A worldwide bibliometric analysis of the research trends and hotspots of bruxism in adults during 1991–2021
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: With the increasing attention to bruxism, the research on bruxism is increasing rapidly. However, there is still a lack of systematic bibliometric analysis in the field of bruxism in adults. This study aimed to comprehensively explore and visualize the global trends and research hotspots in the field of bruxism in adults during 1991-2021. METHODS: The study searched the literature published during 1991-2021 in the Web of Science Core Collection database without language restrictions. VOSviewer, CiteSpace and Microsoft Excel were applied to analyse the authors, institutions, journals, countries, cited references, keywords and other information of the included publications, and construct visualized cooperation networks. RESULTS: A total of 878 articles were finally included. The top two most productive authors in the past 30 years were Lobbezoo F and Manfredini D. ACTA-Amsterdam, Univ Sao Paulo, Univ Helsinki, Univ Padua, Univ Montreal, et al. were prominent institutions in this field. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation made outstanding contributions in this field. The United States produced the most documents in this field, followed by Brazil. Both countries and authors cooperated closely around the world. The two most cited articles focused on the definition, assessment and classification of bruxism. In recent years, diagnostic criteria and stress have begun to receive a lot of attention. CONCLUSION: From 1991 to 2021, the attention to bruxism in adults continued to increase. Diagnostic criteria and stress may be potential research hotspots in this field. This study references relevant scholars on development trends and research hotspots.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.180 | 0.260 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".