Growing Global Research Interest in Antimicrobial Peptides for Caries Management: A Bibliometric Analysis.

Objective: Researchers are studying the use of antimicrobial peptides as functional biomaterials to prevent and treat dental caries. This study aims to investigate the global research interest in antimicrobial peptides for caries management. Methods: Two independent investigators systematically searched with keywords ('Caries' OR 'Dental caries') AND ('Antimicrobial peptide' OR 'AMP' OR 'Statherin' OR 'Histatin' OR 'Defensin' OR 'Cathelicidin') on Web of Science, PubMed and Scopus. They removed duplicate publications and screened the titles and abstracts to identify relevant publications. The included publications were summarized and classified as laboratory studies, clinical trials or reviews. The citation count and citation density of the three publication types were compared using a one-way analysis of variance. The publications' bibliometric data were analyzed using the Bibliometrix program. Results: This study included 163 publications with 115 laboratory studies (71%), 29 clinical trials (18%) and 19 reviews (11%). The number of publications per year have increased steadily since 2002. The citation densities (mean ± SD) of laboratory study publications (3.67 ± 2.73) and clinical trial publications (2.63 ± 1.85) were less than that of review articles (5.79 ± 1.27) ( p = 0.002). The three publication types had no significant difference in citation count ( p = 0.54). Most publications (79%, 129/163) reported the development of a novel antimicrobial peptide. China (52/163, 32%) and the US (29/163, 18%) contributed to 50% (81/163) of the publications. Conclusion: This bibliometric analysis identified an increasing trend in global interest in antimicrobial peptides for caries management since 2002. The main research topic was the development of novel antimicrobial peptides. Most publications were laboratory studies, as were the three publications with the highest citation counts. Laboratory studies had high citation counts, whereas reviews had high citation density.