed in Scopus between 2014 and 2024. The authors analyzed 220 eligible articles and examined publication trends, treatment types, journals, institutional productivity, co-authorship networks, and keyword occurrence using Bibliometrix and VOSviewer. The study reports an increase in publications over time, highlights the predominance of conservative non-pharmacological treatments, and identifies Brazilian institutions as leading contributors. The topic is relevant and timely, and the use of bibliometric tools is appropriate. The inclusion of visual network analyses and public data availability are strengths. However, several issues require revision. Regarding accessibility, the manuscript is partly written in accessible language. While suitable for a specialist dental or bibliometric audience, it contains technical terminology (e.g., co-occurrence networks, H-index, quartile ranking) that may not be clear to broader readers. In addition, there are grammatical inconsistencies and terminology errors (e.g., “Crusader” instead of “Crossover”) that reduce clarity. The authors should define technical terms at first mention and undertake professional language editing. Regarding the conclusions, they are partly appropriate. The descriptive findings (e.g., increase in publication volume, dominance of conservative treatments) are supported by the data. However, some conclusions extend beyond what bibliometric analysis can support. Increased publication numbers do not necessarily indicate scientific progress or improved treatment protocols. The manuscript should avoid causal interpretations and limit conclusions strictly to publication trends rather than clinical effectiveness or quality of evidence. To make the article scientifically sound, the following points must be addressed: Revise the conclusions to avoid causal or clinical overreach and ensure they remain within the scope of bibliometric analysis. Correct factual inaccuracies and terminology errors. Improve language clarity and consistency through thorough editing. Expand the limitations section to discuss database restriction (Scopus only), search strategy constraints, and potential indexing bias. Strengthen the bibliometric analysis by including citation-based indicators (e.g., total citations, most cited articles, average citations per year) to support claims of influence and impact. In summary, the manuscript has a solid foundation and addresses an important topic, but it requires substantial revision in interpretation, analytical depth, and language clarity before it can be considered scientifically robust. Is the topic of the review discussed comprehensively in the context of the current literature? Partly Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations? Partly Is the review written in accessible language? Partly Are the conclusions drawn appropriate in the context of the current research literature? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Bibliometric research, oral health research, temporomandibular disorders (TMD), clinical trial methodology, evidence-based physical therapy, craniosacral therapy, and cranio-cervical osteopathic techniques. 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 READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Patra R. Reviewer Report For: Dental publications on the treatment of temporomandibular disorders: A bibliometric analysis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :296 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.195404.r462669 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-296/v1#referee-response-462669 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 23 Mar 2026 Franz Tito Coronel-Zubiate , Faculty of Health Sciences, Stomatology School, Universidad Nacional Toribio Rodríguez de Mendoza de Amaazonas, Chachapoyas, 01001, Peru 23 Mar 2026 Author Response We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the careful and constructive evaluation of our manuscript entitled “Dental publications on the treatment of temporomandibular disorders: A bibliometric analysis.” We greatly appreciate the ... Continue reading We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the careful and constructive evaluation of our manuscript entitled “Dental publications on the treatment of temporomandibular disorders: A bibliometric analysis.” We greatly appreciate the positive assessment of the relevance of the topic, the appropriateness of the bibliometric tools, and the strengths of the visual network analyzes and data availability. We have carefully revised the manuscript in accordance with all the comments provided. In particular, we improved language clarity and consistency throughout the text, corrected terminology and factual inaccuracies, revised statements that could be interpreted as causal or clinically overreaching, expanded the limitations section, and strengthened the bibliometric analysis by incorporating citation-based indicators, including average citations per article, annual citation trends, and the most cited articles in the dataset. We also added brief explanations of technical bibliometric terms where appropriate to improve accessibility for a broader readership. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to the reviewer's main observations. Comment 1: Regarding accessibility, the manuscript is partly written in accessible language. While suitable for a specialist dental or bibliometric audience, it contains technical terminology (e.g., co-occurrence networks, H-index, quartile ranking) that may not be clear to broader readers. In addition, there are grammatical inconsistencies and terminology errors (e.g., “Crusader” instead of “Crossover”) that reduce clarity. The authors should define technical terms at first mention and undertake professional language editing. Response: Thank you for this important observation. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript to improve language clarity, consistency, and readability. Terminology errors were corrected, including the replacement of “Crusader” with “Crossover” in Table 1. In addition, technical bibliometric terms such as co-occurrence networks, H-index, and quartile ranking are now briefly explained at first mention to make the manuscript more accessible to non-specialist readers. The text was also carefully edited to correct grammatical inconsistencies and improve overall flow. Comment 2: Regarding the conclusions, they are partly appropriate. The descriptive findings (e.g., increase in publication volume, dominance of conservative treatments) are supported by the data. However, some conclusions extend beyond what bibliometric analysis can support. Increased publication numbers do not necessarily indicate scientific progress or improved treatment protocols. The manuscript should avoid causal interpretations and limit conclusions strictly to publication trends rather than clinical effectiveness or quality of evidence. Revise the conclusions to avoid causal or clinical overreach and ensure they remain within the scope of bibliometric analysis. Response: We agree with the reviewer and thank you for highlighting this important issue. The Abstract, Discussion, and Conclusion sections were revised to avoid causal or clinical overinterpretation. We now explicitly state that the findings describe publication patterns and bibliometric trends, rather than clinical efficacy, therapeutic superiority, or quality of evidence. Statements implying scientific or clinical progress were removed or reformulated to remain within the proper scope of bibliometric analysis. Comment 3: Correct factual inaccuracies and terminology errors. Response: Thank you. We reviewed the manuscript carefully and corrected factual and terminology-related issues identified during revision. This included typographical and wording corrections, standardization of terminology, correction of institutional names, and refinement of bibliometric expressions to improve scientific precision. Comment 4: Improve language clarity and consistency through thorough editing. Response: Thank you. We performed a comprehensive language review across the manuscript to improve clarity, grammar, sentence structure, and consistency of terminology. We also simplified several sentences and refined transitions between sections to make the text more readable. Comment 5: Expand the limitations section to discuss database restriction (Scopus only), search strategy constraints, and potential indexing bias. Response: We appreciate this suggestion and have expanded the Limitations section accordingly. The revised now manuscript explicitly acknowledges the exclusive use of the Scopus database, the possibility that some relevant studies indexed only in other databases may have been missed, the constraints associated with the selected search terms and filters, and the potential indexing bias related to database coverage. We also retained the limitations associated with self-citation exclusion and the time lag in citation accumulation and database indexing. Comment 6: Strengthen the bibliometric analysis by including citation-based indicators (e.g., total citations, most cited articles, average citations per year) to support claims of influence and impact. Response: Thank you for this valuable recommendation. We have strengthened the bibliometric analysis by incorporating citation-based indicators into the Results and Discussion sections. Specifically, we added the overall average citations per article, the annual trend of citation averages, and a description of the most cited articles in the dataset. We also included a new figure showing the longitudinal trend of annual citation averages and discussed these findings in the context of citation lag and bibliometric visibility. These additions provide a more robust assessment of scientific visibility and influence within the analyzed literature. Final response We are grateful for the reviewer's thoughtful comments, which significantly improved the rigor, clarity, and interpretive precision of the manuscript. We believe that the revised version now better reflects the scope and contribution of a bibliometric study and addresses all concerns raised. We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the careful and constructive evaluation of our manuscript entitled “Dental publications on the treatment of temporomandibular disorders: A bibliometric analysis.” We greatly appreciate the positive assessment of the relevance of the topic, the appropriateness of the bibliometric tools, and the strengths of the visual network analyzes and data availability. We have carefully revised the manuscript in accordance with all the comments provided. In particular, we improved language clarity and consistency throughout the text, corrected terminology and factual inaccuracies, revised statements that could be interpreted as causal or clinically overreaching, expanded the limitations section, and strengthened the bibliometric analysis by incorporating citation-based indicators, including average citations per article, annual citation trends, and the most cited articles in the dataset. We also added brief explanations of technical bibliometric terms where appropriate to improve accessibility for a broader readership. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to the reviewer's main observations. Comment 1: Regarding accessibility, the manuscript is partly written in accessible language. While suitable for a specialist dental or bibliometric audience, it contains technical terminology (e.g., co-occurrence networks, H-index, quartile ranking) that may not be clear to broader readers. In addition, there are grammatical inconsistencies and terminology errors (e.g., “Crusader” instead of “Crossover”) that reduce clarity. The authors should define technical terms at first mention and undertake professional language editing. Response: Thank you for this important observation. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript to improve language clarity, consistency, and readability. Terminology errors were corrected, including the replacement of “Crusader” with “Crossover” in Table 1. In addition, technical bibliometric terms such as co-occurrence networks, H-index, and quartile ranking are now briefly explained at first mention to make the manuscript more accessible to non-specialist readers. The text was also carefully edited to correct grammatical inconsistencies and improve overall flow. Comment 2: Regarding the conclusions, they are partly appropriate. The descriptive findings (e.g., increase in publication volume, dominance of conservative treatments) are supported by the data. However, some conclusions extend beyond what bibliometric analysis can support. Increased publication numbers do not necessarily indicate scientific progress or improved treatment protocols. The manuscript should avoid causal interpretations and limit conclusions strictly to publication trends rather than clinical effectiveness or quality of evidence. Revise the conclusions to avoid causal or clinical overreach and ensure they remain within the scope of bibliometric analysis. Response: We agree with the reviewer and thank you for highlighting this important issue. The Abstract, Discussion, and Conclusion sections were revised to avoid causal or clinical overinterpretation. We now explicitly state that the findings describe publication patterns and bibliometric trends, rather than clinical efficacy, therapeutic superiority, or quality of evidence. Statements implying scientific or clinical progress were removed or reformulated to remain within the proper scope of bibliometric analysis. Comment 3: Correct factual inaccuracies and terminology errors. Response: Thank you. We reviewed the manuscript carefully and corrected factual and terminology-related issues identified during revision. This included typographical and wording corrections, standardization of terminology, correction of institutional names, and refinement of bibliometric expressions to improve scientific precision. Comment 4: Improve language clarity and consistency through thorough editing. Response: Thank you. We performed a comprehensive language review across the manuscript to improve clarity, grammar, sentence structure, and consistency of terminology. We also simplified several sentences and refined transitions between sections to make the text more readable. Comment 5: Expand the limitations section to discuss database restriction (Scopus only), search strategy constraints, and potential indexing bias. Response: We appreciate this suggestion and have expanded the Limitations section accordingly. The revised now manuscript explicitly acknowledges the exclusive use of the Scopus database, the possibility that some relevant studies indexed only in other databases may have been missed, the constraints associated with the selected search terms and filters, and the potential indexing bias related to database coverage. We also retained the limitations associated with self-citation exclusion and the time lag in citation accumulation and database indexing. Comment 6: Strengthen the bibliometric analysis by including citation-based indicators (e.g., total citations, most cited articles, average citations per year) to support claims of influence and impact. Response: Thank you for this valuable recommendation. We have strengthened the bibliometric analysis by incorporating citation-based indicators into the Results and Discussion sections. Specifically, we added the overall average citations per article, the annual trend of citation averages, and a description of the most cited articles in the dataset. We also included a new figure showing the longitudinal trend of annual citation averages and discussed these findings in the context of citation lag and bibliometric visibility. These additions provide a more robust assessment of scientific visibility and influence within the analyzed literature. Final response We are grateful for the reviewer's thoughtful comments, which significantly improved the rigor, clarity, and interpretive precision of the manuscript. We believe that the revised version now better reflects the scope and contribution of a bibliometric study and addresses all concerns raised. Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 23 Mar 2026 Franz Tito Coronel-Zubiate , Faculty of Health Sciences, Stomatology School, Universidad Nacional Toribio Rodríguez de Mendoza de Amaazonas, Chachapoyas, 01001, Peru 23 Mar 2026 Author Response We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the careful and constructive evaluation of our manuscript entitled “Dental publications on the treatment of temporomandibular disorders: A bibliometric analysis.” We greatly appreciate the ... Continue reading We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the careful and constructive evaluation of our manuscript entitled “Dental publications on the treatment of temporomandibular disorders: A bibliometric analysis.” We greatly appreciate the positive assessment of the relevance of the topic, the appropriateness of the bibliometric tools, and the strengths of the visual network analyzes and data availability. We have carefully revised the manuscript in accordance with all the comments provided. In particular, we improved language clarity and consistency throughout the text, corrected terminology and factual inaccuracies, revised statements that could be interpreted as causal or clinically overreaching, expanded the limitations section, and strengthened the bibliometric analysis by incorporating citation-based indicators, including average citations per article, annual citation trends, and the most cited articles in the dataset. We also added brief explanations of technical bibliometric terms where appropriate to improve accessibility for a broader readership. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to the reviewer's main observations. Comment 1: Regarding accessibility, the manuscript is partly written in accessible language. While suitable for a specialist dental or bibliometric audience, it contains technical terminology (e.g., co-occurrence networks, H-index, quartile ranking) that may not be clear to broader readers. In addition, there are grammatical inconsistencies and terminology errors (e.g., “Crusader” instead of “Crossover”) that reduce clarity. The authors should define technical terms at first mention and undertake professional language editing. Response: Thank you for this important observation. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript to improve language clarity, consistency, and readability. Terminology errors were corrected, including the replacement of “Crusader” with “Crossover” in Table 1. In addition, technical bibliometric terms such as co-occurrence networks, H-index, and quartile ranking are now briefly explained at first mention to make the manuscript more accessible to non-specialist readers. The text was also carefully edited to correct grammatical inconsistencies and improve overall flow. Comment 2: Regarding the conclusions, they are partly appropriate. The descriptive findings (e.g., increase in publication volume, dominance of conservative treatments) are supported by the data. However, some conclusions extend beyond what bibliometric analysis can support. Increased publication numbers do not necessarily indicate scientific progress or improved treatment protocols. The manuscript should avoid causal interpretations and limit conclusions strictly to publication trends rather than clinical effectiveness or quality of evidence. Revise the conclusions to avoid causal or clinical overreach and ensure they remain within the scope of bibliometric analysis. Response: We agree with the reviewer and thank you for highlighting this important issue. The Abstract, Discussion, and Conclusion sections were revised to avoid causal or clinical overinterpretation. We now explicitly state that the findings describe publication patterns and bibliometric trends, rather than clinical efficacy, therapeutic superiority, or quality of evidence. Statements implying scientific or clinical progress were removed or reformulated to remain within the proper scope of bibliometric analysis. Comment 3: Correct factual inaccuracies and terminology errors. Response: Thank you. We reviewed the manuscript carefully and corrected factual and terminology-related issues identified during revision. This included typographical and wording corrections, standardization of terminology, correction of institutional names, and refinement of bibliometric expressions to improve scientific precision. Comment 4: Improve language clarity and consistency through thorough editing. Response: Thank you. We performed a comprehensive language review across the manuscript to improve clarity, grammar, sentence structure, and consistency of terminology. We also simplified several sentences and refined transitions between sections to make the text more readable. Comment 5: Expand the limitations section to discuss database restriction (Scopus only), search strategy constraints, and potential indexing bias. Response: We appreciate this suggestion and have expanded the Limitations section accordingly. The revised now manuscript explicitly acknowledges the exclusive use of the Scopus database, the possibility that some relevant studies indexed only in other databases may have been missed, the constraints associated with the selected search terms and filters, and the potential indexing bias related to database coverage. We also retained the limitations associated with self-citation exclusion and the time lag in citation accumulation and database indexing. Comment 6: Strengthen the bibliometric analysis by including citation-based indicators (e.g., total citations, most cited articles, average citations per year) to support claims of influence and impact. Response: Thank you for this valuable recommendation. We have strengthened the bibliometric analysis by incorporating citation-based indicators into the Results and Discussion sections. Specifically, we added the overall average citations per article, the annual trend of citation averages, and a description of the most cited articles in the dataset. We also included a new figure showing the longitudinal trend of annual citation averages and discussed these findings in the context of citation lag and bibliometric visibility. These additions provide a more robust assessment of scientific visibility and influence within the analyzed literature. Final response We are grateful for the reviewer's thoughtful comments, which significantly improved the rigor, clarity, and interpretive precision of the manuscript. We believe that the revised version now better reflects the scope and contribution of a bibliometric study and addresses all concerns raised. We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the careful and constructive evaluation of our manuscript entitled “Dental publications on the treatment of temporomandibular disorders: A bibliometric analysis.” We greatly appreciate the positive assessment of the relevance of the topic, the appropriateness of the bibliometric tools, and the strengths of the visual network analyzes and data availability. We have carefully revised the manuscript in accordance with all the comments provided. In particular, we improved language clarity and consistency throughout the text, corrected terminology and factual inaccuracies, revised statements that could be interpreted as causal or clinically overreaching, expanded the limitations section, and strengthened the bibliometric analysis by incorporating citation-based indicators, including average citations per article, annual citation trends, and the most cited articles in the dataset. We also added brief explanations of technical bibliometric terms where appropriate to improve accessibility for a broader readership. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to the reviewer's main observations. Comment 1: Regarding accessibility, the manuscript is partly written in accessible language. While suitable for a specialist dental or bibliometric audience, it contains technical terminology (e.g., co-occurrence networks, H-index, quartile ranking) that may not be clear to broader readers. In addition, there are grammatical inconsistencies and terminology errors (e.g., “Crusader” instead of “Crossover”) that reduce clarity. The authors should define technical terms at first mention and undertake professional language editing. Response: Thank you for this important observation. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript to improve language clarity, consistency, and readability. Terminology errors were corrected, including the replacement of “Crusader” with “Crossover” in Table 1. In addition, technical bibliometric terms such as co-occurrence networks, H-index, and quartile ranking are now briefly explained at first mention to make the manuscript more accessible to non-specialist readers. The text was also carefully edited to correct grammatical inconsistencies and improve overall flow. Comment 2: Regarding the conclusions, they are partly appropriate. The descriptive findings (e.g., increase in publication volume, dominance of conservative treatments) are supported by the data. However, some conclusions extend beyond what bibliometric analysis can support. Increased publication numbers do not necessarily indicate scientific progress or improved treatment protocols. The manuscript should avoid causal interpretations and limit conclusions strictly to publication trends rather than clinical effectiveness or quality of evidence. Revise the conclusions to avoid causal or clinical overreach and ensure they remain within the scope of bibliometric analysis. Response: We agree with the reviewer and thank you for highlighting this important issue. The Abstract, Discussion, and Conclusion sections were revised to avoid causal or clinical overinterpretation. We now explicitly state that the findings describe publication patterns and bibliometric trends, rather than clinical efficacy, therapeutic superiority, or quality of evidence. Statements implying scientific or clinical progress were removed or reformulated to remain within the proper scope of bibliometric analysis. Comment 3: Correct factual inaccuracies and terminology errors. Response: Thank you. We reviewed the manuscript carefully and corrected factual and terminology-related issues identified during revision. This included typographical and wording corrections, standardization of terminology, correction of institutional names, and refinement of bibliometric expressions to improve scientific precision. Comment 4: Improve language clarity and consistency through thorough editing. Response: Thank you. We performed a comprehensive language review across the manuscript to improve clarity, grammar, sentence structure, and consistency of terminology. We also simplified several sentences and refined transitions between sections to make the text more readable. Comment 5: Expand the limitations section to discuss database restriction (Scopus only), search strategy constraints, and potential indexing bias. Response: We appreciate this suggestion and have expanded the Limitations section accordingly. The revised now manuscript explicitly acknowledges the exclusive use of the Scopus database, the possibility that some relevant studies indexed only in other databases may have been missed, the constraints associated with the selected search terms and filters, and the potential indexing bias related to database coverage. We also retained the limitations associated with self-citation exclusion and the time lag in citation accumulation and database indexing. Comment 6: Strengthen the bibliometric analysis by including citation-based indicators (e.g., total citations, most cited articles, average citations per year) to support claims of influence and impact. Response: Thank you for this valuable recommendation. We have strengthened the bibliometric analysis by incorporating citation-based indicators into the Results and Discussion sections. Specifically, we added the overall average citations per article, the annual trend of citation averages, and a description of the most cited articles in the dataset. We also included a new figure showing the longitudinal trend of annual citation averages and discussed these findings in the context of citation lag and bibliometric visibility. These additions provide a more robust assessment of scientific visibility and influence within the analyzed literature. Final response We are grateful for the reviewer's thoughtful comments, which significantly improved the rigor, clarity, and interpretive precision of the manuscript. We believe that the revised version now better reflects the scope and contribution of a bibliometric study and addresses all concerns raised. Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 18 Feb 2026 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline 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 Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 Version 3 (revision) 16 Apr 26 read Version 2 (revision) 23 Mar 26 read read Version 1 18 Feb 26 read read Ramesh Patra , Lovely Professional University, Punjab, India Brender Leonan-Silva , Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri (UFVJM), Diamantina, Brazil Ricca Chairunnisa , Universitas Sumatera Utar, Medan, Indonesia Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Leonan-Silva B. This is an open access peer review report 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. 24 Apr 2026 | for Version 3 Brender Leonan-Silva , Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri (UFVJM), Diamantina, Brazil 0 Views copyright © 2026 Leonan-Silva B. This is an open access peer review report 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. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline 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 The authors have made substantial improvements to the manuscript and have adequately addressed the main concerns raised in the previous review. The Introduction is now clearer and better structured, with appropriate recognition of the multifactorial and biopsychosocial nature of temporomandibular disorders. The Methods section has been significantly strengthened, particularly with the clarification of the study selection process, justification for the use of the Scopus database, and the approach used to identify clinical trials. These changes enhance the methodological transparency and reproducibility of the study. The Results section is better organized, and the Discussion shows a more appropriate focus on bibliometric interpretation, including a clearer distinction between research activity and clinical effectiveness. The authors also provided a more critical perspective on the findings, which improves the scientific rigor of the manuscript. However, minor revisions are still recommended. Some sections of the Introduction and Discussion remain slightly descriptive and could be further refined to maintain a stronger focus on the bibliometric scope of the study. Additionally, certain parts of the Results could benefit from greater conciseness to improve readability. Overall, the manuscript is relevant, methodologically sound, and provides a valuable contribution to the understanding of research trends in temporomandibular disorder treatments. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise TMDs, Bruxism, Epidemiology 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. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Leonan-Silva B. Peer Review Report For: Dental publications on the treatment of temporomandibular disorders: A bibliometric analysis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :296 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.198222.r475737) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-296/v3#referee-response-475737 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Chairunnisa R. This is an open access peer review report 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. 02 Apr 2026 | for Version 2 Ricca Chairunnisa , Universitas Sumatera Utar, Medan, Indonesia 0 Views copyright © 2026 Chairunnisa R. This is an open access peer review report 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. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline 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 Is the topic discussed comprehensively? Partly – the background is strong, but further integration with current literature and clinical perspectives would enhance completeness. Are all factual statements correct and supported? Partly – most statements are appropriate, though some could benefit from stronger or more recent supporting evidence. Are the conclusions appropriate? Partly – conclusions are generally supported, but would benefit from clearer emphasis on the descriptive nature of bibliometric findings. Is the topic of the review discussed comprehensively in the context of the current literature? Partly Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations? Partly Is the review written in accessible language? Yes Are the conclusions drawn appropriate in the context of the current research literature? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Temporomandibular Disorders 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. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Chairunnisa R. Peer Review Report For: Dental publications on the treatment of temporomandibular disorders: A bibliometric analysis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :296 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197547.r470457) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-296/v2#referee-response-470457 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Leonan-Silva B. This is an open access peer review report 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. 26 Mar 2026 | for Version 2 Brender Leonan-Silva , Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri (UFVJM), Diamantina, Brazil 0 Views copyright © 2026 Leonan-Silva B. This is an open access peer review report 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. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline 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 Main Comments Introduction The Introduction remains overly descriptive, with excessive detail on individual therapies. It should be more concise and focused on justifying the bibliometric analysis. Additionally, TMD etiology should be described as multifactorial and biopsychosocial (without “probably”). Methods Methodological details are insufficient. The authors should clarify: study selection process (number of reviewers, agreement process), justification for using only Scopus, and how clinical trials were accurately identified. Results The Results are mainly descriptive and sometimes difficult to follow. A clearer structure and better organization are needed. Discussion The Discussion still includes excessive clinical description instead of focusing on bibliometric interpretation. More critical analysis is needed, especially regarding research trends and their clinical relevance. Some statements are speculative and should be revised. Conclusion The study is relevant, but revisions are needed to improve clarity, methodological rigor, and interpretation. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise TMDs, Bruxism, Epidemiology 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. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 16 Apr 2026 Franz Tito Coronel-Zubiate, Faculty of Health Sciences, Stomatology School, Universidad Nacional Toribio Rodríguez de Mendoza de Amaazonas, Chachapoyas, 01001, Peru We would like to thank the reviewer for their constructive and insightful comments. We have carefully revised the manuscript in accordance with the suggestions provided, with the aim of improving clarity, methodological transparency, and the overall scientific quality of the study. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to each comment. Comment 1: Introduction The Introduction remains overly descriptive, with excessive detail on individual therapies. It should be more concise and focused on justifying the bibliometric analysis. Additionally, TMD etiology should be described as multifactorial and biopsychosocial (without “probably”). Response: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. The Introduction has been further revised to improve conciseness and focus. Specifically, detailed descriptions of individual therapies have been consolidated into a single paragraph to avoid fragmentation and excessive clinical detail. The section now emphasizes a structured overview of TMD management strategies, aligned with the purpose of the bibliometric analysis. In addition, the wording related to TMD etiology has been corrected to reflect the current scientific consensus, removing the term “probably” and clearly stating that TMD is a multifactorial and biopsychosocial condition. Comment 2: Methods Methodological details are insufficient. The authors should clarify: study selection process (number of reviewers, agreement process), justification for using only Scopus, and how clinical trials were accurately identified. Response: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. The Methods section has been further revised to improve methodological transparency. Specifically, we have clarified that the study selection process was conducted by two independent reviewers, with discrepancies resolved through discussion and consensus, and involvement of a third author when necessary. In addition, we have expanded the description of the search strategy to justify the exclusive use of the Scopus database, highlighting its suitability for bibliometric analyses. Finally, we have clarified how clinical trials were accurately identified, indicating that study design classification was based on both Scopus indexing and manual verification during full-text assessment. These additions strengthen the reproducibility and methodological rigor of the study. Comment 3: Results The Results are mainly descriptive and sometimes difficult to follow. A clearer structure and better organization are needed. Response: Response: We thank the reviewer for this important comment. The Results section has been revised to improve clarity, structure, and readability. Specifically, the section has been reorganized using thematic subheadings to provide a clearer presentation of the findings, including study selection, publication trends, citation analysis, treatment distribution, journal analysis, institutional productivity, and network analyses. In addition, descriptive results have been separated from interpretative statements. Any speculative or explanatory content has been removed or relocated to the Discussion section to maintain consistency with reporting standards for bibliometric analyses. These modifications improve the organization and facilitate the interpretation of the results. Comment 4: The Discussion still includes excessive clinical description instead of focusing on bibliometric interpretation. More critical analysis is needed, especially regarding research trends and their clinical relevance. Some statements are speculative and should be revised. Response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. The Discussion section has been revised to improve its focus on bibliometric interpretation and reduce excessive clinical description. Specifically, detailed clinical explanations that were not directly related to the interpretation of bibliometric findings were removed or condensed. In addition, the discussion was strengthened by incorporating a more critical analysis of research trends, emphasizing that publication frequency reflects research interest and accessibility rather than clinical effectiveness. Statements that could be considered speculative were revised to ensure a more cautious and evidence-based interpretation. Furthermore, greater emphasis was placed on linking bibliometric findings with current clinical approaches, particularly the role of multimodal and conservative management strategies in TMD, while clearly acknowledging the limitations of bibliometric data in reflecting clinical outcomes. These changes improve the clarity, scientific rigor, and interpretive depth of the manuscript. Comment 5: Conclusion The study is relevant, but revisions are needed to improve clarity, methodological rigor, and interpretation. Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The Conclusion has been revised to improve clarity, methodological precision, and interpretive balance. Specifically, we have clarified the contribution of the study as a bibliometric analysis, emphasizing that the findings reflect publication patterns rather than clinical effectiveness or quality of evidence. In addition, the conclusion now highlights the relevance of integrating bibliometric data with future systematic reviews and evidence-based analyzes to better understand the clinical implications of these research trends. These revisions strengthen the scientific rigor and coherence of the manuscript. View more View less Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. reply Respond Report a concern Leonan-Silva B. Peer Review Report For: Dental publications on the treatment of temporomandibular disorders: A bibliometric analysis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :296 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197547.r469894) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-296/v2#referee-response-469894 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Leonan-Silva B. This is an open access peer review report 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. 14 Mar 2026 | for Version 1 Brender Leonan-Silva , Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri (UFVJM), Diamantina, Brazil 0 Views copyright © 2026 Leonan-Silva B. This is an open access peer review report 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. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline 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 Dear Authors, Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript, which presents a bibliometric analysis of clinical trials addressing treatments for temporomandibular disorders (TMD). The topic is relevant, and the manuscript provides a useful overview of research activity in this field over the past decade. However, several methodological and structural issues should be addressed to improve clarity, transparency, and the overall scientific contribution of the study. Below are specific comments and suggestions for improvement. 1. Search period and update of the literature The study aims to analyze publications from the last ten years, and the search was limited to the period 2014–2024. While the search date (October 2024) explains this timeframe, the manuscript is now being considered in a later publication context. Considering the rapidly expanding literature on TMD treatments, particularly in recent years, an update of the search to include 2025 and possibly early 2026 publications would strengthen the relevance and timeliness of the study. If updating the search is not feasible, the authors should clearly justify this limitation in the methods and discussion sections. 2. Structure and focus of the Introduction The Introduction currently presents several treatment modalities in a fragmented manner, with multiple paragraphs describing individual interventions (e.g., education, cognitive behavioral therapy, laser therapy, pharmacological approaches, injections, etc.). This structure weakens the narrative flow and partially overlaps with what should be explored in the Discussion. I suggest restructuring the Introduction to: provide a general overview of TMD management strategies, briefly mention the main categories of treatment, such as: conservative non-invasive therapies, pharmacological management, minimally invasive procedures, surgical interventions. Specific therapies could then be explored more thoroughly in the Discussion, particularly when interpreting the bibliometric findings. 3. Terminology regarding TMD etiology The Introduction states that the etiology of TMD is “probably multifactorial and biopsychosocial.” However, current scientific consensus generally recognizes TMD as a multifactorial and biopsychosocial condition, rather than a hypothetical assumption. Revising this wording would improve conceptual accuracy. 4. Transparency of the study selection process Although this study is a bibliometric analysis rather than a systematic review, the flow diagram describing the selection process lacks sufficient transparency. The transition between the initially identified records and the final sample of included articles is not clearly explained. In particular, it would be helpful to indicate: how many articles were excluded after title/abstract screening, how many were excluded after full-text assessment, the reasons for exclusion at each stage. Providing these details would improve methodological transparency and reproducibility. 5. Search strategy and study design restrictions The search strategy appears to restrict the results to clinical trials or randomized clinical trials. This methodological decision should be clarified and justified. Bibliometric studies often aim to capture broader patterns in the literature, and limiting the search exclusively to clinical trials may exclude relevant research on TMD treatments. The authors should explain the rationale for this restriction and discuss its potential impact on the interpretation of the results. 6. Interpretation of treatment-related findings The manuscript identifies the most frequently studied treatment modalities in the analyzed literature. However, the discussion could be strengthened by exploring the clinical implications of these findings in greater depth. For example, when discussing treatments such as occlusal splints or photobiomodulation, it would be valuable to consider: whether their high frequency reflects greater clinical effectiveness, whether they are typically used as isolated therapies or as part of multimodal management, whether there are controversies or conflicting findings in the literature. This type of analysis would help connect the bibliometric results with clinical relevance and evidence-based practice. 7. Integration between bibliometric findings and clinical context Finally, the discussion could benefit from a more explicit connection between the bibliometric trends identified and the current clinical understanding of TMD management. For instance, contemporary guidelines often emphasize multimodal and conservative approaches, including patient education, behavioral strategies, physiotherapy, and splint therapy. Reflecting on whether the bibliometric patterns align with these clinical principles would add interpretative depth to the study. The manuscript addresses an important topic and provides a valuable overview of research trends in TMD treatment. However, improvements in methodological transparency, conceptual clarity, and discussion depth are necessary to strengthen the contribution of the study. I encourage the authors to address the points raised above to enhance the clarity and impact of the manuscript. Is the topic of the review discussed comprehensively in the context of the current literature? Partly Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations? Partly Is the review written in accessible language? Yes Are the conclusions drawn appropriate in the context of the current research literature? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise TMDs, Bruxism, Epidemiology 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. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 23 Mar 2026 Franz Tito Coronel-Zubiate, Faculty of Health Sciences, Stomatology School, Universidad Nacional Toribio Rodríguez de Mendoza de Amaazonas, Chachapoyas, 01001, Peru We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive and valuable comments. We have revised the manuscript accordingly and believe that these suggestions have significantly improved the clarity and quality of the paper. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each comment. All modifications have been incorporated into the revised manuscript. Comment 1: 1. Search period and update of the literature The study aims to analyze publications from the last ten years, and the search was limited to the period 2014–2024. While the search date (October 2024) explains this timeframe, the manuscript is now being considered in a later publication context. Considering the rapidly expanding literature on TMD treatments, particularly in recent years, an update of the search to include 2025 and possibly early 2026 publications would strengthen the relevance and timeliness of the study. If updating the search is not feasible, the authors should clearly justify this limitation in the methods and discussion sections. Response: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. The search period (2014–2024) was predefined because the bibliometric analysis was designed using a standardized 10-year time window, and the data collection was completed in October 2024. Updating the search to include 2025–2026 publications would modify the dataset and affect the reproducibility and comparability of the bibliometric mapping. To clarify this point, we have added an explicit justification in the Methods section and expanded the limitation statement in the Discussion, acknowledging that recently published studies may not have been included and that periodic updates are recommended. Comment 2: 2. Structure and focus of the Introduction The Introduction currently presents several treatment modalities in a fragmented manner, with multiple paragraphs describing individual interventions (e.g., education, cognitive behavioral therapy, laser therapy, pharmacological approaches, injections, etc.). This structure weakens the narrative flow and partially overlaps with what should be explored in the Discussion. I suggest restructuring the Introduction to: provide a general overview of TMD management strategies, briefly mention the main categories of treatment, such as: conservative non-invasive therapies, pharmacological management, minimally invasive procedures, surgical interventions. Specific therapies could then be explored more thoroughly in the Discussion, particularly when interpreting the bibliometric findings. Response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. Following the recommendation, the Introduction has been reorganized to provide a clearer overview of TMD management strategies. Treatment approaches are now presented using a hierarchical structure, grouping them into four main categories: conservative non-invasive therapies, pharmacological management, minimally invasive procedures, and invasive surgical interventions. The individual therapies are still briefly described to provide clinical context, but the narrative flow has been improved to avoid fragmentation and to better distinguish the background section from the Discussion. Comment 3: 3. Terminology regarding TMD etiology The Introduction states that the etiology of TMD is “probably multifactorial and biopsychosocial.” However, current scientific consensus generally recognizes TMD as a multifactorial and biopsychosocial condition, rather than a hypothetical assumption. Revising this wording would improve conceptual accuracy. Response: We thank the reviewer for this important clarification. The wording has been revised to reflect the current scientific consensus that TMD has a multifactorial and biopsychosocial etiology, rather than presenting it as a hypothetical assumption. The corresponding sentence in the Introduction has been modified accordingly. Comment 4: 4. Transparency of the study selection process Although this study is a bibliometric analysis rather than a systematic review, the flow diagram describing the selection process lacks sufficient transparency. The transition between the initially identified records and the final sample of included articles is not clearly explained. In particular, it would be helpful to indicate: how many articles were excluded after title/abstract screening, how many were excluded after full-text assessment, the reasons for exclusion at each stage. Providing these details would improve methodological transparency and reproducibility. Response: We thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. The flow diagram has been revised to improve transparency in the selection process. The updated figure now shows the number of records removed before screening, the number assessed for eligibility, the number excluded after full-text evaluation, and the final number of included studies, together with the reasons for exclusion. In addition, the Methods section has been clarified to describe the selection process in detail. Comment 5: 5. Search strategy and study design restrictions The search strategy appears to restrict the results to clinical trials or randomized clinical trials. This methodological decision should be clarified and justified. Bibliometric studies often aim to capture broader patterns in the literature, and limiting the search exclusively to clinical trials may exclude relevant research on TMD treatments. The authors should explain the rationale for this restriction and discuss its potential impact on the interpretation of the results. Response: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. The search strategy was intentionally restricted to clinical trials and randomized clinical trials in order to focus the bibliometric analysis on studies evaluating therapeutic interventions with higher levels of clinical evidence. This approach allowed a more precise assessment of trends in treatment modalities for TMD. We agree that this restriction may exclude other types of publications, and this has now been clarified in both the Methods and Discussion sections as a methodological limitation. Comment 6: 6. Interpretation of treatment-related findings The manuscript identifies the most frequently studied treatment modalities in the analyzed literature. However, the discussion could be strengthened by exploring the clinical implications of these findings in greater depth. For example, when discussing treatments such as occlusal splints or photobiomodulation, it would be valuable to consider: whether their high frequency reflects greater clinical effectiveness, whether they are typically used as isolated therapies or as part of multimodal management, whether there are controversies or conflicting findings in the literature. This type of analysis would help connect the bibliometric results with clinical relevance and evidence-based practice. Response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. The Discussion has been expanded to better interpret the clinical implications of the bibliometric findings. We have clarified that the frequency of certain treatments in the literature does not necessarily reflect superior clinical effectiveness, and that many therapies are commonly used as part of multimodal management strategies rather than as isolated interventions. In addition, we have discussed the presence of controversies and variability in the literature, emphasizing the need to interpret bibliometric results in the context of evidence-based clinical practice. Comment 7: 7. Integration between bibliometric findings and clinical context Finally, the discussion could benefit from a more explicit connection between the bibliometric trends identified and the current clinical understanding of TMD management. For instance, contemporary guidelines often emphasize multimodal and conservative approaches, including patient education, behavioral strategies, physiotherapy, and splint therapy. Reflecting on whether the bibliometric patterns align with these clinical principles would add interpretative depth to the study. Response: We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. The Discussion has been expanded to better relate the bibliometric findings to the current clinical understanding of TMD management. A new paragraph has been added to explain that the predominance of conservative and minimally invasive treatments in the literature is consistent with contemporary clinical guidelines, which recommend a multimodal and reversible approach as first-line management. View more View less Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. reply Respond Report a concern Leonan-Silva B. Peer Review Report For: Dental publications on the treatment of temporomandibular disorders: A bibliometric analysis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :296 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.195404.r462665) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-296/v1#referee-response-462665 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Patra R. This is an open access peer review report 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. 04 Mar 2026 | for Version 1 Ramesh Patra , Lovely Professional University, Punjab, India 0 Views copyright © 2026 Patra R. This is an open access peer review report 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. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline 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 This manuscript presents a bibliometric analysis of clinical trial publications on the treatment of temporomandibular disorders (TMD) indexed in Scopus between 2014 and 2024. The authors analyzed 220 eligible articles and examined publication trends, treatment types, journals, institutional productivity, co-authorship networks, and keyword occurrence using Bibliometrix and VOSviewer. The study reports an increase in publications over time, highlights the predominance of conservative non-pharmacological treatments, and identifies Brazilian institutions as leading contributors. The topic is relevant and timely, and the use of bibliometric tools is appropriate. The inclusion of visual network analyses and public data availability are strengths. However, several issues require revision. Regarding accessibility, the manuscript is partly written in accessible language. While suitable for a specialist dental or bibliometric audience, it contains technical terminology (e.g., co-occurrence networks, H-index, quartile ranking) that may not be clear to broader readers. In addition, there are grammatical inconsistencies and terminology errors (e.g., “Crusader” instead of “Crossover”) that reduce clarity. The authors should define technical terms at first mention and undertake professional language editing. Regarding the conclusions, they are partly appropriate. The descriptive findings (e.g., increase in publication volume, dominance of conservative treatments) are supported by the data. However, some conclusions extend beyond what bibliometric analysis can support. Increased publication numbers do not necessarily indicate scientific progress or improved treatment protocols. The manuscript should avoid causal interpretations and limit conclusions strictly to publication trends rather than clinical effectiveness or quality of evidence. To make the article scientifically sound, the following points must be addressed: Revise the conclusions to avoid causal or clinical overreach and ensure they remain within the scope of bibliometric analysis. Correct factual inaccuracies and terminology errors. Improve language clarity and consistency through thorough editing. Expand the limitations section to discuss database restriction (Scopus only), search strategy constraints, and potential indexing bias. Strengthen the bibliometric analysis by including citation-based indicators (e.g., total citations, most cited articles, average citations per year) to support claims of influence and impact. In summary, the manuscript has a solid foundation and addresses an important topic, but it requires substantial revision in interpretation, analytical depth, and language clarity before it can be considered scientifically robust. Is the topic of the review discussed comprehensively in the context of the current literature? Partly Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations? Partly Is the review written in accessible language? Partly Are the conclusions drawn appropriate in the context of the current research literature? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Bibliometric research, oral health research, temporomandibular disorders (TMD), clinical trial methodology, evidence-based physical therapy, craniosacral therapy, and cranio-cervical osteopathic techniques. 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. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 23 Mar 2026 Franz Tito Coronel-Zubiate, Faculty of Health Sciences, Stomatology School, Universidad Nacional Toribio Rodríguez de Mendoza de Amaazonas, Chachapoyas, 01001, Peru We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the careful and constructive evaluation of our manuscript entitled “Dental publications on the treatment of temporomandibular disorders: A bibliometric analysis.” We greatly appreciate the positive assessment of the relevance of the topic, the appropriateness of the bibliometric tools, and the strengths of the visual network analyzes and data availability. We have carefully revised the manuscript in accordance with all the comments provided. In particular, we improved language clarity and consistency throughout the text, corrected terminology and factual inaccuracies, revised statements that could be interpreted as causal or clinically overreaching, expanded the limitations section, and strengthened the bibliometric analysis by incorporating citation-based indicators, including average citations per article, annual citation trends, and the most cited articles in the dataset. We also added brief explanations of technical bibliometric terms where appropriate to improve accessibility for a broader readership. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to the reviewer's main observations. Comment 1: Regarding accessibility, the manuscript is partly written in accessible language. While suitable for a specialist dental or bibliometric audience, it contains technical terminology (e.g., co-occurrence networks, H-index, quartile ranking) that may not be clear to broader readers. In addition, there are grammatical inconsistencies and terminology errors (e.g., “Crusader” instead of “Crossover”) that reduce clarity. The authors should define technical terms at first mention and undertake professional language editing. Response: Thank you for this important observation. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript to improve language clarity, consistency, and readability. Terminology errors were corrected, including the replacement of “Crusader” with “Crossover” in Table 1. In addition, technical bibliometric terms such as co-occurrence networks, H-index, and quartile ranking are now briefly explained at first mention to make the manuscript more accessible to non-specialist readers. The text was also carefully edited to correct grammatical inconsistencies and improve overall flow. Comment 2: Regarding the conclusions, they are partly appropriate. The descriptive findings (e.g., increase in publication volume, dominance of conservative treatments) are supported by the data. However, some conclusions extend beyond what bibliometric analysis can support. Increased publication numbers do not necessarily indicate scientific progress or improved treatment protocols. The manuscript should avoid causal interpretations and limit conclusions strictly to publication trends rather than clinical effectiveness or quality of evidence. Revise the conclusions to avoid causal or clinical overreach and ensure they remain within the scope of bibliometric analysis. Response: We agree with the reviewer and thank you for highlighting this important issue. The Abstract, Discussion, and Conclusion sections were revised to avoid causal or clinical overinterpretation. We now explicitly state that the findings describe publication patterns and bibliometric trends, rather than clinical efficacy, therapeutic superiority, or quality of evidence. Statements implying scientific or clinical progress were removed or reformulated to remain within the proper scope of bibliometric analysis. Comment 3: Correct factual inaccuracies and terminology errors. Response: Thank you. We reviewed the manuscript carefully and corrected factual and terminology-related issues identified during revision. This included typographical and wording corrections, standardization of terminology, correction of institutional names, and refinement of bibliometric expressions to improve scientific precision. Comment 4: Improve language clarity and consistency through thorough editing. Response: Thank you. We performed a comprehensive language review across the manuscript to improve clarity, grammar, sentence structure, and consistency of terminology. We also simplified several sentences and refined transitions between sections to make the text more readable. Comment 5: Expand the limitations section to discuss database restriction (Scopus only), search strategy constraints, and potential indexing bias. Response: We appreciate this suggestion and have expanded the Limitations section accordingly. The revised now manuscript explicitly acknowledges the exclusive use of the Scopus database, the possibility that some relevant studies indexed only in other databases may have been missed, the constraints associated with the selected search terms and filters, and the potential indexing bias related to database coverage. We also retained the limitations associated with self-citation exclusion and the time lag in citation accumulation and database indexing. Comment 6: Strengthen the bibliometric analysis by including citation-based indicators (e.g., total citations, most cited articles, average citations per year) to support claims of influence and impact. Response: Thank you for this valuable recommendation. We have strengthened the bibliometric analysis by incorporating citation-based indicators into the Results and Discussion sections. Specifically, we added the overall average citations per article, the annual trend of citation averages, and a description of the most cited articles in the dataset. We also included a new figure showing the longitudinal trend of annual citation averages and discussed these findings in the context of citation lag and bibliometric visibility. These additions provide a more robust assessment of scientific visibility and influence within the analyzed literature. Final response We are grateful for the reviewer's thoughtful comments, which significantly improved the rigor, clarity, and interpretive precision of the manuscript. We believe that the revised version now better reflects the scope and contribution of a bibliometric study and addresses all concerns raised. View more View less Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. reply Respond Report a concern Patra R. Peer Review Report For: Dental publications on the treatment of temporomandibular disorders: A bibliometric analysis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :296 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.195404.r462669) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-296/v1#referee-response-462669 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 Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy 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. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy 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. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Dental publications on the treatment of temporomandibular...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/15-296/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/15-296/v1&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/15-296/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Cruzado-Oliva FH et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/15-296/v1/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/15-296", templates : { twitter : "Dental publications on the treatment of temporomandibular disorders:.... Cruzado-Oliva FH et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/15-296/v1" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/177216/195404") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "195404"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "469895": 0, "462663": 0, "469894": 14, "462662": 0, "462661": 0, "462660": 0, "462669": 18, "462668": 0, "462667": 0, "462666": 0, "462665": 12, "462664": 0, "460703": 0, "460702": 0, "460701": 0, "475738": 0, "475737": 7, "475736": 0, "460710": 0, "460709": 0, "460708": 0, "460707": 0, "460706": 0, "460705": 0, "460704": 0, "470455": 0, "470454": 0, "470463": 0, "470462": 0, "470461": 0, "470460": 0, "470459": 0, "470458": 0, "470457": 4, "470456": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "91259216-fa7a-4762-ac80-d8801944fab7"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. 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 Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. 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... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });