ReviewCureus2025
Evaluating Growth in Dry Socket Publications: A Bibliometric Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dry socket, a common postextraction complication, occurs when the blood clot in the tooth socket fails to form or is dislodged, leading to severe pain and delayed healing. This study aimed to analyze the publication trends and key features of dry socket research published from 1905 to 2024 worldwide. A quantitative bibliometric approach was employed to extract data from the Web of Science database. The search strategy included Topics = ("dry socket" OR "alveolar osteitis") and covered publications up to December 31, 2024. The search captured all types of documents to provide a comprehensive overview. The study analyzed and extracted several bibliometric parameters, including the classification of clinical versus nonclinical studies, level of evidence, trends in research, and citations over time, as well as information on the leading journals, countries, institutions, authors, and top keywords. Data analysis was conducted using Microsoft Excel (version 16, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA) and VOSviewer (version 1.6.10, Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, The Netherlands) software. Our search identified 713 documents, averaging 18.85 citations per publication. Most studies were clinical, and level 2 was the most frequently observed level of evidence. Approximately 82% of the publications were released in the past 24 years, from 2001 to 2024. Over one-third of the literature was published in the top 10 journals, with the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery being the most preferred. The United States produced the most research and had the highest citation impact. The Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences contributed the largest number of publications, while The University of Manchester had the highest citation impact. Majid Eshghpour was the most productive author. The most influential keywords identified were "dry socket", "alveolar osteitis", and "tooth extraction". This bibliometric study provides valuable insights into the evolving body of research on dry sockets, offering a clear picture of the leading topics, influential journals, and key contributors shaping this field. Future research efforts should continue to build on these findings, focusing on innovative clinical interventions, preventive measures, and further exploration of less studied areas.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.