15 Scientometric overview regarding the nanobiomaterials in dentistry










CHAPTER
15
Scientometric overview
regarding the
nanobiomaterials
in dentistry
Ozcan Konur
Department of Materials Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Yildirim
Beyazit University, Ankara, Turkey
15.1 OVERVIEW
15.1.1 ISSUES
Dental research has been one of the most dynamic research fields in recent years
with significant impact on the medical and biochemical research with nearly
280,000 papers as indexed by the Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCIE) as of
November 2014. The large sample size of the dental research shows the public
importance of dentistry (e.g.,
Bonewald 2011; Hoppe et al., 2011; Komori et al.,
1997a,b; Nakashima et al., 2011
; Xiong et al., 2011; Yasuda et al., 1998).
Similarly, nanomaterials have been one of the most dynamic research fields in
recent years, with significant impact on medical and biochemical research, with
over 1,000,000 papers as indexed by the SCIE as of November 2014 (e.g.,
Geim
and Novosel ov, 2007
; He et al., 2012 ; Iijima, 1991 ; Qi and Zhang, 2011;
Radisavljevic et al., 2011; Yella et al., 2011).
At the intersection of the research on dentistry and nanomaterials, dental
nanobiomaterials have been one of the most dynamic research fields in recent
years with significant impact on the medical research with over 4700 papers as
indexed by the SCIE as of November 2014 (e.g.,
Gao et al., 2 003; Gittens et al.,
2011
; Webster et al., 1999, 2000a,b; Zhao et al., 2011; Zhou and Lee, 2011).
There have been many scientometric studies in nanomaterials (e.g.,
Hullmann
and Meyer, 2003
; Kostoff et al., 2006; Meyer and Persson, 1998; Porter et al.,
2008
) and a limited number of scientometric studies in nanobiomaterials
(e.g.,
Chen and Guan, 2011; Rafols and Meyer, 2007, 2010; Takeda et al., 2009).
The same is true for the bibliometric studies in dental research as there were a
425
Nanobiomaterials in Dentistry. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-42867-5.00007-2
© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

relatively large number of scientometric studies in this field (e.g., Fardi et al.,
2011
; Gil-Montoya et al., 2006; Kawamura et al., 1999; Robert et al., 2008).
However, there has not been any scientometric study in dental nanobiomaterials,
including the studies on the citation classics in dental nanobiomaterials as of
November 2014 as in the other research fields (e.g.,
Baltussen and Kindler, 2004a,b;
Dubin et al., 1993
; Gehanno et al., 2007; Konur, 2011, 2012an, 2013, 2014,
2015am, 2016ag; Paladugu et al., 2002
; Wrigley and Matthews, 1986).
As North’s New Institutional Theory suggests, it is important to have
up-to-date inf ormation about the current public policy issues to develop a set of
viable solutions to satisfy the needs of all the key stakeholders (
North, 1994;
Konur, 2000, 2002ac, 2006a,b, 2007a,b, 2012o,p).
Therefore, follow ing a scientometric overview of the research in dentistry
and nanomaterials as well as dental nanobiomaterials, b rief information on a
selected set of 25 citat ion classics in the field of the dental nanobiomaterials is
presented in this chapter to inform the key stakeholders about the influential
papers in this dynamic research field as t he first-ever study of its kind, com-
plementing seven other papers relatin g to the citation classics and hottest
papers in surface engineering of nanobiomaterials, nanobiodrugs, antimicrobial
nanobiomaterials, dental nanobiomaterials, and anticancer nanobiomaterials
(
Konur, 2016ag).
It is found that the major research areas in dental nanobiomaterials were dental
nanobiomaterials in teeth, dentin, and enamel as well as dental nano-osteoblasts
and dental nanoimplants.
The citation classics in dental nanobiomaterials deal with the important health
issues from a public perspective. Hence, the research in dental nanobiomaterials
has strong public policy implications providing strong incentives for the key
stakeholders involved in dental nanobiomaterials research (e.g.,
Manski et al., 2001;
Morris and Burke, 2001; Wamala et al., 2006; Watt and Sheiham, 1999).
15.1.2 METHODOLOGY
A search on dental nanobiomaterials was carried out in the Science Citation Index
(SCI), SCIE, and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSC I) databases (version 5.15)
in November 2014 to locate papers relating to dental nanobiomaterials using the
keyword sets of [TS 5 (
nano
or
graphene
or “quantum
dot
”or
fullerene
)
and TS 5 (
dental or
dentist
or
tooth
or
teeth
)] and [TS 5 (
nano
or
graphene
or “quantum
dot
”or
fullerene
) and WC 5 (dentistry
)] in the
abstract pages of papers.
It should be noted that the abstract pages of papers published before 1991 did
not contain abstracts and keywords, strongly affecting the search outcomes.
The key bibliometric data were extracted from this search for the overview
of the dental nanobiomaterials literature. It was necessary to focus on the key
references by selecting articles and reviews.
The located highly cited 25 papers were arranged in order of decreasing
number of citations. The summary information about the located citation classics
426 CHAPTER 15 Scientometric overview regarding the nanobiomaterials

is presented in the order of decreasing number of citations for the arranged topical
areas, respectively.
The information relating to the document type, affiliation of the authors, the
number and gender of the authors, the country of the authors, the journal where
the paper was published, the subject area of the journal where the paper was
indexed, the concise topic of the paper, and total number of citations received for
the paper for both the Web of Science and Google Scholar databases are given in
tables for each paper.
Additionally, two searches were carried out in the SCIE and SSCI databases
(version 5.15) in November 2014 to locate the papers relating to dentistry in
general and nanomaterials in general using the keyword sets of [TS 5 (dentin
or
enamel
or osteoblast
or teeth or dental or dentistry or bioceramic
or “bio
ceramic
”) or WC 5 (dentistry
)] and [TS 5 (
graphene
or
nano
or
fullerene
or “quantum
dot
”)], respectively in the abstract pages of the papers.
It should be noted that the abstract pages of the papers published before 1991
did not contain abstracts and keywords, strongly affecting the search outcomes.
The data were used to provide a scientometric overview of these research areas to
supplement the key research on the dental nanobiomaterials.
15.1.3 DENTAL RESEARCH: OVERVIEW
Using the keywords related to dentistry, 416,211 references were located. A total
of 280,237 of these references were articles and reviews. Meeting abstracts,
letters, and editorial materials formed the remaining part of the sample, among
other items. This finding suggests that the field of dentistry has been a specialized
field of research with a relatively large sample size and with a specific set of
shareholders such as authors, institutions, and countries, etc. The large sample
size of the dental research also shows the public importance of dentistry
(e.g.,
Bonewald, 2011; Hoppe et al., 2011; Komori et al., 1997a,b; Nakashima
et al., 2011
; Xiong et al., 2011; Yasuda et al., 1998).
The three most prolific authors, Pashley, D.H., Wang, Y., and Sculy, A.,
produced 534, 469, and 455 papers, respectively. The list of the mos t prolific
authors was dominated by Asian, European, and US authors.
The most prolific country in terms of the number of publications was the
United States with 86,723 papers forming 30.9% of the sample. Japan, England,
and Germany followed the United States with 9.4%, 8.4%, and 5.8% of the
sample, respectively. Europe dominated the most prolific country list. China was
behind Germany with a 4.8% publication rate.
English was the dominant language of scientific communication in dentistry,
comprising 97.3% of the sample.
The most prolific institution was the “University of Sao Paulo” of Brazil with
4673 papers. “Harvard University” of the United States, “University College London”
(UCL) of England, and “University of Michigan” of the United States followed the
most prolific institution with 4353, 3958, and 3596 papers, respectively. The US and
European institutions dominated the most prolific institution list.
42715.1 Overview

Unlike nano research, dental research has been in existence since the 1980s.
There was a general increasing trend in the number of papers over time, starting
with 2887 papers in 1980 and making a peak with 17,870 papers in 2013.
The research in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s formed 12.5%, 21.1%,
34.5%, and 29.2% of the sample, respectively. T he number of publications
fluctuated between 3000 and 18,000 between 1980 and 2013 with a continuing
increasing exponential trend.
The most prolific journal in terms of the number of publications was “Journal
of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery” publishing 8443 papers. “Journal of Prosthetic
Dentistry,” “Journal of Periodontology,” and “Journal of Dental Research”
followed the top journal with 7949 , 6114, and, 6021 papers, respectively. It is
notable that the contribution of the dental journals as in the case of the top four
most prolific journals to research in dentistry was significant. Unlike the nano
research, the journals in the subject categories of other health sciences contributed
insignificantly to the literature on dentistry at the top list.
The most prolific subject category in terms of the number of publications was
“Dentistry Oral Surgery Medicine” publishing 163,869 papers, formi ng 58.5% of
the sample. “Surgery,” “Materials Science Biomaterials,” and “Engineering
Biomedical” followed the top subject category with 5.9%, 4.8%, and 4.5% of the
sample, respectively. These findings suggest that these top four subject categories
share a common set of journals where a journal was indexed under more than one
subject category.
It is also notable that health sciences and biochemistry dominated the top
subject list. Perhaps the most interesting finding from these data is that the dental
research was also significantly published in the journals outside the subject
category of “Dentistry Oral Surgery Medicine,” justifying the additional keyword
search in addition to the subject category search and providing further evidence
for the public importance of dentistry.
The most cited papers in dentistry were dominated by bioceramics and
osteoblasts. For example,
Hench (1991) discusses bioceramics with 24 58
citations. This top paper was followed by
Yasuda et al. (1998) and Komori et al.
(1997a,b), focusing on osteoblasts and osteoclasts with 2326, 2305, and 2305
citations, respectively.
There was a similar trend for the hottest papers published in the last 4 years
between 2011 and 2014. For example, the hottest paper with 260 citations was
related to osteocytes (
Bonewald, 2011). Hoppe et al. (2011), Nakashima et al.
(2011)
, and Xiong et al. (2011) followed the hottest paper, focusing mostly on
osteoblasts and osteoclasts with 260, 220, and 213 citations, respectively.
15.1.4 NANOMATERIAL RESEARCH: OVERVIEW
Using the keywords related to nanomaterials, 1,088,250 references were located.
Of these references 1,024,523 were articles and reviews. Meeting abstracts, notes,
letters, and editorial materials formed the remaining part of the sample among
428 CHAPTER 15 Scientometric overview regarding the nanobiomaterials

other items. This finding suggests that the field of nanomaterials has been
a specialized field of research with absolutely a large sample size and with a
specific set of shareholders such as authors, institutions, and countries, etc.
The three most prolific authors, Y. Zhang, Y. Wang, and Y. Liu, produced
4797, 4710, and 4579 papers, respectively. The list of the most prolific authors
was dominated by Chinese and US authors.
The most prolific country in terms of the number of publications was the
United States with 235,267 papers forming 23.0% of the sample. China, Japan,
and Germany followed the United States with 21.6%, 8.7%, and 8.0% of the sam-
ple, respectively. Europe dominated the most prolific country list. It is surprising
that China followed closely the most prolific country, the United States, with only
a small difference of percentage of the papers. The top listing of Japan was also
remarkable with the semina l paper by Iijima on the nanomaterials emerging from
Japan in 1991 (
Iijima, 1991).
English was the dominant language of scientific communication in nanomaterials,
comprising 98.0% of the sample.
The most pro lific institution was the “Chinese Academy of Sciences” (CA S)
of China with 44,292 papers. The “National Centre for Scientific Research”
(CNRS) of France, “United State s Depar tment of Energy” ( DOE) of the United
States, and “Russian Academy of Scie nces” (RAS) of Russia followe d the most
prolific institution, CAS, with 33,309, 25,746, and 21,505 papers, respectively.
The US, Chinese , a nd European institutions dominated the most prolific
institution list.
The nanomaterial research has largely boomed since 2000, comprising 91.6%
of the sample with the seminal paper on the nanomaterials by Iijima in 1991
(
Iijima, 1991). The research in the 1980s focused on fullerenes, then focusing on
nanomaterials. There was a general increasing trend in the number of papers
over time starting with 303 papers in 1980 and making a peak with 119,761
papers in 2013. The research in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s formed
0.6%, 7.8%, 40.9%, and 50.7% of the sample, respectively, with a significant
rise (nearly three times rise) in 1991, possibly due to the inclusion of the
abstracts in the abstract pages of the indices. The number of publications ranged
between 4000 and 120,000 between 1991 and 2013 w ith a continuing increasing
exponential trend.
The most prolific journal in terms of the number of publications was
“Materials Scie nce and Engineering A: Structural Materials Properties
Microstructure and Processing” publishing 24,821 papers. “Applied Physics
Letters,” “Journal of Physical Chemistry C,” and “Physical Review B” followed
the top journal with 23,977, 23,920, and, 21,680 papers, respectively. It is
notable that the contribution of the nanoscience and technology journals, such as
“Nanotechnology” and “Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology,” t o the
research in nanomaterials was relatively significant.
The most prolific subject category in terms of the number of publications was
“Materials Science Multidisciplinary” with 328,542 papers, forming 32.9% of the
42915.1 Overview

sample. “Nanoscience Nanotechnology,” “Physics Applied,” and “Chemistry
Physical” followed the top subject category with 24.2%, 22.8%, and 19.3% of the
sample, respectively. These findings suggest that these top four subject categories
share a common set of journals where a journal was indexed under more than
one subject category. It is also notable that materials sciences dominated the top
subject list.
The most cited papers in nanomaterials were dominated by carbon nanotubes,
graphene, and solar nanomaterials. For example,
Iijima (1991) discusses carbon
nanomaterials in a seminal paper with 23,149 citations. This top paper was
followed by
Novoselov et al. (2004), Oregan and Gratzel (1991), and Geim and
Novoselov (2007)
focusing on graphene, dye-sensitized solar cells, and graphene
with over 15,574, 13,120, and 11,197 citations each, respectively.
There was a similar trend for the hottest papers in nanomaterials published
in the last 4 years between 2011 and 2014. For example, the hottest paper with
2211 citations was related to porphyrin-sensitized solar cells (
Yella et al., 2011).
Qi and Zhang (2011) ; Radisavljevic et al. (2011), and He et al. (2012) followed
the hottest paper focusing on topological insulators and superconductors, transis-
tors, and polymer solar cells, respectively, with 1609, 1260, and 1053 citations,
respectively.
It should be noted that this scientometric overview of the research on
nanomaterials is common to the other sister papers: citation classics in surface
engineering of nanobiomaterials, nanobiodrugs, antimicrobial nanobiomaterials,
and anticancer nanobiomaterial s (
Konur, submitted, 2016ag).
15.1.5 RESEARCH ON THE DENTAL NANOBIOMATERIALS:
OVERVIEW
Using the keywords related to dental nanobiomaterials, 6301 references were
located; 4709 of these references were articles and reviews. Meeting abstracts,
letters, and editorial materials formed the remaining part of the sample, among
other items. This finding suggests that the field of dental nanobioma terials has
been a specialized field of research with a relatively small sample size and with
a specific set of shareh olders such as authors, institutions, countries, etc.
The three most prolific authors, F.R. Tay, D.H. Pashley, and J. Tagami,
produced 95, 94, and 69 papers, respectively. The list of the most prolific authors
was dominated by European and US authors.
The most prolific country in terms of the number of publications was
the United States with 1 404 papers forming 29 .8% of the sample. China,
Japan, and Germany followed the United States with 14.5%, 8.9%, and 8.9%
of the sample, respectively. It seems that China, and to a lesser degree Japan
and Germany, competed strongly with the most prolific co untry in terms of
the n umber of publications in this field. Europe dominated the most prolific
country list.
430 CHAPTER 15 Scientometric overview regarding the nanobiomaterials

English was the dominant language of scientific communication in dental
nanobiomaterials with 98.8% of the sample.
The most prolific institution was the “Georgia Regents University” of the
United States with 118 papers. “University of Sao Paulo” of Brazil, “Tokyo
Medical Dental University” of Japan, and the “United States Department of
Energy” (DOE) of the United States followed the most prolific institution with
95, 93, and 83 papers, respectively. The US and Asian institutions dominated the
most prolific institution list.
Like the nano research booming after 2000, dental nanobiomaterials research
boomed in the 2000s and 2010s, comprising 96.4% of the sample during these
periods. There was a general increasing trend in the number of papers over time
starting with just three papers in 1980 and making a peak with 620 papers in
2013. The research in the 1980s, 1990s, 200 0s, and 2010s formed 0.1%, 3.3%,
37.5%, and 58.9% of the sample, with a significant rise. The number of publica-
tions fluctuated between 60 and 600 between 2000 and 2014 with a continuing
increasing exponential trend.
The most prolific journal in terms of the nu mber of publications was “Dental
Materials” publishing 282 papers. “Journal of Dental Research,” “Journal of
Dentistry,” and “Operative Dentistry” followed the top journal with 191, 150,
and 128 papers, respectively. It is notable that the contribution of the dental
journals to the research in dental nanobiomaterials was relative ly significant.
The journals in the subject category of “Materials Science” and “Nanoscience
Nanotechnology” also made relatively significant contributions to dental nanobio-
materials research.
The mos t prolific subject category in terms of the number of publications
was “Dentistry Oral Surgery Medicine” with 1811 papers, forming 38.5% of the
sample. “Materials Science Biomaterials,” “Materials Science Multidisciplinary,”
and “Engineering Biomedical” followed the top subject category with 19.2%,
14.0%, and 12.6% of the sample, respectively. These findings suggest that these
top four subject categories share a common set of journals where a journal was
indexed under more than one subject category.
It is also notable that Health Sciences and Materials Science dominated the
top subject list. These data also provide further evidence on the multidisciplinarity
of the researc h on the dental nanobiomaterials ranging from “Dentistry Oral
Surgery Medicine” to “Nanoscience Nanote chnology.”
The most cited papers in dental nanobiomaterials were dominated by the teeth,
dentin, enamel, implants, and osteoblasts. For example,
Webster et al. (2000a)
discuss osteoblasts and nanophase ceramics with 692 citations. This top paper
was followed by
Gao et al. (2003), Webster et al. (2000b), and Webster et al.
(1999)
with 631, 561, and 535 citations, respectively: nanomaterials, osteoblast
adhesion, and nanophase ceramics.
There was a similar trend for the hottest papers published in the last 4 years
between 2011 and 2014. For example, the hottest paper with 140 citations was
related to the nanohydroxyapatite for bone tissue engineering (
Zhou and Lee, 2011).
43115.1 Overview

Weir et al. (2012), Zhao et al. (2011),andGittens et al. (2011) followed the
hottest paper with 136, 132, and 97 citations, respectively: titanium dioxide nanopar-
ticles, antibacterial nanostructured titania coatings, and cell proliferation and
differentiation.
In the following sections, brief information on the most cited papers will
be provided in five major topical parts: dental nanobiomaterials in teeth, dental
nanobiomaterials in dentin, dental nanoimplants, dental nano-osteoblasts, and
dental nanobiomaterials in enamel.
15.2 DENTAL NANOBIOMATERIALS IN TEETH
15.2.1 OVERVIEW
The research on dental nanobiomaterials in teeth has been one of the most
dynamic research areas in dental nanobiomaterials in recent years, with eight cita-
tion classics. These citation classics, with more than 217 citations, were located
and the key emerging issues from these papers are presented below in decreasing
order of the number of citations (
Table 15.1).
The papers were dominated by researchers from only seven countries, usually
through intracountry institutional collabo ration and they were multiauthored.
The number of authors for the papers ranged from 2 to 10. The United States
was the most prolific country with three papers, followed by Germany with two
papers, showing the dominance of these countries.
“Max Planck Research Institute” of Germany was the most prolific institution
with two citation classics.
Similarly, all these papers were published in the journals indexed by the SCI
and/or SCIE. There was no paper indexed by the SSCI. The number of citations
ranged from 217 to 631 for the Web of Science and from 301 to 850 for the
Google Scholar databases.
The papers were published mostly during the 2000s, suggesting that research
on nanoparticle dental nanobiomaterials in teeth gained the attention of the
research community in the 2000s.
There was a significant gender deficit among the most cited papers in
nanoparticle dental nanobiomaterials as there were only three papers with
a female first author out of eight papers. On the other hand, only three of the
papers were reviews, whereas the others were articles.
It is significant that most of the journals where these citation classics were
published had high citation impacts. “Nano Letters” was the most prolific journal
with three citation classics.
The most prolific subjects were “Engineering Biomedical,” “Materials Science
Biomaterials,” and “Multidi sciplinary Sciences” with two papers each, showing
the multidisciplinarity of the research in this field.
432 CHAPTER 15 Scientometric overview regarding the nanobiomaterials

Table 15.1 The Citation Classics in Dental Nanobiomaterials in Teeth
No. Paper Ref. Year Doc. Affil. Country
No.
Authors M/F Journal
Subject
Area Topic
Total No.
Citations
WN
Total No.
Citations
GS
2 Gao et al. 2003 A Max Planck Inst.
Met. Res., Univ.
Leoben
Germany,
Austria
5 M Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci.
U.S.A.
Mult. Sci. Fracture
sensitivity of
nanobiomaterials
631 850
5 Bunker et al. 1994 A Pacific NW Lab. US 10 M Science Mult. Sci. Ceramic thin-film
formation
470 601
8 Vallet-Regi
and
Gonzalez-
Calbet
2004 R Univ.
Complutense
Spain 2 F Prog. Solid
State
Chem.
Chem.
Inorg. Nucl.
Calcium
phosphates for
bone tissues
354 558
10 Ji and Gao 2004 A Max Planck Inst.
Met. Res.
Germany 2 M J. Mech.
Phys.
Solids
Mats. Sci.
Mult.,
Mechs. 11
Mechanical
properties of
nanobiomaterials
292 388
12 Moszner
and Salz
2001 R Ivoclar AG Liechtenstein 2 M Prog.
Polym.
Polym. Sci. Polymeric dental
composites
282 418
19 Price et al. 2003 A Purdue Univ.,
Univ. Nebraska
US 4 F Biomaterials Eng.
Biomed.,
Mats. Sci.
Biomats.
Bone cell
adhesion on
carbon
nanofibers
226 339
22 Mitra et al. 2003 A 3M Co. US 3 F J. Am.
Dent.
Assoc.
Dent. Oral
Surg. Med.
Advanced dental
nanobiomaterials
221 563
23 Zhang et al. 2005 R Tongji Univ., Natl.
Univ. Singapore
China,
Singapore
4 M J. Mater.
Sci. Mater.
Eng.
Biomed.,
Mats. Sci.
Biomats.
Polymer
nanobiofibers
217 301
A, Article; R, Review; M, Male; F, Female; WK, Web of Knowledge; GS, Google Scholar.

The citation classics in nanoparticle dental nanobiomaterials in teeth deal with
the important research issues with strong public policy implications. The researched
topics include nanomaterials insensitive to flaws, ceramic thin-film formation,
calcium phosphates, nanostructure of biological materials, polymeric dental
composites, bone cell adhesion, dental nanomaterials, and polymer nanofibers.
15.2.2 THE MOST CITED PAPERS IN DENTAL NANOBIOMATERIALS
IN TEETH
Gao et al. (2003) discuss fracture sensitivity of natural nanocomposites in a paper
originating from Germany and Austria with 631 citations. They show that the
natural nanocomposites exhibit a generic mechanical structure in which the
nanomineral particles ensure optimum strength and maximum tolerance of flaws.
They further show that the concept of stress concentration at flaws is no longer
valid for nanomaterial design.
Bunker et al. (1994) discuss the ceramic thin-film formation on functionalized
interfaces through biomimetic processing in a paper originating from the United
States with 470 citations. They note that surface functional ization routes have
been developed by the mimicking of schemes used by organisms to produce
complex ceramic composites, such as teeth, bones, and shells. High-quality, dense
polycrystalline films of oxides, hydroxides, and sulfides have now been prepared
from “biomimetic” synthesis techniques. They conclude that the process is well
suited to the production of organicinorganic composites.
Vallet-Regi and Gonzalez-Calbet (2004) discuss the calcium phosphates as
substitution of bone tissues in a review paper originating from the Unite d States
with 354 citations. They argue that it is important to analyze firstly the biological
calcium phosphates as components of natural hard tissues, that is, bone and teeth,
and then look for synthetic methods able to produce calcium-deficient carbonate
apatites with nanometric size. They describe the synthesis procedures to obtain
calcium-deficient carbonate nanoapatite in the laboratory, both in bulk and thin-
film forms, as well as the characterization methods applied to these materials,
with particular incidence in the electron microscopy.
Ji and Gao (2004) discuss the mechani cal properties of proteinmineral nano-
composites in a paper originating from Germany with 292 citatio ns. They find
that large aspect ratios and a staggered alignment of mineral platelets are the key
factors contributing to the large stiffness of biomaterials, and the strength of
biomaterials hinges upon optimizing the tensile strength of the mineral crystals.
They argue that the optimized tensile strength of mi neral crystals thus allows a
large amount of fracture energy to be dissipated in protein via shear deformation
and consequently enhances the fracture toughness of biocomposites.
Moszner and Salz (2001) discuss the polymeric dental composites in a review
paper originating from Liechtenstein with 282 citations. They note that new
developments of polymeric composites for restorative filling materials are mainly
434 CHAPTER 15 Scientometric overview regarding the nanobiomaterials

focused on the reduction of polymerization shrinkage, and improvement of
biocompatibility, wear resistance and processing properties. This can be partially
achieved by using new tailor-made monomers and optimized filler particles.
Price et al. (2003) discuss bone cell adhesion in a paper originating from the
United States with 226 citations. They find that carbon nanofibers promoted
osteoblast adhesion, while the adhesion of other cells was not influenced by
carbon fiber dimensions. They further find that smooth muscle cell, fibroblast,
and chondrocyte adhesion decreased with an increase in either carbon nanofiber
surface energy or simultaneous change in carbon nanofiber chemistry. They
finally find that greater weight percentages of high surface energy carbon
nanofibers in the polycarbonate urethane/carbon nanofiber composite increased
osteoblast adhesion while at the same time decreasing fibroblast adhesion.
Mitra et al. (2003) discuss the dental nanoco mposites in a paper originating
from the United States with 221 citations. They find that the dental nanocompo-
sites showed high translucency, high polish, and polish retention similar to those
of microfills, while maintaining physical properties and wear resistance equivalent
to those of several hybrid composites. They recommend that the strength and
esthetic properties of the polymer-based nanocomposite tested should allow the
clinician to use it for both anterior and posterior restorations.
Zhang et al. (2005) discuss the polymer nanofibers for biomedical and biotech-
nological applications in a review paper originating from China and Singapore with
217 citations. They focus on tissue engineering, controlled drug release, wound
dressings, medical implants, nanocomposites for dental restoration, molecular
separation, biosensors, and preservation of bioactive agents.
15.3 DENTAL NANOBIOMATERIALS IN DENTIN
15.3.1 OVERVIEW
Besides the nanoparticle dental nanobiomaterials in teeth, the research on dental
nanobiomaterials in dentin has been one of the most dynamic research areas in
dental nanobiomaterials with six citation classics in recent years. These citation
classics, with more than 214 citations, were located and the key emerging issues
from these papers are presented below in decreasing order of the number of
citations (
Table 15.2).
The papers were dominated by researchers from only six countries, usually
through the intracountry institutional collaboration and they were multiauthored.
The number of authors for the papers ranged from two to seven. The United
States was the most prolific country with four papers, showing the clear domi-
nance of this country as the global leader in this field. Japan and China on the
other hand had two papers each. “University of Hong Kong” of China and
“Medical College of Georgia” of the United States (two papers each) were the
most prolific institutions.
43515.3 Dental Nanobiomaterials in Dentin

Table 15.2 The Citation Classics in Dental Nanobiomaterials in Dentin
No. Paper Ref. Year Doc. Affil. Country
No.
Authors M/F Journal
Subject
Area Topic
Total No.
Citations
WN
Total No.
Citations
GS
7 Sano et al. 1995a A Univ. Geneva
12
Switzerland,
US, Japan
6 M Oper.
Dent.
Dent. Oral
Surg. Med.
Nanoleakage 391 618
9 Tay et al. 2002 A Med. Coll.
Georgia, Univ.
Hong Kong
11
US, China,
Japan
3 M J. Dent.
Res.
Dent. Oral
Surg. Med.
Nanoleakage
in single-step
adhesives
317 443
11 Breschi
et al.
2008 R Univ. Trieste,
Univ. Bologna
Italy 6 M Dent.
Mater.
Dent. Oral
Surg. Med.,
Mats. Sci.
Biomats.
Dental
adhesion
285 527
13 Van
Meerbeek
et al.
1993 A Katholieke
Univ. Leuven,
Univ. Antwerp
Belgium 7 M J. Dent.
Res.
Dent. Oral
Surg. Med.
Resin-dentin
bonding area
278 397
20 He et al. 2003 A Univ. Illinois,
Northwestern
Univ.
US 2 M Nat.
Mater.
Chem.
Phys., Mats.
Sci. Mult.
12
Nucleation of
apatite
crystals
in vitro
225 302
24 Tay and
Pashley
2003 A Univ. Hong
Kong, Med.
Coll. Georgia
China, US 2 M Am. J.
Dent.
Dent. Oral
Surg. Med.
Water treeing
for
degradation
of dentin
adhesives
214 329
A, Article; R, Review; M, Male; F, Female; WK, Web of Knowledge; GS, Google Scholar.

You're Reading a Preview

Become a DentistryKey membership for Full access and enjoy Unlimited articles

Become membership

If you are a member. Log in here

Was this article helpful?

CHAPTER15Scientometric overviewregarding thenanobiomaterialsin dentistryOzcan KonurDepartment of Materials Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, YildirimBeyazit University, Ankara, Turkey15.1 OVERVIEW15.1.1 ISSUESDental research has been one of the most dynamic research fields in recent yearswith significant impact on the medical and biochemical research with nearly280,000 papers as indexed by the Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCIE) as ofNovember 2014. The large sample size of the dental research shows the publicimportance of dentistry (e.g.,Bonewald 2011; Hoppe et al., 2011; Komori et al.,1997a,b; Nakashima et al., 2011; Xiong et al., 2011; Yasuda et al., 1998).Similarly, nanomaterials have been one of the most dynamic research fields inrecent years, with significant impact on medical and biochemical research, withover 1,000,000 papers as indexed by the SCIE as of November 2014 (e.g.,Geimand Novosel ov, 2007; He et al., 2012 ; Iijima, 1991 ; Qi and Zhang, 2011;Radisavljevic et al., 2011; Yella et al., 2011).At the intersection of the research on dentistry and nanomaterials, dentalnanobiomaterials have been one of the most dynamic research fields in recentyears with significant impact on the medical research with over 4700 papers asindexed by the SCIE as of November 2014 (e.g.,Gao et al., 2 003; Gittens et al.,2011; Webster et al., 1999, 2000a,b; Zhao et al., 2011; Zhou and Lee, 2011).There have been many scientometric studies in nanomaterials (e.g.,Hullmannand Meyer, 2003; Kostoff et al., 2006; Meyer and Persson, 1998; Porter et al.,2008) and a limited number of scientometric studies in nanobiomaterials(e.g.,Chen and Guan, 2011; Rafols and Meyer, 2007, 2010; Takeda et al., 2009).The same is true for the bibliometric studies in dental research as there were a425Nanobiomaterials in Dentistry. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-42867-5.00007-2© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. relatively large number of scientometric studies in this field (e.g., Fardi et al.,2011; Gil-Montoya et al., 2006; Kawamura et al., 1999; Robert et al., 2008).However, there has not been any scientometric study in dental nanobiomaterials,including the studies on the citation classics in dental nanobiomaterials as ofNovember 2014 as in the other research fields (e.g.,Baltussen and Kindler, 2004a,b;Dubin et al., 1993; Gehanno et al., 2007; Konur, 2011, 2012an, 2013, 2014,2015am, 2016ag; Paladugu et al., 2002; Wrigley and Matthews, 1986).As North’s New Institutional Theory suggests, it is important to haveup-to-date inf ormation about the current public policy issues to develop a set ofviable solutions to satisfy the needs of all the key stakeholders (North, 1994;Konur, 2000, 2002ac, 2006a,b, 2007a,b, 2012o,p).Therefore, follow ing a scientometric overview of the research in dentistryand nanomaterials as well as dental nanobiomaterials, b rief information on aselected set of 25 citat ion classics in the field of the dental nanobiomaterials ispresented in this chapter to inform the key stakeholders about the influentialpapers in this dynamic research field as t he first-ever study of its kind, com-plementing seven other papers relatin g to the citation classics and hottestpapers in surface engineering of nanobiomaterials, nanobiodrugs, antimicrobialnanobiomaterials, dental nanobiomaterials, and anticancer nanobiomaterials(Konur, 2016ag).It is found that the major research areas in dental nanobiomaterials were dentalnanobiomaterials in teeth, dentin, and enamel as well as dental nano-osteoblastsand dental nanoimplants.The citation classics in dental nanobiomaterials deal with the important healthissues from a public perspective. Hence, the research in dental nanobiomaterialshas strong public policy implications providing strong incentives for the keystakeholders involved in dental nanobiomaterials research (e.g.,Manski et al., 2001;Morris and Burke, 2001; Wamala et al., 2006; Watt and Sheiham, 1999).15.1.2 METHODOLOGYA search on dental nanobiomaterials was carried out in the Science Citation Index(SCI), SCIE, and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSC I) databases (version 5.15)in November 2014 to locate papers relating to dental nanobiomaterials using thekeyword sets of [TS 5 (nanoorgrapheneor “quantumdot”orfullerene)and TS 5 (dental ordentistortoothorteeth)] and [TS 5 (nanoorgrapheneor “quantumdot”orfullerene) and WC 5 (dentistry)] in theabstract pages of papers.It should be noted that the abstract pages of papers published before 1991 didnot contain abstracts and keywords, strongly affecting the search outcomes.The key bibliometric data were extracted from this search for the overviewof the dental nanobiomaterials literature. It was necessary to focus on the keyreferences by selecting articles and reviews.The located highly cited 25 papers were arranged in order of decreasingnumber of citations. The summary information about the located citation classics426 CHAPTER 15 Scientometric overview regarding the nanobiomaterials is presented in the order of decreasing number of citations for the arranged topicalareas, respectively.The information relating to the document type, affiliation of the authors, thenumber and gender of the authors, the country of the authors, the journal wherethe paper was published, the subject area of the journal where the paper wasindexed, the concise topic of the paper, and total number of citations received forthe paper for both the Web of Science and Google Scholar databases are given intables for each paper.Additionally, two searches were carried out in the SCIE and SSCI databases(version 5.15) in November 2014 to locate the papers relating to dentistry ingeneral and nanomaterials in general using the keyword sets of [TS 5 (dentinorenamelor osteoblastor teeth or dental or dentistry or bioceramicor “bioceramic”) or WC 5 (dentistry)] and [TS 5 (grapheneornanoorfullereneor “quantumdot”)], respectively in the abstract pages of the papers.It should be noted that the abstract pages of the papers published before 1991did not contain abstracts and keywords, strongly affecting the search outcomes.The data were used to provide a scientometric overview of these research areas tosupplement the key research on the dental nanobiomaterials.15.1.3 DENTAL RESEARCH: OVERVIEWUsing the keywords related to dentistry, 416,211 references were located. A totalof 280,237 of these references were articles and reviews. Meeting abstracts,letters, and editorial materials formed the remaining part of the sample, amongother items. This finding suggests that the field of dentistry has been a specializedfield of research with a relatively large sample size and with a specific set ofshareholders such as authors, institutions, and countries, etc. The large samplesize of the dental research also shows the public importance of dentistry(e.g.,Bonewald, 2011; Hoppe et al., 2011; Komori et al., 1997a,b; Nakashimaet al., 2011; Xiong et al., 2011; Yasuda et al., 1998).The three most prolific authors, Pashley, D.H., Wang, Y., and Sculy, A.,produced 534, 469, and 455 papers, respectively. The list of the mos t prolificauthors was dominated by Asian, European, and US authors.The most prolific country in terms of the number of publications was theUnited States with 86,723 papers forming 30.9% of the sample. Japan, England,and Germany followed the United States with 9.4%, 8.4%, and 5.8% of thesample, respectively. Europe dominated the most prolific country list. China wasbehind Germany with a 4.8% publication rate.English was the dominant language of scientific communication in dentistry,comprising 97.3% of the sample.The most prolific institution was the “University of Sao Paulo” of Brazil with4673 papers. “Harvard University” of the United States, “University College London”(UCL) of England, and “University of Michigan” of the United States followed themost prolific institution with 4353, 3958, and 3596 papers, respectively. The US andEuropean institutions dominated the most prolific institution list.42715.1 Overview Unlike nano research, dental research has been in existence since the 1980s.There was a general increasing trend in the number of papers over time, startingwith 2887 papers in 1980 and making a peak with 17,870 papers in 2013.The research in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s formed 12.5%, 21.1%,34.5%, and 29.2% of the sample, respectively. T he number of publicationsfluctuated between 3000 and 18,000 between 1980 and 2013 with a continuingincreasing exponential trend.The most prolific journal in terms of the number of publications was “Journalof Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery” publishing 8443 papers. “Journal of ProstheticDentistry,” “Journal of Periodontology,” and “Journal of Dental Research”followed the top journal with 7949 , 6114, and, 6021 papers, respectively. It isnotable that the contribution of the dental journals as in the case of the top fourmost prolific journals to research in dentistry was significant. Unlike the nanoresearch, the journals in the subject categories of other health sciences contributedinsignificantly to the literature on dentistry at the top list.The most prolific subject category in terms of the number of publications was“Dentistry Oral Surgery Medicine” publishing 163,869 papers, formi ng 58.5% ofthe sample. “Surgery,” “Materials Science Biomaterials,” and “EngineeringBiomedical” followed the top subject category with 5.9%, 4.8%, and 4.5% of thesample, respectively. These findings suggest that these top four subject categoriesshare a common set of journals where a journal was indexed under more than onesubject category.It is also notable that health sciences and biochemistry dominated the topsubject list. Perhaps the most interesting finding from these data is that the dentalresearch was also significantly published in the journals outside the subjectcategory of “Dentistry Oral Surgery Medicine,” justifying the additional keywordsearch in addition to the subject category search and providing further evidencefor the public importance of dentistry.The most cited papers in dentistry were dominated by bioceramics andosteoblasts. For example,Hench (1991) discusses bioceramics with 24 58citations. This top paper was followed byYasuda et al. (1998) and Komori et al.(1997a,b), focusing on osteoblasts and osteoclasts with 2326, 2305, and 2305citations, respectively.There was a similar trend for the hottest papers published in the last 4 yearsbetween 2011 and 2014. For example, the hottest paper with 260 citations wasrelated to osteocytes (Bonewald, 2011). Hoppe et al. (2011), Nakashima et al.(2011), and Xiong et al. (2011) followed the hottest paper, focusing mostly onosteoblasts and osteoclasts with 260, 220, and 213 citations, respectively.15.1.4 NANOMATERIAL RESEARCH: OVERVIEWUsing the keywords related to nanomaterials, 1,088,250 references were located.Of these references 1,024,523 were articles and reviews. Meeting abstracts, notes,letters, and editorial materials formed the remaining part of the sample among428 CHAPTER 15 Scientometric overview regarding the nanobiomaterials other items. This finding suggests that the field of nanomaterials has beena specialized field of research with absolutely a large sample size and with aspecific set of shareholders such as authors, institutions, and countries, etc.The three most prolific authors, Y. Zhang, Y. Wang, and Y. Liu, produced4797, 4710, and 4579 papers, respectively. The list of the most prolific authorswas dominated by Chinese and US authors.The most prolific country in terms of the number of publications was theUnited States with 235,267 papers forming 23.0% of the sample. China, Japan,and Germany followed the United States with 21.6%, 8.7%, and 8.0% of the sam-ple, respectively. Europe dominated the most prolific country list. It is surprisingthat China followed closely the most prolific country, the United States, with onlya small difference of percentage of the papers. The top listing of Japan was alsoremarkable with the semina l paper by Iijima on the nanomaterials emerging fromJapan in 1991 (Iijima, 1991).English was the dominant language of scientific communication in nanomaterials,comprising 98.0% of the sample.The most pro lific institution was the “Chinese Academy of Sciences” (CA S)of China with 44,292 papers. The “National Centre for Scientific Research”(CNRS) of France, “United State s Depar tment of Energy” ( DOE) of the UnitedStates, and “Russian Academy of Scie nces” (RAS) of Russia followe d the mostprolific institution, CAS, with 33,309, 25,746, and 21,505 papers, respectively.The US, Chinese , a nd European institutions dominated the most prolificinstitution list.The nanomaterial research has largely boomed since 2000, comprising 91.6%of the sample with the seminal paper on the nanomaterials by Iijima in 1991(Iijima, 1991). The research in the 1980s focused on fullerenes, then focusing onnanomaterials. There was a general increasing trend in the number of papersover time starting with 303 papers in 1980 and making a peak with 119,761papers in 2013. The research in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s formed0.6%, 7.8%, 40.9%, and 50.7% of the sample, respectively, with a significantrise (nearly three times rise) in 1991, possibly due to the inclusion of theabstracts in the abstract pages of the indices. The number of publications rangedbetween 4000 and 120,000 between 1991 and 2013 w ith a continuing increasingexponential trend.The most prolific journal in terms of the number of publications was“Materials Scie nce and Engineering A: Structural Materials PropertiesMicrostructure and Processing” publishing 24,821 papers. “Applied PhysicsLetters,” “Journal of Physical Chemistry C,” and “Physical Review B” followedthe top journal with 23,977, 23,920, and, 21,680 papers, respectively. It isnotable that the contribution of the nanoscience and technology journals, such as“Nanotechnology” and “Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology,” t o theresearch in nanomaterials was relatively significant.The most prolific subject category in terms of the number of publications was“Materials Science Multidisciplinary” with 328,542 papers, forming 32.9% of the42915.1 Overview sample. “Nanoscience Nanotechnology,” “Physics Applied,” and “ChemistryPhysical” followed the top subject category with 24.2%, 22.8%, and 19.3% of thesample, respectively. These findings suggest that these top four subject categoriesshare a common set of journals where a journal was indexed under more thanone subject category. It is also notable that materials sciences dominated the topsubject list.The most cited papers in nanomaterials were dominated by carbon nanotubes,graphene, and solar nanomaterials. For example,Iijima (1991) discusses carbonnanomaterials in a seminal paper with 23,149 citations. This top paper wasfollowed byNovoselov et al. (2004), Oregan and Gratzel (1991), and Geim andNovoselov (2007)focusing on graphene, dye-sensitized solar cells, and graphenewith over 15,574, 13,120, and 11,197 citations each, respectively.There was a similar trend for the hottest papers in nanomaterials publishedin the last 4 years between 2011 and 2014. For example, the hottest paper with2211 citations was related to porphyrin-sensitized solar cells (Yella et al., 2011).Qi and Zhang (2011) ; Radisavljevic et al. (2011), and He et al. (2012) followedthe hottest paper focusing on topological insulators and superconductors, transis-tors, and polymer solar cells, respectively, with 1609, 1260, and 1053 citations,respectively.It should be noted that this scientometric overview of the research onnanomaterials is common to the other sister papers: citation classics in surfaceengineering of nanobiomaterials, nanobiodrugs, antimicrobial nanobiomaterials,and anticancer nanobiomaterial s (Konur, submitted, 2016ag).15.1.5 RESEARCH ON THE DENTAL NANOBIOMATERIALS:OVERVIEWUsing the keywords related to dental nanobiomaterials, 6301 references werelocated; 4709 of these references were articles and reviews. Meeting abstracts,letters, and editorial materials formed the remaining part of the sample, amongother items. This finding suggests that the field of dental nanobioma terials hasbeen a specialized field of research with a relatively small sample size and witha specific set of shareh olders such as authors, institutions, countries, etc.The three most prolific authors, F.R. Tay, D.H. Pashley, and J. Tagami,produced 95, 94, and 69 papers, respectively. The list of the most prolific authorswas dominated by European and US authors.The most prolific country in terms of the number of publications wasthe United States with 1 404 papers forming 29 .8% of the sample. China,Japan, and Germany followed the United States with 14.5%, 8.9%, and 8.9%of the sample, respectively. It seems that China, and to a lesser degree Japanand Germany, competed strongly with the most prolific co untry in terms ofthe n umber of publications in this field. Europe dominated the most prolificcountry list.430 CHAPTER 15 Scientometric overview regarding the nanobiomaterials English was the dominant language of scientific communication in dentalnanobiomaterials with 98.8% of the sample.The most prolific institution was the “Georgia Regents University” of theUnited States with 118 papers. “University of Sao Paulo” of Brazil, “TokyoMedical Dental University” of Japan, and the “United States Department ofEnergy” (DOE) of the United States followed the most prolific institution with95, 93, and 83 papers, respectively. The US and Asian institutions dominated themost prolific institution list.Like the nano research booming after 2000, dental nanobiomaterials researchboomed in the 2000s and 2010s, comprising 96.4% of the sample during theseperiods. There was a general increasing trend in the number of papers over timestarting with just three papers in 1980 and making a peak with 620 papers in2013. The research in the 1980s, 1990s, 200 0s, and 2010s formed 0.1%, 3.3%,37.5%, and 58.9% of the sample, with a significant rise. The number of publica-tions fluctuated between 60 and 600 between 2000 and 2014 with a continuingincreasing exponential trend.The most prolific journal in terms of the nu mber of publications was “DentalMaterials” publishing 282 papers. “Journal of Dental Research,” “Journal ofDentistry,” and “Operative Dentistry” followed the top journal with 191, 150,and 128 papers, respectively. It is notable that the contribution of the dentaljournals to the research in dental nanobiomaterials was relative ly significant.The journals in the subject category of “Materials Science” and “NanoscienceNanotechnology” also made relatively significant contributions to dental nanobio-materials research.The mos t prolific subject category in terms of the number of publicationswas “Dentistry Oral Surgery Medicine” with 1811 papers, forming 38.5% of thesample. “Materials Science Biomaterials,” “Materials Science Multidisciplinary,”and “Engineering Biomedical” followed the top subject category with 19.2%,14.0%, and 12.6% of the sample, respectively. These findings suggest that thesetop four subject categories share a common set of journals where a journal wasindexed under more than one subject category.It is also notable that Health Sciences and Materials Science dominated thetop subject list. These data also provide further evidence on the multidisciplinarityof the researc h on the dental nanobiomaterials ranging from “Dentistry OralSurgery Medicine” to “Nanoscience Nanote chnology.”The most cited papers in dental nanobiomaterials were dominated by the teeth,dentin, enamel, implants, and osteoblasts. For example,Webster et al. (2000a)discuss osteoblasts and nanophase ceramics with 692 citations. This top paperwas followed byGao et al. (2003), Webster et al. (2000b), and Webster et al.(1999)with 631, 561, and 535 citations, respectively: nanomaterials, osteoblastadhesion, and nanophase ceramics.There was a similar trend for the hottest papers published in the last 4 yearsbetween 2011 and 2014. For example, the hottest paper with 140 citations wasrelated to the nanohydroxyapatite for bone tissue engineering (Zhou and Lee, 2011).43115.1 Overview Weir et al. (2012), Zhao et al. (2011),andGittens et al. (2011) followed thehottest paper with 136, 132, and 97 citations, respectively: titanium dioxide nanopar-ticles, antibacterial nanostructured titania coatings, and cell proliferation anddifferentiation.In the following sections, brief information on the most cited papers willbe provided in five major topical parts: dental nanobiomaterials in teeth, dentalnanobiomaterials in dentin, dental nanoimplants, dental nano-osteoblasts, anddental nanobiomaterials in enamel.15.2 DENTAL NANOBIOMATERIALS IN TEETH15.2.1 OVERVIEWThe research on dental nanobiomaterials in teeth has been one of the mostdynamic research areas in dental nanobiomaterials in recent years, with eight cita-tion classics. These citation classics, with more than 217 citations, were locatedand the key emerging issues from these papers are presented below in decreasingorder of the number of citations (Table 15.1).The papers were dominated by researchers from only seven countries, usuallythrough intracountry institutional collabo ration and they were multiauthored.The number of authors for the papers ranged from 2 to 10. The United Stateswas the most prolific country with three papers, followed by Germany with twopapers, showing the dominance of these countries.“Max Planck Research Institute” of Germany was the most prolific institutionwith two citation classics.Similarly, all these papers were published in the journals indexed by the SCIand/or SCIE. There was no paper indexed by the SSCI. The number of citationsranged from 217 to 631 for the Web of Science and from 301 to 850 for theGoogle Scholar databases.The papers were published mostly during the 2000s, suggesting that researchon nanoparticle dental nanobiomaterials in teeth gained the attention of theresearch community in the 2000s.There was a significant gender deficit among the most cited papers innanoparticle dental nanobiomaterials as there were only three papers witha female first author out of eight papers. On the other hand, only three of thepapers were reviews, whereas the others were articles.It is significant that most of the journals where these citation classics werepublished had high citation impacts. “Nano Letters” was the most prolific journalwith three citation classics.The most prolific subjects were “Engineering Biomedical,” “Materials ScienceBiomaterials,” and “Multidi sciplinary Sciences” with two papers each, showingthe multidisciplinarity of the research in this field.432 CHAPTER 15 Scientometric overview regarding the nanobiomaterials Table 15.1 The Citation Classics in Dental Nanobiomaterials in TeethNo. Paper Ref. Year Doc. Affil. CountryNo.Authors M/F JournalSubjectArea TopicTotal No.CitationsWNTotal No.CitationsGS2 Gao et al. 2003 A Max Planck Inst.Met. Res., Univ.LeobenGermany,Austria5 M Proc. Natl.Acad. Sci.U.S.A.Mult. Sci. Fracturesensitivity ofnanobiomaterials631 8505 Bunker et al. 1994 A Pacific NW Lab. US 10 M Science Mult. Sci. Ceramic thin-filmformation470 6018 Vallet-RegiandGonzalez-Calbet2004 R Univ.ComplutenseSpain 2 F Prog. SolidStateChem.Chem.Inorg. Nucl.Calciumphosphates forbone tissues354 55810 Ji and Gao 2004 A Max Planck Inst.Met. Res.Germany 2 M J. Mech.Phys.SolidsMats. Sci.Mult.,Mechs. 11Mechanicalproperties ofnanobiomaterials292 38812 Mosznerand Salz2001 R Ivoclar AG Liechtenstein 2 M Prog.Polym.Polym. Sci. Polymeric dentalcomposites282 41819 Price et al. 2003 A Purdue Univ.,Univ. NebraskaUS 4 F Biomaterials Eng.Biomed.,Mats. Sci.Biomats.Bone celladhesion oncarbonnanofibers226 33922 Mitra et al. 2003 A 3M Co. US 3 F J. Am.Dent.Assoc.Dent. OralSurg. Med.Advanced dentalnanobiomaterials221 56323 Zhang et al. 2005 R Tongji Univ., Natl.Univ. SingaporeChina,Singapore4 M J. Mater.Sci. Mater.Eng.Biomed.,Mats. Sci.Biomats.Polymernanobiofibers217 301A, Article; R, Review; M, Male; F, Female; WK, Web of Knowledge; GS, Google Scholar. The citation classics in nanoparticle dental nanobiomaterials in teeth deal withthe important research issues with strong public policy implications. The researchedtopics include nanomaterials insensitive to flaws, ceramic thin-film formation,calcium phosphates, nanostructure of biological materials, polymeric dentalcomposites, bone cell adhesion, dental nanomaterials, and polymer nanofibers.15.2.2 THE MOST CITED PAPERS IN DENTAL NANOBIOMATERIALSIN TEETHGao et al. (2003) discuss fracture sensitivity of natural nanocomposites in a paperoriginating from Germany and Austria with 631 citations. They show that thenatural nanocomposites exhibit a generic mechanical structure in which thenanomineral particles ensure optimum strength and maximum tolerance of flaws.They further show that the concept of stress concentration at flaws is no longervalid for nanomaterial design.Bunker et al. (1994) discuss the ceramic thin-film formation on functionalizedinterfaces through biomimetic processing in a paper originating from the UnitedStates with 470 citations. They note that surface functional ization routes havebeen developed by the mimicking of schemes used by organisms to producecomplex ceramic composites, such as teeth, bones, and shells. High-quality, densepolycrystalline films of oxides, hydroxides, and sulfides have now been preparedfrom “biomimetic” synthesis techniques. They conclude that the process is wellsuited to the production of organicinorganic composites.Vallet-Regi and Gonzalez-Calbet (2004) discuss the calcium phosphates assubstitution of bone tissues in a review paper originating from the Unite d Stateswith 354 citations. They argue that it is important to analyze firstly the biologicalcalcium phosphates as components of natural hard tissues, that is, bone and teeth,and then look for synthetic methods able to produce calcium-deficient carbonateapatites with nanometric size. They describe the synthesis procedures to obtaincalcium-deficient carbonate nanoapatite in the laboratory, both in bulk and thin-film forms, as well as the characterization methods applied to these materials,with particular incidence in the electron microscopy.Ji and Gao (2004) discuss the mechani cal properties of proteinmineral nano-composites in a paper originating from Germany with 292 citatio ns. They findthat large aspect ratios and a staggered alignment of mineral platelets are the keyfactors contributing to the large stiffness of biomaterials, and the strength ofbiomaterials hinges upon optimizing the tensile strength of the mineral crystals.They argue that the optimized tensile strength of mi neral crystals thus allows alarge amount of fracture energy to be dissipated in protein via shear deformationand consequently enhances the fracture toughness of biocomposites.Moszner and Salz (2001) discuss the polymeric dental composites in a reviewpaper originating from Liechtenstein with 282 citations. They note that newdevelopments of polymeric composites for restorative filling materials are mainly434 CHAPTER 15 Scientometric overview regarding the nanobiomaterials focused on the reduction of polymerization shrinkage, and improvement ofbiocompatibility, wear resistance and processing properties. This can be partiallyachieved by using new tailor-made monomers and optimized filler particles.Price et al. (2003) discuss bone cell adhesion in a paper originating from theUnited States with 226 citations. They find that carbon nanofibers promotedosteoblast adhesion, while the adhesion of other cells was not influenced bycarbon fiber dimensions. They further find that smooth muscle cell, fibroblast,and chondrocyte adhesion decreased with an increase in either carbon nanofibersurface energy or simultaneous change in carbon nanofiber chemistry. Theyfinally find that greater weight percentages of high surface energy carbonnanofibers in the polycarbonate urethane/carbon nanofiber composite increasedosteoblast adhesion while at the same time decreasing fibroblast adhesion.Mitra et al. (2003) discuss the dental nanoco mposites in a paper originatingfrom the United States with 221 citations. They find that the dental nanocompo-sites showed high translucency, high polish, and polish retention similar to thoseof microfills, while maintaining physical properties and wear resistance equivalentto those of several hybrid composites. They recommend that the strength andesthetic properties of the polymer-based nanocomposite tested should allow theclinician to use it for both anterior and posterior restorations.Zhang et al. (2005) discuss the polymer nanofibers for biomedical and biotech-nological applications in a review paper originating from China and Singapore with217 citations. They focus on tissue engineering, controlled drug release, wounddressings, medical implants, nanocomposites for dental restoration, molecularseparation, biosensors, and preservation of bioactive agents.15.3 DENTAL NANOBIOMATERIALS IN DENTIN15.3.1 OVERVIEWBesides the nanoparticle dental nanobiomaterials in teeth, the research on dentalnanobiomaterials in dentin has been one of the most dynamic research areas indental nanobiomaterials with six citation classics in recent years. These citationclassics, with more than 214 citations, were located and the key emerging issuesfrom these papers are presented below in decreasing order of the number ofcitations (Table 15.2).The papers were dominated by researchers from only six countries, usuallythrough the intracountry institutional collaboration and they were multiauthored.The number of authors for the papers ranged from two to seven. The UnitedStates was the most prolific country with four papers, showing the clear domi-nance of this country as the global leader in this field. Japan and China on theother hand had two papers each. “University of Hong Kong” of China and“Medical College of Georgia” of the United States (two papers each) were themost prolific institutions.43515.3 Dental Nanobiomaterials in Dentin Table 15.2 The Citation Classics in Dental Nanobiomaterials in DentinNo. Paper Ref. Year Doc. Affil. CountryNo.Authors M/F JournalSubjectArea TopicTotal No.CitationsWNTotal No.CitationsGS7 Sano et al. 1995a A Univ. Geneva12Switzerland,US, Japan6 M Oper.Dent.Dent. OralSurg. Med.Nanoleakage 391 6189 Tay et al. 2002 A Med. Coll.Georgia, Univ.Hong Kong11US, China,Japan3 M J. Dent.Res.Dent. OralSurg. Med.Nanoleakagein single-stepadhesives317 44311 Breschiet al.2008 R Univ. Trieste,Univ. BolognaItaly 6 M Dent.Mater.Dent. OralSurg. Med.,Mats. Sci.Biomats.Dentaladhesion285 52713 VanMeerbeeket al.1993 A KatholiekeUniv. Leuven,Univ. AntwerpBelgium 7 M J. Dent.Res.Dent. OralSurg. Med.Resin-dentinbonding area278 39720 He et al. 2003 A Univ. Illinois,NorthwesternUniv.US 2 M Nat.Mater.Chem.Phys., Mats.Sci. Mult.12Nucleation ofapatitecrystalsin vitro225 30224 Tay andPashley2003 A Univ. HongKong, Med.Coll. GeorgiaChina, US 2 M Am. J.Dent.Dent. OralSurg. Med.Water treeingfordegradationof dentinadhesives214 329A, Article; R, Review; M, Male; F, Female; WK, Web of Knowledge; GS, Google Scholar. Similarly, all these papers were published in journals indexed by the SCI and/or SCIE. There was no paper indexed by the SSCI. “Journal of Dental Research”was the most prolific journal with two papers.The number of citations ranged from 214 to 391 for the Web of Science andfrom 329 to 618 for the Google Scholar databases. It is notable that the citationimpact of the citation classics in this field was significant as in the case of dentalnanobiomaterials in teeth.As in the case of dental nanobiomaterials in teeth, most of the papers were pub-lished in the 2000s. There was a significant gender deficit among the most citedpapers in this field as there was no paper with a female first author of the sixpapers. This issue merits further research as it has strong public policy implications.Only one of these citation classics was a review, whereas five were articlesshowing the importance of the review studies for this research field.The most prolific subject was “Dental Oral Surgery Medicine” with fourpapers showing the dominance of this subject category in this field.The citation classics in the other dental nanobiomaterials in dentin deal withthe important research issues: nanoleakage, leakage within the hybrid layer,two modes of nanoleakage expression in single-step adhesives, dental adhesionreview focusing on aging and stability of the bonded interface, assessment bynanoindentation of the hardness and elasticity of the resindentin bonding area,nucleation of apatite crystals in vitro by self-assembled dentin matrix protein 1(DMP1), water treeing as a potential mechanism for degradation of dentinadhesives. These data suggest that the primary focus in these studies was on theinterfacial properties of the dentin.15.3.2 THE MOST CITED PAPERS IN DENTAL NANOBIOMATERIALSIN DENTINSano et al. (1995) discuss nanoleakage within the hybrid layer in a paperoriginating from Switzerland, the United States, and Japan with 391 citations.They examine the migration of silver nitrate into the interface between dentin andfive different dentin bonding agents. They find that several different leakagepatterns were seen, but they all indicated leakage within the hybrid layer.Tay et al. (2002) discuss the nanoleakage in single-step adhesives in a paperoriginating from the United States, China, and Japan with 317 citations. Theyexamine resindentin interfaces bonded with four single-step self-etch adhesivesfor nanoleakage. They argue that the reticular mode of nanoleakage in self-etchadhesives probably represents sites of incomplete water removal that lead toregional suboptimal polymerization. They conclude that the spotted pattern identi-fied with the use of ammoniacal silver nitrate probably represents potentially per-meable regions in the adhesive and hybrid layers that result from the interactionof the basic diamine silver ions with acidic/hydrophilic resin components.Breschi et al. (2008) discuss the dental adhesion in a review paper originatingfrom Italy with 285 citations. They note that insufficient resin impregnation of43715.3 Dental Nanobiomaterials in Dentin dentin, high permeability of the bonded interface, suboptimal polymerization,phase separation, and activation of endogenous collagenolytic enzymes are someof the factors that reduce the longevity of the bonded interface. Recent studiesindicated that (1) resin impregnation techniques should be improved; (2) the useof conventional multistep adhesives is recommended; (3) extended curing timeshould be considered to reduce permeability and allow better polymerization ofthe adhesive film; and (4) protease inhibitors as additional primer should be usedto increase the stability of the collagens fibrils within the hybrid layer inhibitingthe intrinsic collagenolytic activity of human dentin.Van Meerbeek et al. (1993) discuss the nanoindentation and the resindentinbonding area in a paper originating from Belgium with 278 citations. They findthat the hardness of the resindentin interdiffusion zone was significantly lowerthan that of unaltered dentin. They argue that an elastic bonding area might havea strain capacity sufficient to relieve stresses between the shrinking compositerestoration and the rigid dentin substrate, thereby improving the conservation ofthe dentin bond and, as a consequence, the marginal integrity and retention of therestoration.He et al. (2003) discuss the nucleation of apatite crystals in vitro by self-assembled DMP1 in a paper originating from the United States with 225 citations.They find that the nucleated amorphous calcium phosphate precipitates ripenand nanocrystals form and these expand and coalesce into microscale crystalselongated in the c-axis direction. They argue that intermolecular assembly of acidicclusters into a β-sheet template was essential for the observed mineral nucleation.They assert that the protein-mediated initiation of nanocrystals might providea new methodology for constructing nanoscale composites by self-assembly ofpolypeptides with tailor-made peptide sequences.Tay and Pashley (2003) discuss the degradation of dentin adhesives in a paperoriginating from China and the United States with 214 citations. They find thatwith both types of silver nitrate, all adhesives exhibited nanoleakage within hybridlayers. In addition, they observe water trees in the form of interconnecting,dendritic silver deposits along the surface of the hybrid layers that exte nded per-pendicularly into the adhesive layers. Additionally, with ammoniacal silver nitrate,they observe additional isolated, unconnected silver grains within the adhesives.15.4 DENTAL NANOIMPLANTS15.4.1 OVERVIEWBesides the dental nanobiomaterials in teeth and dentin, research on the dentalnanoimplants has been one of the most dynamic research areas in dental nanobioma-terials with five citation classics in recent years. These citation classics, with morethan 234 citations, were located and the key emerging issues from these papersare presented below in decreasing order of the number of citations (Table 15.3).438 CHAPTER 15 Scientometric overview regarding the nanobiomaterials Table 15.3 The Citation Classics in Dental NanoimplantsNo. Paper Ref. Year Doc. Affil. CountryNo.Authors M/F JournalSubjectArea TopicTotal No.CitationsWNTotal No.CitationsGS6 Le Guehennecet al.2007 A INSERM France 4 M Dent. Mater. Dent. OralSurg. Med.,Mats. Sci.Biomats.Surfacetreatments oftitanium dentalimplants445 83214 Oh et al. 2005 A Univ. Calif.San DiegoUS 5 M Biomaterials Eng.Biomed.,Mats. Sci.Biomats.Growth ofnanoscalehydroxyapatite271 35616 Mendonca et al. 2008 R Univ. NCarolina,Univ.CatolicaBrasiliaUS,Brazil4 M Biomaterials Eng.Biomed.,Mats. Sci.Biomats.Advancingdentalnanoimplantsurfacetechnology249 37817 Webster et al. 2001 A RensselaerPolytech.Inst.US 5 M Biomaterials Eng.Biomed.,Mats. Sci.Biomats.Enhancedosteoclast-likecell functions236 36318 Wennerberg andAlbrektsson2009 R MalmoUniv., Univ.GothenburgSweden 2 F Clin. OralImplant.Res.Dent. OralSurg. Med.,Eng. Biomed.Titaniumsurfacetopography234 380A, Article; R, Review; M, Male; F, Female; WK, Web of Knowledge; GS, Google Scholar. The papers were dominated by researchers from only four countries, usuallythrough intracountry institutional collabo ration and they were multiauthored.The number of authors for the papers ranged from two to five. The United Stateswas the most prolific country with three papers, showing the clear dominance ofthis country as the global leader in this field.Similarly, all these papers were published in journals indexed by the SCI and/or SCIE. There was no paper indexed by the SSCI. “Biomaterials” was the mostprolific journal with three papers.The number of citations ranged from 234 to 445 for the Web of Science andfrom 380 to 812 for the Google Scholar databases. It is notable that the citationimpact of the citation classics in this field was significant, as in the case of dentalnanobiomaterials in teeth and dentin.As in the case of dental nanobiomaterials in teeth and dentin, the papers werepublished in the 2000s. There was a significant gender deficit among the mostcited papers in other dental nanobiomaterials as there was only one paper with afemale first author out of five papers, as in the case of dental nanobiomaterialsin teeth and dentin. This issue merits further research as it has strong publicpolicy implications.Two of these citation classics were reviews, whereas three were articlesshowing the importance of the review studies for this research field.The most prolific subjects were “Materials Science Biomaterials” and“Engineering Biomedical” with four papers each, followed by “Dental OralSurgery Medicine” with two papers, showing the dominance of Materials Scienceand Medical Sciences in this field.The citation classics in the dental nanoimplants deal with important researchissues: surface treatments of titanium dental implants, growth of nanohydroxyapa-tites, dental implant surface technology, enhanced osteoclast-like cell functions,and titanium surface topography.As in the case of dental nanobiomaterials in dentin, the interfacial propertiesof dental nanoimplants to ensure biocompatibility with the body emerged as aprimary research area in this field.15.4.2 THE MOST CITED PAPERS IN DENTAL NANOIMPLANTSLe Guehennec et al. (2007) discuss the surface treatments of ti tanium dentalimplants for rapid osseointegration in a review paper originating from Francewith 445 citations. They argue that the precise role of surface chemistry andtopography on the early events in dental implant osseointegration remain poorlyunderstood. They recommend that the future of dental implantology shouldaim to develop surfaces with controlled and s tandardized topography or chemis-try. They argue that the local release of bone-sti mulating or -r esorptive drugsin the peri-implant region may also respond to difficult clinical situations withpoor bone quality and quantity. These therapeutic strategies should ultimately440 CHAPTER 15 Scientometric overview regarding the nanobiomaterials enhance the osseointegration process of dental implants for their immediateloading and long-term success.Oh et al. (2005) discuss the growth of nanohydroxyapatite using titanium oxidenanotubes in a paper originating from the United States with 271 citations. Theyshow that the presence of TiO2nanotubes induces the growth of a nanoinspirednanostructure on the top edge of the nanotube wall. During the subsequent in vitroimmersion in a simulated body fluid, the nanoscale sodium titanate, in turn, inducedthe nucleation and growth of the nanodimensioned hydroxyapatite (HA) phase.They argue that such TiO2nanotube arrays and associated nanostructures can beuseful as a well-adhered bioactive surface layer on Ti implant metals for orthopedicand dental implants, as well as for photocatalysts and other sensor applications.Mendonca et al. (2008) discuss dental nanoimplant surface technology in areview paper originating from Brazil and the United States with 249 citations.They note that the critical steps in osseointegration can be modulated by nano-scale modification of the implant surface. They outline available data concerningthe current dental implant surfaces that utilize nanotopography in clinicaldentistry. They assert that nanoscale modification of titanium endosseous implantsurfaces can alter cellular and tissue responses that may benefit osseointegrationand dental implant therapy.Webster et al. (2001) discuss the enhanced osteoclast-like cell functionson nanophase ceramics in a paper originating from the United States with 236citations. They find that the synthesis of tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase wassignificantly greater in osteoclast-like cells cultured on nanophase alumina and onnanophase HA. Additionally, they find that the formation of resorption pits wassignificantly greater by osteoclast-like cells cultured on nanophase alumina andon nanophase HA.Wennerberg and Albrektsson (2009) discuss the effects of titanium surfacetopography on bone integration in a review paper originating from Sweden with234 citations. They note that the bone response was influenced by the implantsurface topography as smooth and minimally rough surfaces showed less strongbone responses than rougher surfaces. However, moderately rough surfacesshowed stronger bone responses than rough. They assert that surface topographyinfluences bone response at the nanometer level.15.5 DENTAL NANO-OSTEOBLASTS15.5.1 OVERVIEWBesides the previous dental nanobiomaterials research areas, research on dentalnano-osteoblasts has been one of the most dynamic research areas in dental nano-biomaterials with four citation classics in recent years. These citation classics, withmore than 222 citations, were located and the key emerging issues from these papersare presented below in decreasing order of the number of citations (Table 15.4).44115.5 Dental Nano-Osteoblasts Table 15.4 The Citation Classics in Dental Nano-osteoblastsNo. Paper Ref. Year Doc. Affil. CountryNo.Authors M/F JournalSubjectArea TopicTotal No.CitationsWNTotal No.CitationsGS1 Webster et al. 2000a A RensselaerPolytech.Inst.US 5 M Biomaterials Eng. Biomed.,Mats. Sci.Biomats.Enhancedfunctions ofosteoblasts692 9643 Webster et al. 2000b A RensselaerPolytech.Inst.US 5 M J. Biomed.Mater. Res.Eng. Biomed.,Mats. Sci.Biomats.Osteoblastadhesion onnanophaseceramics561 7434 Webster et al. 1999 A RensselaerPolytech.Inst.US 3 M Biomaterials Eng. Biomed.,Mats. Sci.Biomats.Osteoblastadhesion onnanophaseceramics535 73921 Elias et al. 2002 A PurdueUniv.US 3 F Biomaterials Eng. Biomed.,Mats. Sci.Biomats.Osteoblastson carbonnanofibers222 335A, Article; R, Review; M, Male; F, Female; WK, Web of Knowledge; GS, Google Scholar. The p apers were dominated by the researchers from only the United States,usually through the intracountry institutional collaboration and they were multiau-thored. The number of authors for the papers ranged from three to five.The United States was the most prolific country, showing the clear dominance ofthis country as the global leader in this field. “Renss elaer Polytechnic Institute”of the United States was the most prolific institution with three papers.Similarly, all these papers were published in journals indexed by the SCI and/or SCIE. There was no paper indexed by the SSCI. “Biomaterials” was the mostprolific journal with three papers.The number of citations ranged from 222 to 692 for the Web of Science andfrom 335 to 964 for the Google Scholar databases. It is notable that the citationimpact of the citation classics in the other dental nanobiomaterials was significantas in the case of other dental nanobiomaterials.As in the case of other dental nanobiomaterial research areas, the paperswere published mostly in the 2000s. There was a significant gender deficitamon g the most cited papers as there was only one paper with a femal e firstauthor out of four papers, as in the case of other dental nanobiomaterialsresearch areas. This issue merits further research as it has strong public policyimplications.All of these citation classics were articles showing the lack of review studiesfor this research field.The most prolific subjects were “Materials Science Biomaterials” and“Engineering Biomedical” with four papers each, showing the dominance ofMaterials Science and Medical Sciences in this field.The citation classics in the dental nano-osteoblasts deal with importantresearch issues: enhanced functions of osteoblasts on nanophase ceramics,osteoblast adhesion on nanophase ceramics, and osteoblasts on carbonnanofibers.15.5.2 THE MOST CITED PAPERS IN DENTAL NANO-OSTEOBLASTSWebster et al. (2000a) discuss the enhanced functions of osteoblasts on nanophaseceramics in a paper originating from the United States with 692 citatio ns.They find that surface occupancy of osteoblast colonies was significantly less onall nanophase ceramics . They further find that the synthesis of alkaline phospha -tase and deposition of calcium-containing mineral was significantly greater byosteoblasts cultured on nanophase. They reason that nanophase ceramics clearlyrepresent a unique and promising class of orthopedic/dental implant formulationwith improved osseointegrative properties.Webster et al. (2000b) discuss the role of proteins in enhanced osteoblastadhesion on nanophase ceramics in a paper originating from the United Stateswith 561 citat ions. They find that osteoblast adhesion was significantly greaterand fibroblast adhesion was significantly less on nanophase ceramics. They arguethat these ceramics adsorbed significantly greater quantities of vitronectin, which,44315.5 Dental Nano-Osteoblasts subsequently, may have contributed to the observed select enhanced adhesionof osteoblasts. They argue that the capability of synthesizing and processingnanomaterials with tailored structures and topographies to control select subse-quent cell functions provides the possibility of designing the novel proactivebiomaterials necessary for improved implant efficacy.Webster et al. (1999) discuss osteoblast adhesion on nanophase ceramics ina paper originating from the United States with 535 citations. They find thatosteoblast adhesion to nanophase alumina and titania in the absence of serumfrom Dulbecco’s modified Eagle medium was significantly less than osteoblastadhesion to alumina and titania in the presence of serum. They further find thepresence of a critical grain size for osteoblast adhesion for alumi na and titania.They provide evidence of the ability of nanophase alumina and titania to simulatematerial characteristics of physiological bone that enhance protein interactionsand subsequent osteoblast adhesion.Elias et al. (2002) discuss the enhanced functions of osteoblasts on carbonnanofibers in a paper originating from the United States with 227 citations.They fi nd that osteoblast proliferation increased with decreasing carbon fiberdiameters. Furthermore, osteoblasts synthesized more alkaline phosphatase anddeposited more extracellular calcium on carbon nanofibers. They provide theevidence of enhanced long-term functions of osteoblasts cultured on carbonnanofibers. They conclude that carbon nanofibers clearly represent a unique andpromising class of orthopedic/dental implant formulations with improvedosseointegrative properties.15.6 DENTAL NANOBIOMATERIALS IN ENAMEL15.6.1 OVERVIEWBesides the other dental nanobiomaterial research areas, research on dentalnanobiomaterials in enamel has been one of the most dynamic research areas indental nanobiomaterials with only two citations classics in recent years. Thesecitation classics with more than 214 citations were located and the key emergingissues from these papers are presented below in decreasing order of the numberof citations (Table 15.5).The papers were dominated by researchers from only the United States, usu-ally through intracountry institutional collaboration and they were multiauthored.The number of authors for the papers ranged from four to five. The United Stateswas the most prolific country, showing the clear dominance of this country as theglobal leader in this field.Similarly, all these papers were published in journals indexed by the SCI and/or SCIE. There was no paper indexed by the SSCI. “Archives Oral Biology” wasthe only journal.444 CHAPTER 15 Scientometric overview regarding the nanobiomaterials Table 15.5 The Citation Classics in Dental Nanobiomaterials in EnamelNo. Paper Ref. Year Doc. Affil. CountryNo.Authors M/F JournalSubjectArea TopicTotal No.CitationsWNTotal No.CitationsGS15 Cuy et al. 2001 A JohnsHopkinsUniv.US 5 F Arch. OralBiol.Dent. OralSurg. Med.Nanoindentationmapping ofhuman molartooth enamel252 36625 Habelitz et al. 2001 A Univ.Calif. SanFranciscoUS 4 M Arch. OralBiol.Dent. OralSurg. Med.Human dentalnanoenamel214 337A, Article; R, Review; M, Male; F, Female; WK, Web of Knowledge; GS, Google Scholar. The number of citations ranged from 214 to 252 for the Web of Science andfrom 337 to 366 for the Google Scholar databases.As in the case of the other dental nanobiomaterial research areas, the paperswere published in the 2000s. There was no gender deficit among the most citedpapers. Both of these citation classics were articles. The most prolific subject was“Dentistry Oral Surgery Medicine.”The citation classics in this field deal with important research issues:nanoindentation mapping of the human molar toot h enamel and human dentalnanoenamel.15.6.2 THE MOST CITED PAPERS IN DENTAL NANOBIOMATERIALSIN ENAMELCuy et al. (2002) discuss nanoindentation mapping of human molar tooth enamelin a paper originating from the United States with 252 citatio ns. They find thatthe mechanical properties of the enamel differed from the lingual to the buccalsides of the molar. At the occlusal surface the enamel was harder and stiffer onthe lingual side than on the buccal side. The interior enamel, however, was softerand more compliant on the lingual than on the buccal side, a variation thatalso correlated with differences in average chemistry and might be related todifferences in function.Habelitz et al. (2001) discuss the mechanical properties of human dentalenamel on the nanometer scale in a paper originating from the United Stateswith 214 citations. They find that elasticity and hardness were a function of themicrostructural texture. They further find that the observed anisotropy of enamelis related to the alignment of fiber-like apatite crystals and the composite natureof enamel rods. They finally find that compared to those in the head area ofthe rods, Young’s moduli and hardness were lower in the tail area and in theinter-rod enamel, which can be attributed to changes in crystal orientation andthe higher content of soft organic tissue in these areas.15.7 CONCLUSIONSThe data presented on the scientometric overview of dentistry in this study showthat dentistry has been a multidisciplinary research field where the key subjectcategories have been “Dentistry Oral Surgery Medicine,” “Surgery,” “MaterialsScience Biomaterials,” and “Engineering Biomedical.” The data also show thatthis research field, unlike nano research, has been in exis tence since the 1980s,with increasing publication rate and citations.Similarly, the data presented on the scientome tric overview of the nanoma-terials in this study show that nanomaterials have been a multidisciplinaryresearch field where t he key subject categories have been “Materials Science446 CHAPTER 15 Scientometric overview regarding the nanobiomaterials Multidisciplinary,” “Nanoscience Nanotechnology,” “Physics Applied,” and“Chemistry Physical.” The data also show that this research field has boomedlargely since 2000, with increasing publication rate and citations.At the intersection of the research on dentistry and nanomaterials, for researchon dental nanobiomaterials, the key subject categories have been “DentistryOral Surgery Medicine,” “Materials Science Biomaterials,” “Materials ScienceMultidisciplinary,” and “Engineering Biomedical.” The research boomed in the2000s and 2010s, comprising over 96% of the sample.The key research areas in citation classics in dental nanobiomaterials havebeen dental nanobiomaterials in teeth, dental nanobiomaterials in dentin, dentalnanoimplants, dental nano-osteoblasts, and dental nanobiomaterials in enamelwith eight, six, five, four, and two citation classics, respectively.The citation classics in dental nanobiomaterials have had commoncharacteristics. They came from a limited number of countries wh ere the Unit edStates was the most prolific country, showing the clear dominance of theUnited States in citation classics in dental nanobiomaterials. All the citationclassics had more than 214 citations, with slight agreement with the definition ofthe citation classics.All these citation classics were published in high-impact journals like“Biomaterials,” “Dental Materials,” “Journal of Dental Research,” and “NatureMaterials.”The citation classics were indexed under a number of subject categorieshighlighting the multidisciplinarity of the dental nanobiomaterials field, such as“Dentistry Oral Surgery Medicine,” “Engineering Biomedical,” “MaterialsScience Biomaterials,” “Materials Science Multidisciplinary,” “MultidisciplinarySciences,” and “Polymer Science.”It is notable that there has been a significant gender deficit among the authorsof these citation classics presented in this study as only six of the first authorsof these citation classics were females. This finding has strong public policyimplications for research funding and management in higher education as well.The citation classics in dental nanobiomater ials deal with important healthand biochemical resea rch issues. For example, some of th e key research areas f ordental nanobiomaterials in teeth were fracture insensitivity of nanomaterials,ceramic thin-film formation, calcium phosphates as substitution of bone tissues,mechanical properties of nanobiomaterials, polymeric dental composites,bone cell adhesion on carbon nanofibers, dental nanomaterials, and polymernanofibers.Most of these studies investigate the dental nanobiomaterials within thecontext of dental health care. Therefore, research in this area has strong publicpolicy implications.The citation classics presented in this paper were helpful in highlightingimportant papers influencing the development of the research field in dental nanobio-materials as well as in determining key research areas in dental nanobiomaterials,complementing other research areas in nanobiomaterials (Konur, 2016ag).44715.7 Conclusions Further research is recommended for detailed studies, including scientometricstudies and citation classic studies for each of these topical areas as well as themost prolific countries and institutions.REFERENCESBaltussen, A., Kindler, C.H., 2004a. Citation classics in anesthetic journals. Anesth. Analg.98, 443451.Baltussen, A., Kindler, C.H., 2004b. Citation classics in critical care medicine. IntensiveCare Med. 30, 902910.Bonewald, L.F., 2011. Amazing osteocyte. J. Bone Miner. Res. 26, 229238.Breschi, L., Mazzoni, A., Ruggeri, A., Cadenaro, M., Di Lenarda, R., Dorigo, E.D., 2008.Dental adhesion review: aging and stability of the bonded interface. Dent. Mater. 24,90101.Bunker, B.C., Rieke, P.C., Tarasevich, B.J., Campbell, A.A., Fryxell, G.E., Graff, G.L.,et al., 1994. Ceramic thin-film formation on functionalized interfaces through biomimeticprocessing. Science 264, 4855.Chen, K.H., Guan, J.C., 2011. A bibliometric investigation of research performance inemerging nanobiopharmaceuticals. J. Informetr. 5, 233247.Cuy, J.L., Mann, A.B., Livi, K.J., Teaford, M.F., Weihs, T.P., 2002. Nanoindentationmapping of the mechanical properties of human molar tooth enamel. Arch. Oral Biol.47, 281291.Dubin, D., Hafner, A.W., Arndt, K.A., 1993. Citation-classics in clinical dermatologicaljournals: citation analysis, biomedical journals, and landmark articles, 19451990.Arch. Dermatol. 129, 11211129.Elias, K.L., Price, R.L., Webster, T.J., 2002. Enhanced functions of osteoblasts onnanometer diameter carbon fibers. Biomaterials 23, 32793287.Fardi, A., Kodonas, K., Gogos, C., Economides, N., 2011. Top-cited articles in endodonticjournals. J. Endod. 37, 11831190.Gao, H.J., Ji, B.H., Jager, I.L., Arzt, E., Fratzl, P., 2003. Materials become insensitiveto flaws at nanoscale: lessons from nature. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 100,55975600.Gehanno, J.F., Takahashi, K., Darmoni, S., Weber, J., 2007. Citation classics inoccupational medicine journals. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 33, 245251.Geim, A.K., Novoselov, K.S., 2007. The rise of graphene. Nat. Mater. 6, 183191.Gil-Montoya, J.A., Navarrete-Cortes, J., Pulgar, R., Santa, S., Moya-Anegon, F., 2006.World dental research production: an ISI database approach (19992003). Eur. J. OralSci. 114, 102108.Gittens, R.A., McLachlan, T., Olivares-Navarrete, R., Cai, Y., Berner, S., Tannenbaum, R.,et al., 2011. The effects of combined micron-/submicron-scale surface roughnessand nanoscale features on cell proliferation and differentiation. Biomaterials 32,33953403.Habelitz, S., Marshall, S.J., Marshall, G.W., Balooch, M., 2001. Mechanical properties ofhuman dental enamel on the nanometre scale. Arch. Oral Biol. 46, 173183.He, G., Dahl, T., Veis, A., George, A., 2003. Nucleation of apatite crystals in vitro byself-assembled dentin matrix protein 1. Nat. Mater. 2, 552558.448 CHAPTER 15 Scientometric overview regarding the nanobiomaterials He, Z.C., Zhong, C.M., Su, S.J., Xu, M., Wu, H.B., Cao, Y., 2012. Enhanced power-conversion efficiency in polymer solar cells using an inverted device structure. Nat.Photonics 6, 591595.Hench, L.L., 1991. Bioceramics-from concept to clinic. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 74,14871510.Hoppe, A., Guldal, N.S., Boccaccini, A.R., 2011. A review of the biological response toionic dissolution products from bioactive glasses and glass-ceramics. Biomaterials 32,27572774.Hullmann, A., Meyer, M., 2003. Publications and patents in nanotechnology - An overviewof previous studies and the state of the art. Scientometrics 58, 507527.Iijima, S., 1991. Helical microtubules of graphitic carbon. Nature 354, 5658.Ji, B.H., Gao, H.J., 2004. Mechanical properties of nanostructure of biological materials.J. Mech. Phys. Solids 52, 19631990.Kawamura, M., Thomas, C.D.L., Kawaguchi, Y., Sasahara, H., 1999. Lotka’s law and thepattern of scientific productivity in the dental science literature. Med. Inform. InternetMed. 24, 309 315.Komori, T., Yagi, H., Nomura, S., Yamaguchi, A., Sasaki, K., Deguchi, K., et al., 1997a.Targeted disruption of Cbfa1 results in a complete lack of bone formation owing tomaturational arrest of osteoblasts. Cell 89, 755764.Komori, T., Yagi, H., Nomura, S., Yamaguchi, A., Sasaki, K., Deguchi, K., et al., 1997b.Targeted disruption of Cbfa1 results in a complete lack of bone formation owing tomaturational arrest of osteoblasts. Cell 89, 755764.Konur, O., 2000. Creating enforceable civil rights for disabled students in higher education:an institutional theory perspective. Disabil. Soc. 15, 10411063.Konur, O., 2002a. Assessment of disabled students in higher education: current publicpolicy issues. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 27, 131152.Konur, O., 2002b. Access to employment by disabled people in the UK: is the disabilitydiscrimination act working? Int. J. Discr. Law 5, 247279.Konur, O., 2002c. Access to nursing education by disabled students: rights and duties ofnursing programs. Nurse Educ. Today 22, 364374.Konur, O., 2006a. Participation of children with dyslexia in compulsory education: currentpublic policy issues. Dyslexia 12, 5167.Konur, O., 2006b. Teaching disabled students in higher education. Teach. High. Educ. 11,351363.Konur, O., 2007a. A judicial outcome analysis of the Disability Discrimination Act: awindfall for the employers? Disabil. Soc. 22, 187204.Konur, O., 2007b. Computer-assisted teaching and assessment of disabled students inHigher Education: the interface between academic standards and disability rights.J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 23, 207219.Konur, O., 2011. The scientometric evaluation of the research on the algae and bio-energy.Appl. Energy 88, 35323540.Konur, O., 2012a. 100 citation classics in Energy and Fuels. Energy Educ. Sci. Technol.A Energy Sci. Res. 30 (si 1), 319332.Konur , O., 2012b. What have we learned from the citation c lassics in energy andfuels: a mixed study. Energy Educ . Sci. Technol. A Energy Sci. Res. 30 (si 1),255268.Konur, O., 2012c. The gradual improvement of disability rights for the disabled tenants inthe UK: the promising road is still ahead. Soc. Polit. Econ. Cult. Res. 4, 71112.449References Konur, O., 2012d. The policies and practices for the academic assessment of blind studentsin higher education and professions. Energy Educ. Sci. Technol. B Soc. Educ. Stud. 4(si 1), 240244.Konur, O., 2012e. Prof. Dr. Ayhan Demirbas’ scientometric biography. Energy Educ. Sci.Technol. A Energy Sci. Res. 28, 727738.Konur, O., 2012f. The evaluation of the research on the biofuels: a scientometric approach.Energy Educ. Sci. Technol. A Energy Sci. Res. 28, 903 916.Konur, O., 2012g. The evaluation of the research on the biodiesel: a scientometricapproach. Energy Educ. Sci. Technol. A Energy Sci. Res. 28, 10031014.Konur, O., 2012h. The evaluation of the research on the bioethanol: a scientometricapproach. Energy Educ. Sci. Technol. A Energy Sci. Res. 28, 10511064.Konur, O., 2012i. The evaluation of the research on the microbial fuel cells: a sciento-metric approach. Energy Educ. Sci. Technol. A Energy Sci. Res. 29, 309322.Konur, O., 2012j. The evaluation of the research on the biohydrogen: a scientometricapproach. Energy Educ. Sci. Technol. A Energy Sci. Res. 29, 323338.Konur, O., 2012k. The evaluation of the biogas research: a scientometric approach. EnergyEduc. Sci. Technol. A Energy Sci. Res. 29, 12771292.Konur, O., 2012l. The scientometric evaluation of the research on the production of bio-energy from biomass. Biomass Bioenergy 47, 504515.Konur, O., 2012m. The evaluation of the global energy and fuels research: a scientometricapproach. Energy Educ. Sci. Technol. A Energy Sci. Res. 30, 613628.Konur, O., 2012n. The evaluation of the biorefinery research: a scientometric approach.Energy Educ. Sci. Technol. A Energy Sci. Res. 30 (si 1), 347358.Konur, O., 2012o. The evaluation of the bio-oil research: a scientometric approach. EnergyEduc. Sci. Technol. A Energy Sci. Res. 30 (si 1), 379392.Konur, O., 2012p. The evaluation of the research on the biofuels: a scientometric approach.Energy Educ. Sci. Technol. A Energy Sci. Res. 28, 903 916.Konur, O., 2013. What have we learned from the research on the International FinancialReporting Standards (IFRS)? a mixed study. Energy Educ. Sci. Technol. D Soc. Polit.Econ. Cult. Res. 5, 2940.Konur, O., 2014. The periodical research on the experiences of the college students withADHD: a mixed study. Int. J. Res. Teach. Educ. 5, 1233.Konur, O., 2015a. Algal biosorption of heavy metals from wastes. In: Kim, S.K., Lee, C.G.(Eds.), Marine Bioenergy: Trends and Developments. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL,pp. 597626.Konur, O., 2015b. Algal economics and optimization. In: Kim, S.K., Lee, C.G. (Eds.),Marine Bioenergy: Trends and Developments. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL,pp. 691716.Konur, O., 2015c. Algal high-value consumer products. In: Kim, S.K., Lee, C.G. (Eds.),Marine Bioenergy: Trends and Developments. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL,pp. 653682.Konur, O., 2015d. Algal photobioreactors. In: Kim, S.K., Lee, C.G. (Eds.), MarineBioenergy: Trends and Developments. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 81108.Konur, O., 2015e. Algal photosynthesis, biosorption, biotechnology, and biofuels. In: Kim, S.K. (Ed.), Springer Handbook of Marine Biotechnology. Springer, Berlin, pp. 11311161.Konur, O., 2015f. Current state of research on algal biodiesel. In: Kim, S.K., Lee, C.G.(Eds.), Marine Bioenergy: Trends and Developments. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL,pp. 487512.450 CHAPTER 15 Scientometric overview regarding the nanobiomaterials Konur, O., 2015g. Current state of research on algal bioelectricity and algal microbial fuelcells. In: Kim, S.K., Lee, C.G. (Eds.), Marine Bioenergy: Trends and Developments.CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 527556.Konur, O., 2015h. Current state of research on algal bioethanol. In: Kim, S.K., Lee, C.G.(Eds.), Marine Bioenergy: Trends and Developments. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL,pp. 217244.Konur, O., 2015i. Current state of research on algal biohydrogen. In: Kim, S.K., Lee, C.G.(Eds.), Marine Bioenergy: Trends and Developments. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL,pp. 393422.Konur, O., 2015j. Current state of research on algal biomethane. In: Kim, S.K., Lee, C.G.(Eds.), Marine Bioenergy: Trends and Developments. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL,pp. 273302.Konur, O., 2015k. Current state of research on algal biomethanol. In: Kim, S.K., Lee, C.G.(Eds.), Marine Bioenergy: Trends and Developments. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL,pp. 327370.Konur, O., 2015l. The scientometric study of the global energy research. In: Prasad, R.,Sivakumar, S., Sharma, U.C. (Eds.), Energy Science and Technology. V.1.Opportunities and Challenges. Studium Press LLC, Houston, TX, pp. 475489.Konur, O., 2015m. The review of citation classics on the global energy research.In: Prasad, R., Sivakumar, S., Sharma, U.C. (Eds.), Energy Science and Technology.V.1. Opportunities and Challenges. Studium Press LLC, Houston, TX, pp. 490526.Konur, O., 2016a. Scientometric overview regarding surface chemistry of nanobiomaterials.In: Grumezescu, A.M. (Ed.), Applications of Nanobiomaterials. Volume 3: SurfaceChemistry of Nanobiomaterials. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Konur, O., 2016b. The citation classics in antimicrobial nanobiomaterials. In: Grumezescu,A.M. (Ed.), Applications of Nanobiomaterials. Volume VI: NanoBioMaterials inAntimicrobial Therapy. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Konur, O., 2016c. The hot papers in the surface engineering of nanobiomaterials.In: Grumezescu, A.M. (Ed.), Therapeutic Nanostructures. Volume 1: GeneralApproach. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Konur, O., 2016d. The citation classics in nanobiodrugs. In: Grumezescu, A.M. (Ed.),Therapeutic Nanostructures, Volume 2: Drug Delivery. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Konur, O., 2016e. The citation classics in anticancer nanobiomaterials. In: Grumezescu, A.M.(Ed.), Therapeutic Nanostructures, Volume 4: Chemotherapeutics. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Konur, O., 2016f. The citation classics in antimicrobial nanobiomaterials. In: Grumezescu,A. (Ed.), Therapeutic Nanostructures. Volume 3: Antimicrobials. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Konur, O., 2016g. The hottest papers in dental nanobiomaterials. In: Grumezescu, A. (Ed.),Therapeutic Nanostructures, Volume 5: Dentistry. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Kostoff, R.N., Stump, J.A., Johnson, D., Murday, J.S., Lau, C.G.Y., Tolles, W.M., 2006.The structure and infrastructure of the global nanotechnology literature. J. Nanopart.Res. 8, 301321.Le Guehennec, L., Soueidan, A., Layrolle, P., Amouriq, Y., 2007. Surface treatments oftitanium dental implants for rapid osseointegration. Dent. Mater. 23, 844854.Manski, R.J., Moeller, J.F., Maas, W.R., 2001. Dental services: an analysis of utilizationover 20 years. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 132, 655664.Mendonca, G., Mendonca, D.B.S., Aragao, F.J.L., Cooper, L.F., 2008. Advancing dentalimplant surface technology—from micron to nanotopography. Biomaterials 29,38223835.451References Meyer, M., Persson, O., 1998. Nanotechnology-Interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaborationand differences in application. Scientometrics 42, 195205.Mitra, S.B., Wu, D., Holmes, B.N., 2003. An application of nanotechnology in advanceddental materials. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 134, 1382 1390.Morris, A.J., Burke, F.J.T., 2001. Health policy: primary and secondary dental care: thenature of the interface. Br. Dent. J. 191, 660664.Moszner, N., Salz, U., 2001. New developments of polymeric dental composites. Prog.Polym. Sci. 26, 535576.Nakashima, T., Hayashi, M., Fukunaga, T., Kurata, K., Oh-Hora, M., Feng, J.Q., et al.,2011. Evidence for osteocyte regulation of bone homeostasis through RANKLexpression. Nat. Med. 17, 12311234.North, D., 1994. Economic-performance through time. Am. Econ. Rev. 84, 359368.Novoselov, K.S., Geim, A.K., Morozov, S.V., Jiang, D., Zhang, Y., Dubonos, S.V., et al.,2004. Electric field effect in atomically thin carbon films. Science 306, 666669.Oh, S.H., Finones, R.R., Daraio, C., Chen, L.H., Jin, S.H., 2005. Growth of nano-scalehydroxyapatite using chemically treated titanium oxide nanotubes. Biomaterials 26,49384943.Oregan, B., Gratzel, M., 1991. A low-cost, high-efficiency solar-cell based on dye-sensitized colloidal TiO2films. Nature 353, 737740.Paladugu, R., Chein, M.S., Gardezi, S., Wise, L., 2002. One hundred citation classics ingeneral surgical journals. World J. Surg. 26, 10991105.Porter, A.L., Youtie, J., Shapira, P., Schoeneck, D.J., 2008. Refining search terms fornanotechnology. J. Nanopart. Res. 10, 715728.Price, R.L., Waid, M.C., Haberstroh, K.M., Webster, T.J., 2003. Selective bone celladhesion on formulations containing carbon nanofibers. Biomaterials 24, 18771887.Qi, X.L., Zhang, S.C., 2011. Topological insulators and superconductors. Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 10571110.Radisavljevic, B., Radenovic, A., Brivio, J., Giacometti, V., Kis, A., 2011. Single-layerMoS2transistors. Nat. Nanotechnol. 6, 147150.Rafols, I., Meyer, M., 2007. How cross-disciplinary is bionanotechnology? Explorations inthe specialty of molecular motors. Scientometrics 70, 633 650.Rafols, I., Meyer, M., 2010. Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisci-plinarity: case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics 82, 263287.Robert, C., Caillieux, N., Wilson, C.S., Gaudy, J.F., Arreto, C.D., 2008. World orofacialpain research production: a bibliometric study (20042005). J. Orofac. Pain 22,181189.Sano, H., Takatsu, T., Ciucchi, B., Horner, J.A., Matthews, W.G., Pashley, D.H., 1995.Nanoleakage - Leakage within the hybrid layer. Oper. Dent. 20, 1825.Takeda, Y., Mae, S., Kajikawa, Y., Matsushima, K., 2009. Nanobiotechnologyas an emerging research domain from nanotechnology: a bibliometric approach.Scientometrics 80, 2338.Tay, F.R., Pashley, D.H., 2003. Water treeing-a potential mechanism for degradation ofdentin adhesives. Am. J. Dent. 16, 612.Tay, F.R., Pashley, D.H., Yoshiyama, M., 2002. Two modes of nanoleakage expression insingle-step adhesives. J. Dent. Res. 81, 472476.Vallet-Regi, M., Gonzalez-Calbet, J.M., 2004. Calcium phosphates as substitution of bonetissues. Prog. Solid State Chem. 32, 131.452 CHAPTER 15 Scientometric overview regarding the nanobiomaterials Van Meerbeek, B., Willems, G., Celis, J.P., Roos, J.R., Braem, M., Lambrechts, P., 1993.Assessment by nano-indentation of the hardness and elasticity of the resin-dentinbonding area. J. Dent. Res. 72, 14341442.Wamala, S., Merlo, J., Bostrom, G., 2006. Inequity in access to dental care servicesexplains current socioeconomic disparities in oral health: the Swedish National Surveysof Public Health 20042005. J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health 60, 10271033.Watt, R., Sheiham, A., 1999. Health policy: inequalities in oral health: a review of theevidence and recommendations for action. Br. Dent. J. 187, 612.Webster, T.J., Ergun, C., Doremus, R.H., Siegel, R.W., Bizios, R., 2000a. Enhancedfunctions of osteoblasts on nanophase ceramics. Biomaterials 21, 18031810.Webster, T.J., Ergun, C., Doremus, R.H., Siegel, R.W., Bizios, R., 2000b. Specific proteinsmediate enhanced osteoblast adhesion on nanophase ceramics. J. Biomed. Mater. Res.51, 475483.Webster, T.J., Ergun, C., Doremus, R.H., Siegel, R.W., Bizios, R., 2001. Enhancedosteoclast-like cell functions on nanophase ceramics. Biomaterials 22, 13271333.Webster, T.J., Siegel, R.W., Bizios, R., 1999. Osteoblast adhesion on nanophase ceramics.Biomaterials 20, 12211227.Weir, A., Westerhoff, P., Fabricius, L., Hristovski, K., von Goetz, N., 2012. Titaniumdioxide nanoparticles in food and personal care products. Environ. Sci. Technol.,462242462250.Wennerberg, A., Albrektsson, T., 2009. Effects of titanium surface topography on boneintegration: a systematic review. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 20, 172184.Wrigley, N., Matthews, S., 1986. Citation-classics and citation levels in geography. Area18, 185194.Xiong, J.H., Onal, M., Jilka, R.L., Weinstein, R.S., Manolagas, S.C., O’Brien, C.A., 2011.Matrix-embedded cells control osteoclast formation. Nat. Med. 17, 12351241.Yasuda, H., Shima, N., Nakagawa, N., Yamaguchi, K., Kinosaki, M., Mochizuki, S., et al.,1998. Osteoclast differentiation factor is a ligand for osteoprotegerinosteoclastogenesis-inhibitory factor and is identical to TRANCE/RANKL. Proc. Natl.Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 95, 35973602.Yella, A., Lee, H.W., Tsao, H.N., Yi, C.Y., Chandiran, A.K., Nazeeruddin, M.K., et al.,2011. Porphyrin-sensitized solar cells with cobalt (II/III)-based redox electrolyte exceed12 percent efficiency. Science 334, 629634.Zhang, Y.Z., Lim, C.T., Ramakrishna, S., Huang, Z.M., 2005. Recent development ofpolymer nanofibers for biomedical and biotechnological applications. J. Mater. Sci.Mater. Med. 16, 933946.Zhao, L.Z., Wang, H.R., Huo, K.F., Cui, L.Y., Zhang, W.R., Ni, H.W., et al., 2011.Antibacterial nano-structured titania coating incorporated with silver nanoparticles.Biomaterials 32, 57065716.Zhou, H., Lee, J., 2011. Nanoscale hydroxyapatite particles for bone tissue engineering.Acta Biomater. 7, 27692781.453References IndexNote: Page numbers followed by “f ” and “t” refer to figures and tables, respectively.AAccelerated Portland cement (APC), 203Acid etch (AE), 345, 348Actinomyces, 217Actinomyces naeslundii, 174175, 410Additive manufacturing, defined, 37Adhesives, 115119Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, 148, 176,214AgNP coating, 172AgNP-coated gutta-percha, 171172AH Plus, 172173, 393Alanine aminotransferase (ALT), 398399ALBO-MPCA, 276277SEM analysis of, 277, 278fXRD patterns of, 277279, 277f, 279fAlite, 270Aluminum, 31Alveolar bone, 196197, 252, 339341Amalgam, 136137, 188, 191, 192t, 194silver, 222223Amorphous calcium phosphate (ACP), 114117Antiadherent effect of PDNC, 326327Antibacterial nanoparticles and composite resins,111113applications of, 112113Antibiotic-releasing scaffolds, 409410Antifungal assay, 324330antiadherent effect of PDNC, 326327antifungal experiment, 324326possible antiadherent mechanism of PDNC,328330Antimicrobial activity of different nanoparticles,15fAntimicrobial agentsnanoparticles as, 201202nanoparticles as irrigants and, 390392Antimicrobial denture acrylic, 309314demand on, 311312denture-induced stomatitis, 309311noble metal NPs, 312314Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy(aPDT), 10Apexification, 175176Artificial organic matrix, 351352Aspartate aminotransferase (AST), 398399Autogenous bone grafts, 341Autogenous tissues, 355BBAC (benzalkonium chloride), 4142Bacterial biofilms, 144145Bacterial diversity in endodontic biofilms,293294BAG NPs, 392Belite, 271Benzoyl peroxide, 3Bioactive glass nanoparticles, 115, 168, 392in regenerative endodontics, 412Bioaggregate, 202, 229, 274, 395399radiopacity of, 287288Biocements with potential endodonticuse, 79dicalcium silicatein vitro bioactivity of, 8891synthesis and characterization of, 8083tricalcium aluminatein vitro bioactivity of, 8891synthesis and characterization of, 8487white mineral aggregate (WMTA) and partiallystabilized cement (PSC)in vitro bioactivity and biological assay of,100101sol-gel synthesis of, 9199Bioceramic blasting, 354Biocompatible coatings with nanomaterials,263264Biodegradable polymers, 2930, 145146Biodentin, 270, 274, 284286Biodentine, 274, 284286radiopacity of, 287288Biofilms, 215, 290291composition, 216definition, 216endodontic, 293294in endodontic microenvironment, 292293extraradicular, 217general characteristics of, 291and implant-associated infections, 3840intracanal, 217455 Biofilms (Continued)periapical, 217role of, 216types of, 217BioHelix implants, 354Biological microelectomechanical system(BioMEMS), 252Biomaterial-associated infection (BAI),227Biomems for maxillary expansion and orthodontictooth movement, 252Biomimetic coatings, 347Biomimetic implant surfaces, nanotechnology in,351352Biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) ceramicparticles, 247Bisphenol A dimethacrylate (Bis-DMA), 3Bisphenol A glycidyl methacrylate (Bis-GMA), 3Blade-vent implants, 3334Bonding system, 225231dental implants, 227drug-delivery system, 229231endodontics, 228229esthetics and tooth durability, 228impression materials, 231laser and nanoparticles, 228nanocare gold, 228nanoionomer, 226prereacted glass-ionomer, 226227Bone growth, materials to induce, 7 8Bone marrow grafts, 341Boneimplant contact (BIC), 342343, 345346Bone-lining cells, 340341Bone-replacement materials, 233 234, 247“Bottom-up” approach, 242Branemark osseointegrated titanium implant,3536Buckminsterfullerene, 253254CC60fullerene, 254Calcium, 219Calcium chloride tetrahydrate, 276Calcium floride, 92Calcium fluoride (CaF2) nanoparticles, 114115Calcium hydroxide (CH), 270272, 397Calcium hydroxide cement (CHC), 221222Calcium hydroxide nanoparticles (CH NPs), 390Calcium nitrate, 80Calcium oxide, 82, 103Calcium phosphate (CP) coating, 345 346Calcium phosphate cements, 402404hydroxyapatite (HA), 404Calcium phosphate materials (CaPs), 31Calcium phosphates (CaPs), 137in regenerative procedures, 412413Calcium silicate hydrate (CSH), 270, 272273,283, 397Calcium silicate phaseEDS analysis, 275hydration of, 282283SEM analysis of, 275typical appearance of, 276fXRD analysis of, 274Calcium-based materials, 285Calcium-silicate-based biomaterials, 269as an apical plug in the treatment of teeth,296298clinical evaluation, 297298endodontic procedure, 296297chemical properties of, 270274hydration mechanism, 272273mineral trioxide aggregate, 271272Portland cement, 270271management of teeth with necrotic pulpsand immature root development,294295microbiological profile of root canals associatedwith periapical pathosis, 289294bacterial diversity in endodontic biofilms,293294endodontic apical disease, 289general characteristics of biofilm, 291microbial community, 290291particularities of biofilms in endodonticmicroenvironment, 292293nanotechnology in the process of synthesis of,274284highly active calcium silicates, 274275hydration reactions, 282284mechanical properties of nanostructuredmaterials, 281282nanostructured biomaterials, 275279superplastic, quick-bonding endodonticmixtures, 279281physical and antimicrobial properties of,284289antimicrobial activity, 289compressive strength, 285286displacement, 287flexural strength, 286fracture resistance, 288289microhardness, 288particle size, 288pH value of MTA, 287push-out strength, 286287radiopacity, 287288456 Index sealing ability, 285setting time, setting conditions, 284solubility, 284285Candida albicans (CA), 18, 219, 229, 246,310311, 324326-induced stomatitis, 229MgO nanoparticles against, 169Candida glabrata, 219Candida species, 3103112CaOSiO2(C2S), 80CaP (calcium phosphate), 247Capillary electrophoresis time-of-flight massspectrometry (CE-TOFMS), 64Carbon and carbon silicone compounds, 32Carbon nanotubes (CNTs), 247Carbonate-HA nanocrystals, 245Carboxymethyl cellulose hydrogel,221Caries treatment, before dental composites,188Cell Counting Kit-8 Assay (CCK-8), 397 398Cellulose acetate phthalate, 910Cementoblasts, 359Cements, dental, 120125glass ionomer cements (GICs), 120122resin cements, 122123Ceram X, 224Ceramic materials, 223, 343Ceramics, 31Cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), 148149Chemical-based oral disinfectants, 311 312Chitosan, 169, 219Chitosan nanoparticles (CsNPs), 148149, 167,169170, 173175, 391, 411412Chlorhexidine (CHX), 113, 168, 218219Chronic denture stomatitis, 310311CHX (chlorhexidine), 4142Ciprofloxacin, 409410Citation classics in dental nanobiomaterials, 426,432, 433t, 436t, 439t, 442tCleaning and shaping protocols, limitations of,162163Clinical attachment level (CAL) gain,362Coadhesion, 216Coaggregation, 216Cobaltchromium alloys, 30Collagen, 339340Colony-forming unit (CFU) counting, 326Color stability, 323324Commercially available implants, nanostructuredsurfaces in, 353354Commonly used nanoparticles, 167168Compomers, 41Composite resin, 3, 108115antibacterial nanoparticles and composite resins,111113applications, 112113applications of antibacterial nanoparticles in,112113nanocomposites, 109111remineralization and, 114115Compressive strength, 285286Computer-aided design/computer-aidedmanufacturing (CAD/CAM) systems,2728, 3132, 36Connective tissue attachment, 339340Core-vent titanium alloy implant, 35Cosmetic dentistry, 248Coupled with selected area (electron) diffraction(SAED), 80Coupling agent, 224225Cu nanoparticles, 112N,N-Cyanoethylmethylaniline (CEMA), 3Cytotoxicity of Ti plates as compared to dentalmetals, 5354Cytotoxicity TiO2NP oral-cultured cells, 5455DDebyeScherrer equation, 84Decarboxylated SAM (dSAM), 68Dectin-2, 69Dendrimers, 223Dendritic copolymers, 223Dental caries, 188etiophysiology of, 214215nanotechnology for preventing, 1218gold nanoparticles, 1516silver nanoparticles, 16titanium dioxide nanoparticles, 1718zinc oxide nanoparticles, 17prevention of, 244245Dental composite, 224225caries treatment before, 188historical development of, 188189Dental implants, 27, 212f, 227configurations, 3336blade-vent implants, 3334Branemark osseointegrated titanium implant,3536core-vent titanium alloy implant, 35IMZ dental implant, 35ITI hollow-cylinder implant, 35single-crystal sapphire implant, 34subperiosteal implants, 33TCP-implant, 34TPS-screw, 34457Index Dental implants (Continued)transosteal, mandibular staple bone plate, 35Tu¨bingen aluminum ceramic implant, 34vitreous carbon implant, 33dental postimplantation complications, 3844avoiding postsurgical complications, 4044biofilms and implant-associated infections,3840design and technology in dental implantology,3637modified surfaces, 247trends in dental implants biomaterials, 2833ancient period (through AD 1000) to present,29carbon and carbon silicone compounds, 32ceramics, 31metals and metal alloys, 30polymers and composites, 2930titanium and its alloys Ti-6Al-4V, 3031titaniumzirconium alloy (StraumannRoxolid), 3233zirconia, 3132types of, 338fDental nanoimplants, 438441most cited papers in, 440441Dental nano-osteoblasts, 441444most cited papers in, 443444Dental plaque, 214Dental pulp pathology, 269Dental pulp stem cells (DPSCs), 410, 412413Dental tissues and nanostructures, 12Dentifrobots. See Nanorobotic dentrificesDentin, 163164dental nanobiomaterials in, 435438most cited papers in, 437438Dentin hypersensitivity, 221225ceramic materials, 223dental composite, 224225nanoesthetic filling materials, 224nanoparticles of zirconia, 224nanorestorative materials, 221222nanozinc oxide, 222223recent advances, 225silver amalgam, 222223silver nanoparticles, 223Dentin matrix protein 1 (DMP1), 437Dentinal tubule, 161164bacterial infection into, 164fDenture acrylic base, 309310Denture nanocomposite biomaterial, 314315Denture-induced stomatitis, 309311, 310fDetermined cells, 340341Devastating inflammation, 66Dexamethasone (DEX), 149Diamond, nanostructured, 11Dicalcium phosphate anhydrous (DCPA),114115Dicalcium silicate (C2S), 82, 103, 273hydrates, 271in vitro bioactivity of, 8891preparation of, by sol-gel method, 81fsynthesis and characterization of, 8083Digital dental imaging, 12, 250N,N-Dihydroxyethyl-p-toluidine, 3Dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate (DMAEM), 34-N,N-Dimethylamino-phenyl-ethanol (DMAPE),3Dip coating, 352353Direct pulp capping (DPC), 124, 124f, 410 411Disinfection of root canal system, 390Doxorubicin, 5455Doxycycline gel, 195196Drug-delivery system, 229231Drug-releasing scaffolds, 409410EElastomeric materials, 231Electrospinning, 406Enamel, dental nanobiomaterials in, 444 446most cited papers in, 446Endodontic apical disease, 289Endodontic biofilms, 217Endodontic microbiology, 161162Endodontic pathogens, difficulty in achievingcomplete eradication of, 162164anatomic complexity, 163164complexity of microorganisms, 162limitations of cleaning and shaping protocols,162163Endodontic procedure, 296297Endodontics, 161, 228229applications of antimicrobial nanoparticles in,167177commonly used nanoparticles, 167168nano-modification of materials for perforationrepair and apical seal, 175177nanoparticle-based photodynamic therapy,174175nanoparticles as intracanal medicaments,170171nanoparticles as irrigants, 168170nanoparticles as obturation materials,171174need for nanotechnology in, 165166Endodontics, nanobiomaterials in, 389, 393404calcium phosphate cements, 402404hydroxyapatite (HA), 404458 Index nano-modified MTA, 393402bioaggregate, 396399endosequence bioceramic root repair material,400402nanoparticles as irrigants and antimicrobialagents, 390392bioactive glass, 392calcium hydroxide, 390chitosan, 391silver, 390391regeneration, 404413bioactive glass in, 412calcium phosphates in, 412413nano-sized scaffolds, 405412root canal sealers, 392393Endodontics, nanotechnology in, 201203, 248250future aspects, 203nanoparticles as antimicrobial agents, 201202nanotechnology-based root-end sealant,202203Endosequence bioceramic root repair material,400402EndoSequence Root Repair Material (RRM), 400EndoSequence Root Repair Putty (RRP), 400Enterococcus faecalis, 149150, 163164,167169, 172173, 229, 250AgNP gel against, 170bioaggregate against, 399chitosan nanoparticles against, 391MgO nanoparticles against, 169nanometric bioactive glass, 170171QPEI NPs against, 393ERK/MAPK signaling pathway, 358Escherichia coli, 18, 61, 313314Esthetic materials, 6Esthetics and tooth durability, 228Ethyl-4-dimethylaminobenzoate (EDMAB), 3Ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA), 3Extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) matrix, 291Extraradicular biofilms, 222FFabrication of nanocomposite, 316fFACS (fluorescence activated cell sorting), 326Feynman, Richard, 1Fibroblasts, 348Fibronectin coating, 348349Fibro-osseous integration, 343Field emission electron microscope (FE-SEM),317318Filler particles, 224225Filtek Supreme, 141First repair cement, 396397Flash setting, 395Flexural strength, 286Fluidized-bed reactor (FBR), 256Fluoroaluminosilicate (FAS) technology, 226Fluoride, 13, 215, 346347Fluoroapatite-added cement, 1215-Fluorouracil (5-FU), 5455Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy,80, 86Friction forces, 199200, 199fFriction problem in orthodontic treatment, 253Fullerene-like nanoparticles, 253259inorganic fullerene-like nanoparticles (IF-NPs),254255synthesis, 255257tribological properties, 257259Fusobacterium nucleatum-stimulated epithelialcells, 67GG-COAT PLUS, 226Gefitinib, 5455Gelatin-based bioactive glass hybrid scaffolds, 234Gene-delivery systems, 230Gingival fibroblasts, 67Glass ceramics, 31Glass ionomer cements (GICs), 41, 51, 120 122Gold nanoparticles, 1516biomedical applications, 313Gold nanorods (GNRs), 231Gram-negative bacteria, 38Gram-positive bacteria, 38Gray mineral trioxide aggregate (GMTA), 79, 277,287Grit blasting (GB), 345Growth/differentiation factors, 341Guided bone regeneration (GBR), 359361nanoparticle bone grafts for, 361362Guided tissue regeneration (GTR), 359361, 363nanoparticle bone grafts for, 361362GuttaFlow sealers, 393HHarungana madagascariensis, 147H. madagascariensis leaf extracts (HLE), 147Healing of wounds, 232Highly active calcium silicates, synthesis of,274275High-resolution transmission electron microscopy(HRTEM), 80Historical development of dental composit es,188189459Index Hormetic response of nanoparticles (NPs), factorsaffecting, 53fHSC-2 cells, 5455Human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs), 56Hydration mechanism, 272273Hydration reactions, 282284Hydrophilic fumed silica nanofiller s,117Hydroquinone monomethyl ether, 32-Hydroxy methymethacrylate, 92-Hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone, 3Hydroxyapatite (HA), 31, 114, 121122,192193, 244245, 404nanoparticles, 78nanostructured processing of HA coatings, 11polymer-grafted, 44-reinforcing whiskers, 114115structures, 340341as surface defect filler, 2202-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA), 117, 191,230Hypersensitivity cure, 245IIF-MoS2nanoparticle, 256257IF-WS2nanoparticle, 255256, 261262progressive formation of, 256fImmature root development, management of,294295calcium-silicate-based material as apical plug in,296298clinical evaluation, 297298endodontic procedure, 296297Implant configurations, 3336Implant dentistry, nanobiomaterials and, 337354future perspective, 362363materials, perspective from, 343nanotechnology, perspective from, 349354biomimetic implant surfaces, 351352cellular events on nanomodified implantsurfaces, 350351implant surface nanofunctionalization withbiomolecules, 352353nanoevents in extracellular matrix, 349nanofeatures of dental implants, 349nanostructured surfaces in commerciallyavailable implants, 353354nanotechnology for peri-implant mucosaattachment, 353osseointegration, perspective from, 342343peri-implant mucosa attachment, perspectivefrom, 347349surface properties, perspective from, 343347implant surface functionalization withbiomolecules, 347surface wettability and chemicalmodifications, 346347surrounding tissues, perspective from, 339 341Implant installation, 337Implant surface functionalization withbiomolecules, 347Implant surface nanofunctionalization withbiomolecules, 352353Implant-associated infections, 3840Implants. See also Dental implantsImpression materials, 6, 231, 248IMZ dental implant, 2930, 35Indium, 31Inducible cells, 340341Initiator-accelerator of polymerization, 224 225Innovative Bio Ceramix, Inc. (IBC), 229Inorganic fullerene-like nanoparticles (IF-NPs),254255mechanisms of friction for, 258fsynthesis, 255257Instron machine, 261263InterleukinIL-1β,5658, 60IL-6, 5758IL-8, 5758Intracanal biofilms, 217Intracanal medicaments, nanoparticles as, 170171Ironchromiumnickel-based alloys, 30Iron-oxide nanoparticles, 227Irrigantsnanoparticles as, 168170penetration of, 166f, 390Irrigation solutions, 405Isolative biocompatible coatings, 351352Isotropic nanofeatures, 349ITI hollow-cylinder implant, 35KKampo medicines, 6567, 69LLactobacillus spp., 12, 17, 222223Laser and nanoparticles, 228Laser plasma application, 251Lignincarbohydrate complex (LCC), 6566, 69Liposomes, 231MMacrolevel roughness, 344345Marginal adaptation, perfect, 36460 Index Maxillofacial surgery, applications ofnanotechnology in, 12Melphalan, 5455Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), 231, 340343Mesoporous silica nanoparticle (MSN), 113, 218,221Metabolomic analysis, 6566Metabolomics, 64Metal nanoparticles, 111112, 144145,311314Metal organic chemical vapor deposition technique(MOCVD), 256257Metal oxide nanoparticles, 144145, 167168, 227Metallic oxides, 167Metalloceramic coatings, nanostructu red, 11Metals and metal alloys, 3012-Methacryloyloxydodecylpyridinium bromide(MDPB), 4142, 115116, 318319Methyl methacrylate (MMA), 3Methylene blue (MB), 10, 149150Metronidazole, 146147, 409410Micro- to nanoscale, vision in dentistry from,189191“Microfill” composites, 139Microlevel roughening, 345Micron-sized dental robots, 197, 247248Microsilica, 43Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), 79, 124125,176, 271272, 286287, 393394,410411effect of condensation on, 287effect on strength of root dentine, 288289gray, 79, 277, 287microhardness, 288nano-modified. See Nano-modified MTAnano-modified white MTA (NWMTA) ,394396, 394tpH value of, 287principal phases of, 273twhite. See White mineral trioxide aggregate(WMTA)Minimally invasive dentistry (MID), 133 134Minocycline, 147148, 410Modified PMMA denture base acrylic, 309Modified sol-gel method, 80, 84Monocalcium phosphate nanoparticle, 114Monocyte Chemoattractant Protein-1 (MCP-1),5758Montmorillonite, 119MoS2nanoparticles, 256, 257fMouth rinse, 217218Mouthwash. See Mouth rinseMT3T3-E1 cells, 5354Multiple-walled nanotubes (MWNT), 254NNano-adhesives, 246in orthodontics, 251Nano-anesthesia, 247248Nanobioceramic particles, 121Nano-Bond, 225226Nanobone graft materials, 220Nanocare gold, 228NanocarePlus Silver and Gold,171Nano-CHX particles, 218Nanoclay, 119Nanoclusters (NCs), 109111, 140141, 193,224225Nanocoated orthodontic archwire, 198200Nanocoatingsfor friction reduction, 251to prevent enamel decalcification, 251Nanocomposite, 109111, 223225, 244artificial teeth, 11defined, 314315denture teeth, 248hydrogels, 9Nanocomputers, 11Nano-concept in restorative dentistry, 192194nanofills, 192193nanohybrid composites, 193194Nanocrystalline calcium sulfate (Nanogen),361362Nanocrystalline-HA paste, 361Nanocrystals, 143Nanodentistry, 196197, 243Nanodiagnostics, 232Nanoencapsulated drugs, 218Nanoencapsulation, 7, 250Nanoengineering, 241242Nanoesthetic filling materials, 224Nanoevents in extracellular matrix,349Nanofeatures of dental implants,349Nanofibers, 223Nanofilled composite resins, 5Nanofilled composites, 138143, 225silica nanoparticles, 142143Nanofillers, 6, 109111, 117, 231, 248Nanofills, 192193Nanogen, 361362Nanohybrids, 193194Nanohydroxyapatite-added cement, 121Nanoionomer, 226Nanolevel roughness, 351Nanomaterial powders, 222Nanomaterials, 242461Index Nanomaterials in clinical dentistry, 211, 217220calcium, 219chitosan, 219chlorhexidine, 218CHX varnish therapy, 218219future challenges, 234235HA as surface defect filler, 220mouth rinse, 217218nanoparticles in dentifrice, 220oral hygiene and halitosis, 217tooth whitening/bleaching, 220Nanomechanical sensors, 253Nanomedicine, 2, 243Nanomers, 45, 193, 224225Nanometer, 1Nanometric bioactive glass, 170171Nanometric materials, 224Nano-modification of materials for perforationrepair and apical seal, 175177Nanomodified implant surfaces, cellular events on,350351Nano-modified MTA, 393402bioaggregate, 396399endosequence bioceramic root repair material,400402Nano-modified white MTA (NWMTA), 394396,394tNanoneedles, 8, 231234, 248bone-replacement materials, 233234healing of wounds, 232nanodiagnostics, 232nano-orthodontics, 233nanorobotics, 232nanotweezers, 232surgical devices, 232tissue engineering, 233Nano-optimized moldable ceramics, 6Nano-orthodontics, 233Nanoparticle bone grafts, 357359cementoblasts, 359for GTR/GBR, 361362osteoblasts and progenitors, 357358PDL cells, 358359Nanoparticle-based photodynamic therapy,174175Nanoparticles, 143151, 213in dentifrice, 220as intracanal medicaments, 170171as irrigants, 168170as irrigants and antimicrobial agents, 390392bioactive glass, 392calcium hydroxide, 390chitosan, 391silver, 390391as lubricant, 259260metal, 144145nonpolymeric, 150151as obturation materials, 171174polymeric, 145150preparation of, 315317released by orthodontic elastomeric ligatures, 252NanoPrimer (Ketact), 225226Nanorestorative materials, 221222Nanorobotic dentrifices, 245Nanorobots, 11, 197, 200201, 232, 242, 249dental, 11for orthodontic movement, 252Nanorobots, 242Nanoseal, 172Nanosilica, 43Nanosilver fluoride, 222223Nanosized calcium carbonate (NC), 220, 224225Nanosized particles, 27Nano-sized scaffolds, 405412antibiotic-releasing scaffolds, 409410methods of fabrication, 406408in regenerative endodontics, 410412Nano-sizing, 389Nanosolutions, 6, 246Nanostructured biomaterials, synthesis of, 275279Nanostructured materials, mechanical propertiesof, 281282Nanostructured Mg-HA (SINTlife), 361362Nanostructured scaffolds, 356Nanostructured surfaces in commercially availableimplants, 353354BioHelix, 354Nanotite, 354Ossean, 354Osseospeed, 353354Nanostructures used in dentistry, 213Nanotechnologic enamel-remineralizing agents,198Nanotechnologic orthodontic brackets, 200Nanotechnology, 2, 211213, 241242Nanotechnology, in dentistry, 187, 243251application in diagnosis and treatment, 243bone replacement materials, 247caries treatment, before dental composites, 188cosmetic dentistry, 248dental implants’ modified surfaces, 247digital dental imaging, 250endodontics, 248250endodontics, nanotechnology in, 201203future aspects, 203nanoparticles as antimicrobial agents, 201202nanotechnology-based root-end sealant,202203462 Index historical development of dental composites,188189hypersensitivity cure, 245impression materials, 248laser plasma application, 251nano-anesthesia, 247248nanocomposite denture teeth, 248nanocomposite in restorative dentistry, 244nanoencapsulation, 250nanoneedles, 248nanorobotic dentrifices, 245nanosolutions, 246orthodontics, nanotechnology in, 197201nanocoated orthodontic archwire, 198200nanotechnologic enamel-remineralizingagents, 198nanotechnologic orthodontic brackets, 200orthodontic nanocomposites, 198orthodontic nanorobots and furtherance,200201periodontics, nanotechnology in, 194197future aspects, 197periodontal treatment procedures, 195197preventing dental caries, 244245prosthodontics, 246radiopacity, 250replacing teeth, 246restorative dentistry, nanotechnology in,192194future predictions, 194nano-concept in restorative dentistry,192194nanofills, 192193nanohybrid composites, 193194quaternary ammonium PEI (QPEI), 194surface disinfectants, 251tissue engineering and dentistry, 246vision in dentistry from micro- to nanoscale,189191Nanotechnology, in orthodontics, 251253biomems for maxillary expansion andorthodontic tooth movement, 252nano-adhesives, 251nanocoatings for friction reduction, 251nanocoatings to prevent enamel decalcification,251nanomechanical sensors, 253nanoparticles released by orthodonticelastomeric ligatures, 252nanorobots for orthodontic movement,252nano-ultrasound device, 253shape-memory nanocomposite polymer, 252temporary anchorage devices, 253Nanotite implants, 354Nanotubes (NT), 254Nanotweezers, 232Nano-ultrasound device, 253Nanozinc oxide, 222223NiTi orthodontic archwires, 263Noble metal NPs, 312314preparation of, 316fNonpolymeric nanoparticles, 150151OObturation materials, nanoparticles as, 171174Octacalcium phosphate (OCP), 114Oligonucleotides, 149Oral and maxillofacial surgery, applications ofnanotechnology in, 12Oral diseases, 149150, 214Oral health care, 214Oral hygiene and halitosis, 217Oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) cell lines,151Orento (TJ-120), 67Organosilane, 3Ormocers, 34Orthodontic archwires coated with nanomaterials,261263Orthodontic nanorobots and furtherance, 200201Orthodontic wires, superlubrication of, 241biocompatible coatings with nanomaterials,263264friction problem in, 253fullerene-like nanoparticles, 253259IF-NP synthesis, 255257inorganic fullerene-like nanoparticles,254255tribological properties, 257259nanomedicine, 243nanoparticles as lubricant, 259260nanotechnology in dentistry, 243251application in diagnosis and treatment, 243bone replacement materials, 247cosmetic dentistry, 248dental implants’ modified surfaces, 247digital dental imaging, 250endodontics, 248250hypersensitivity cure, 245impression materials, 248laser plasma application, 251nano-anesthesia, 247248nanocomposite denture teeth, 248nanocomposite in restorative dentistry, 244nanoencapsulation, 250nanoneedles, 248463Index Orthodontic wires, superlubrication of (Continued)nanorobotic dentrifices, 245nanosolutions, 246prevention of dental caries, 244245prosthodontics, 246radiopacity, 250replacing teeth, 246surface disinfectants, 251tissue engineering and dentistry, 246nanotechnology in orthodontics, 251253biomems for maxillary expansion andorthodontic tooth movement, 252nano-adhesives, 251nanocoatings for friction reduction, 251nanocoatings to prevent enameldecalcification, 251nanomechanical sensors, 253nanoparticles released by orthodonticelastomeric ligatures, 252nanorobots for orthodontic movement, 252nano-ultrasound device, 253shape-memory nanocomposite polymer, 252temporary anchorage devices, 253orthodontic archwires coated withnanomaterials, 261263Orthodontics, nanotechnology in, 197201nanocoated orthodontic archwire, 198200nanotechnologic enamel-remineralizing agents,198nanotechnologic orthodontic brackets, 200orthodontic nanocomposites, 198orthodontic nanorobots and furtherance, 200201Ossean implants, 354Osseointegration, 7, 3132,338,342343, 440441Osseospeed implants, 353354Osteoblast proliferation, 10, 357358, 444Osteoblasts and progenitors, 357358Osteocytes, 340341Osteogenesis, 341Osteoprogenitor cells, 340341Over-the-counter (OTC) drugs, 69PPalladium, 31Partially stabilized cement (PSC), 9199, 104in vitro bioactivity and biological assay of,100101PBS (phosphate buffer solution), 326Perforation, 175176Periapical biofilms, 217Peri-implant mucosa, 339attachment, 347349nanotechnology for, 353Periodontal disease, 3940, 143144, 147, 194195Periodontal drug delivery, nanomaterials for, 910Periodontal ligament (PDL), 356, 358359Periodontal regeneration, 356Periodontics, nanotechnology in, 194197future aspects, 197periodontal treatment procedures, 195 197Periodontology, nanobiomaterials in, 355362future perspective, 362363guided bone regeneration (GBR), 359361guided tissue regeneration (GTR), 359361nanoparticle bone grafts for GTR/GBR,361362regenerative periodontal therapies, 356359nanoparticle bone grafts, 357359periodontal tissue engineering usingnanostructure scaffolds, 3563572-Phosphonobutane-1,2,4-tricarboxylic acid(PBTCA), 279Photoactivated restorative nanomaterials used indentistry, 36Photodynamic therapy, 10, 174175, 195196Plasmid gene carriers, 347Platinum nanoparticlesbiomedical applications, 313314PMMA (polymethyl methacrylate) denture NPnanocomposite (PDNC), 314317antiadherent effect of, 326327characterization of, 317318denture nanocomposite biomaterial, 314 315determination of eluted ion from, 318319incorporation of NPs into PMMA denture base,317microstructure of, 317318physical properties of, 320324color change, 323324flexural strength, 321323thermal stability, 320321possible antiadherent mechanism of, 328330preparation of NPs, 315317PMMA (polymethyl methacrylate)-based acrylicresin, 309310Pocket depth (PD) reduction, 362Polycaprolactone (PCL) nanofibers, 411Poly(D,L-lactide), 910Poly(D,L-lactide) acid (PLA), 10, 146Poly (D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA)nanoparticles, 910, 146Polyethylene glycol dimethacrylate, 9Poly(glycolic) acid, 10, 146Poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid), 175Polymer-based composites, 44Polymeric nanoparticles, 145150Polymerization process, 34464 Index Polymer-modified nanoparticles, 230Polymers and composites, 2930Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), 189PolymP-nActive nanoparticles, 117Polyurethane, 314Poly (vinylpyrrolidone) (PVP) NPs, 328329Porphyromonas gingivalis,61Portland cement, 270271Portland clinker, 79Prereacted glass-ionomer, 226227Primary stability, 342Prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), 5758Prosthodontics, 246Pseudomonas aeruginosa,18Pulp Canal Sealer EWT, 172173Pulp capping, 410411agent, 221222direct, 124, 124fPulpectomy, 405Pulpitis, 161Pure titanium, 343Push-out strength, 286287QQuaternary ammonium compound, 311312Quaternary ammonium dimethacrylate (QADM),114116Quaternary ammonium PEI (QPEI), 194Quaternary ammonium polyethyleniminenanoparticles, 112, 146, 172173,392393Quaternary ammonium salts, 112Quorum sensing, 216RRadiopacity, 250, 287288RB dye, 174175Regenerative endodonticsbioactive glass in, 412calcium phosphates in, 412413nano-sized scaffolds, 405412Regenerative procedures, 389Remineralization, 4243and composite resins, 114115Resin, 224225composite resin, 108115Resin cements, 122123Resin-based composite materials, 190Resin-based composites, 136138Resin-based dental composites, 146Resin-modified glass ionomer cements (RMGICs),41Restorative dentistry, nanobiomaterials in, 107adhesives, 115119composite resin, 108115antibacterial nanoparticles and compositeresins, 111113nanocomposites, 109111remineralization and composite resins, 114115dental cements and dental liners, 120125glass ionomer cements (GICs), 120122mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), 124 125resin cements, 122123temporary restorative materials, 125Restorative dentistry, nanocomposite in, 244Restorative dentistry, nanotechnology in, 192194future predictions, 194nano-concept, 192194nanofills, 192193nanohybrid composites, 193194quaternary ammonium PEI (QPEI), 194Restorative dentistry nanomaterials, 135151actual clinic situation, 152155dental nanocomposites, 136138resin-based composites, 136138nanocrystals, 143nanofilled, 138143silica nanoparticles, 142143nanoparticles, 143151metal nanoparticles, 144145nonpolymeric nanoparticles, 150151polymeric nanoparticles, 145150new trends in restorative dentistry, 151152Root canal irrigants, 168Root canal sealers, 222nanotechnology application in, 392393Root canal system, disinfection of, 390Root canal therapy (RCT), 389Root canal treatment, 161Root cementum, 359Root-end sealant, nanotechnology-based, 202203SS-adenosylmethionine (SAM), 6466, 68Sandvik Bioline, 8Sandvik nanoflex, 199Sasa Health®,69Sasa senanensis Rehder, 6567, 69Scanning electron microscopy (SEM), 80, 82, 147of cement mixture I following hydration, 281fof cement mixture II following hydration, 282fScherrer equation, 274Scientometric studies in nanomaterials, 425dental nanoimplants, 438441, 439tmost cited papers in, 440441465Index Scientometric studies in nanomaterials (Continued)dental nano-osteoblasts, 441444, 442tmost cited papers in, 443444dental research, 427428dentin, dental nanobiomaterials in, 435438,436tmost cited papers in, 437438enamel, dental nanobiomaterials in, 444446,445tmost cited papers in, 446issues, 425426methodology, 426427nanomaterial research, 428430research on the dental nanobiomaterials,430432teeth, dental nanobiomaterials in, 432435,433tmost cited papers in, 434435Sealapex, 172Sealers, 392ZnO-based sealers, 172Secondary caries, 13Selective laser sintering, 37Self-assembly, 89Shape-memory nanocomposite polymer, 252Shojusen®,69Shosaikoto (TJ-9), 67Signaling proteins, 349Silica nanofillers, hydrophilic fumed, 117Silica nanoparticles, 142143Silica particles, 220Silicate binder. See Mineral trioxide aggregate(MTA)Silicate cement, 80Silicone, 314Silveramalgam, 222223as antimicrobial agent, 390391Silver nanoparticles, 7, 16, 42, 111112,114115, 144, 167170, 220, 223biomedical applications, 314Silver-zinc zeolite, 311312Simulated body fluid (SBF), 80, 88, 89tSingle-crystal sapphire implant, 34Single-walled nanotubes (SWNT), 254Sjo¨gren’s syndrome, 323324SLActive implant of Straumann, 346347Sodium hypochlorite, 162163, 311312Soft tissue around dental implants, 339Sol-gel method, 80Sol-gel synthesis of white mineral aggregate,9199Spherical superparamagnetic iron-oxide (SPIO)nanoparticles, 231Staphylococcus aureus, 18, 229MgO nanoparticles against, 169Staphylococcus epidermidis,11Stem cells from the apical papilla (SCAP), 411412Stereolithography, 37Straight wire technique, 199200, 199fStreptococcus aureus, 246Streptococcus mutans, 12, 1718, 141, 146, 172,191, 218219, 222223, 227, 246Streptococcus sobrinus, 12, 172Streptococcus species, 161162Subperiosteal implants, 33Sulfonyl dodecyl sulfate, 276Sunchlon®,69Superparamagnetic iron-oxide nanoparticles, 231Superplastic, quick-bonding endodontic mixtures,279281Surface coating, 226Surface disinfectants, 251Surface roughening, 343344Surface topography, 343345Surface wettability, 346Surgical devices, 232Synthetic matrix, 351352TTantalum, 31Tantalum pentoxide, 229, 397TCP (tricalcium phosphate), 31TCP (tricalcium phosphate)-implant, 34Teeth, dental nanobiomaterials in, 432435most cited papers in, 434435Teeth replacement, 246Teeth with necrotic pulps, management of,294295calcium-silicate-based material as apical plug in,296298clinical evaluation, 297298endodontic procedure, 296297Temporary anchorage devices, 253Temporary restorative materials, 125Tetracalcium aluminoferitte, 271Tetracalcium phosphate (TTCP), 114Tetracycline-loaded microspheres, 195196Tetraethyl-orthosilicate (TEOS), 80Tetragonal zirconia polycrystals (TZPs), 3132Thermal analysis, 320Ti-6Al-4V alloy, 31TiO2nanoparticles, 112Tissue engineering, 7, 233and dentistry, 246Periodontal, 356357triad process, 213f466 Index Titanium, 31Titanium alloys, 343Titanium and its alloys Ti-6Al-4V, 3031Titanium dioxide nanoparticle, 1718, 49chemical and physical properties of, 50future direction, 6770nanotoxicology and hormetic response, 5153toxicity of, 5367cytotoxicity TiO2NP oral-cultured cells,5455exploring anti-inflammatory substancestargeting, 6467exploring intracellular target molecules, 64incorporation of TiO2NPs in oral cells, 6264lower cytotoxicity of Ti plates as compared todental metals, 5354pro-inflammatory action of, 5661uses of TiO2and TiO2NPs, 5051Titanium implants, 10Titanium plasma spray (TPS), 345Titaniumzirconium alloy (Straumann Rox olid),3233Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR 4), 6264Tooth Mousse (CPP-ACP), 245Tooth whitening/bleaching, 220“Top-down” approach, 242TPS-screw, 34Transmission electron microscopy (TEM), 62 64,80, 88fTransosteal, mandibular staple bone plate, 35Tricalcium aluminate, 271in vitro bioactivity of, 8891synthesis and characterization of, 8487Tricalcium silicate, 270Triclosan, 4142Triclosan-loaded nanoparticles, 910, 147,195196Triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA), 3Triple antibiotic paste (TAP), 409410Tu¨bingen aluminum ceramic implant, 34Tubliseal, 172UUnisotropic nanofeatures, 349Urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA), 3VVanadium, 31Vitreous carbon implant, 33Vitronectin, 443444Vroman effect, 346WWhite mineral trioxide aggregate (WMTA),7980, 91, 9697, 99, 101, 104, 277,287288in vitro bioactivity and biological assay of,100101SEM images of, 93fsol-gel synthesis of, 9199Wounds, healing of, 232XX-ray diffraction (XRD), 80, 82, 397ZZeolite, 395Zinc oxide (ZnO) nanoparticle, 17, 112, 222, 229,391-based sealers, 172Zinc oxide, 92Zirconia, 3132, 348Zirconia nanoparticle, 119, 224Zirconia-hybridized pyrophosphate-stabilizedamorphous calcium phosphate (Zr-ACP),137Zirconium, 31Zirconium oxides, 31467Index

Related Articles

Leave A Comment?