Next Article in Journal
Contribution of UltraFast™ Ultrasound and Shear Wave Elastography in the Imaging of Carotid Artery Disease
Previous Article in Journal
Prognostic Values of Inflammation-Based Scores and Fibrosis Markers in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated with Transarterial Chemoembolization
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diagnostics
Volume 12
Issue 5
10.3390/diagnostics12051171
diagnostics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Current Scientific Research Trends on Salivary Biomarkers: A Bibliometric Analysis

by
Beenish Fatima Alam
1,
Talha Nayab
2,
Saqib Ali
3,
Rasha AlSheikh
4,
Asim Mustafa Khan
3,
Muntasar T. Al Hinai
5 and
Imran Farooq
6,*
1
Department of Oral Biology, Bahria University Dental College, Bahria University of Health Sciences, Karachi 75070, Pakistan
2
Department of Dental Materials Science, Sindh Institute of Oral Health Sciences, Jinnah Sindh Medical University, Karachi 75070, Pakistan
3
Department of Biomedical Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 31441, Saudi Arabia
4
Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 31441, Saudi Arabia
5
Dental and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Sultan Qaboos University Hospital, P.O. Box 35 Muscat, Oman
6
Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5G 1G6, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diagnostics 2022, 12(5), 1171; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12051171
Submission received: 18 March 2022 / Revised: 16 April 2022 / Accepted: 2 May 2022 / Published: 8 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Pathology and Molecular Diagnostics)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Salivary biomarkers are indicators of many biological and pathological conditions and provide further information regarding the early detection of diseases. This bibliometric analysis aims to identify and evaluate the scientific literature addressing salivary biomarkers from a dental perspective, to identify the most prolific organizations, authors, journals, countries, and keywords used within this research domain. An electronic search was performed using Elsevier’s Scopus database. From a total of 587 retrieved papers (published between 1997 and 2021), 399 were selected. For the data analysis and its visualization, the title of the articles, year of publication, countries, authors, journals, articles, and keywords were analyzed using Microsoft Excel and VOSviewer (a bibliometric software program). An increase in the number of publications was identified from 1997 to 2021. The United States (U.S.) published the most papers (84) and received the highest citations (3778), followed by India and Brazil. The Journal of Periodontology published the highest number of articles (39) that received the highest citations. The University of Kentucky from the U.S. published most of the papers related to salivary biomarkers that received the highest citations. Timo Sorsa published the most papers (14 papers), while Craig Miller was the highest cited author (754 citations). Concerning the highly cited papers, a paper by Micheal et al., published in 2010, received the highest citations (487 citations). “Saliva”, followed by “human”, were the most common keywords used by the authors in the papers related to salivary biomarkers. The findings of this analysis revealed an increase in salivary biomarker-related publications that positively influenced the number of citations each paper received. The U.S. produced the most publications that received the highest citations, and the University of Kentucky, U.S., was the most prominent. The articles were mostly published in the Journal of Periodontology and received the highest number of citations.

1. Introduction

Human saliva is a compound of various fluids and performs several functions, such as acting as a buffer to protect the teeth from acids, facilitating taste recognition, and containing various antimicrobial agents that modulate oral microbial flora [1]. Saliva entails huge diagnostic value, as it contains important inflammatory cytokines that are upregulated or downregulated in various diseases, and, thus, their levels can be checked to aid the early diagnosis of certain diseases [2]. However, it should be noted that salivary gland dysfunction can occur in certain diseases (such as diabetes mellitus), which could cause impairment of the saliva’s composition [3]. This may influence the presence or absence of inflammatory mediators related to other systemic conditions [3]. Therefore, although saliva could be used as a great diagnostic aid, the limitations associated with it should also be taken into account when making a clinical decision.
In terms of secretion, each salivary gland produces a secretion that differs in consistency, configuration, and components from the other salivary glands [4]. Major salivary glands are present on the posterior aspect of the oral cavity (parotid gland), the lower part of the mouth, in the middle of the cheek and jaw (submandibular gland), and are located inferolateral to the tongue (sublingual gland) [5]. Besides these, many minor secretory glands are present in the lip, cheek, tongue, and palate [6]. In addition, a small portion of fluid leaks from the area located between the gums and teeth, and it is composed of blood products that arise in the case of an injury to, or inflammation of, the mucosa. The amount of contribution from serum and saliva depends on the degree of mucosal or epithelial inflammation. Hence, “oral fluid” is a specific phrase used for all the fluid collected from the oral cavity, in which a substantial proportion is composed of saliva. Nevertheless, for clarity, this combination is identified as salivary biomarkers in this analysis [7].
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) stated that biomarkers could be accurately measured and act as indicators of normal biological development and pathological or pharmacological reactions to therapeutic involvement [8]. Biomarkers can provide specific information about the existing biological and functional state [9]. Biomarkers comprehensively detect therapeutical interventions, and specific information can be derived from their histological, molecular, radiographical, or physiological features [10]. These biomarkers can be present in diverse forms in the human body, including DNA, RNA, antibodies, lipids, proteins, and metabolites [11]. Variations in their function, concentration, and arrangement can be associated with the commencement, advancement, or even reversion of a specific disorder, or as a consequence of the body’s response to a disease [12]. Furthermore, a biomarker could be helpful in determining the incidence, site, and even probability of acquiring a disease [13]. Hence, biomarkers can serve as a valuable tool in the recognition, risk assessment, analysis, and prognosis of the disease [14].
Currently, salivary biomarkers are being used to diagnose various diseases. These biomarkers can be used to assess cortisol for Cushing’s disease and analyze stress-related conditions [15,16]. C-reactive protein (CRP), myoglobin, and creatinine kinase isoform can be used to assess heart diseases [17]; nucleic acids, pathogens, and antibodies for infections [18,19]; glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and α-2-macroglobulin for diabetes mellitus [20]; and interleukins (ILs) for the diagnosis of stomach diseases and muscle or joint disorders [21].
In the scientific literature, the number of citations can be used to assess the influence of research or a publication. The citation frequency is significant not only for the researchers and journals, but also for the institute where the research was conducted [22]. Currently, bibliometric analysis has turned into an accepted method to present the research patterns of the scientific literature [23]. It also provides evidence regarding the progress of a specific domain, accentuating the most relevant country, journals, authors, and institutes involved in the research area [24,25,26]. There is a deficit in the literature regarding the bibliometric analysis of salivary biomarkers. In addition, the main findings of this analysis could help researchers, academics, and students to characterize scientific results regarding salivary biomarkers, evaluate diagnostic strategies, and identify important topics and issues that will help design future research. For this reason, this analysis was carried out to identify and evaluate the scientific literature addressing salivary biomarkers from a dental perspective, to determine the most prolific organization(s), authors, journals, countries, and keywords used within this research domain.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Search Strategy

For this analysis, an electronic search was performed in December 2021, using Elsevier’s Scopus database (https://www.scopus.com). The search subject was typed as “salivary biomarkers” and then added to the source title section. Authors carefully screened the titles and abstracts of prospective publications related to salivary biomarkers. From 582 retrieved papers, 399 were selected based on suitability (Figure 1). As this research did not involve any human or animal interaction, no ethical approval was obtained for this analysis.

2.2. Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria

The inclusion criteria for this bibliometric analysis included focusing on articles published in the English language only. Regarding the type of publication, “article” was selected, and “dentistry” was then chosen as the subject domain. The exclusion criteria comprised articles published in other languages and subject specialties other than dentistry. Throughout the initial screening process by the investigators, articles were further disqualified if the publications were not related to the domain of salivary biomarkers. As the research was conducted in December 2021, all the papers from 1997–2021 (the last 25 years) were counted, covering research related to salivary biomarkers.

2.3. Data Analysis

Following the selection of papers, data were exported from the Scopus database in the CSV format. Results from the search were then analyzed using VOSviewer. Tab-delimited files were further transferred to Microsoft Excel to formulate the tables. In the maps generated, the dimensions of the bubble showed the number of publications, while the distance between two bubbles exhibited the similarity between the two items. The color of each bubble had a distinct meaning in each visualization. Keywords with the highest number of occurrences were selected, and visualization maps were generated.
For data analysis and visualization, the title of articles, year of publication, countries, authors, journals, articles, and keywords were analyzed using Microsoft Excel and VOSviewer (v1.6.16; Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands), which is a bibliometric software program [27]. VOS viewer was used to generate a collaborative network for different variables and keywords.

3. Results

The results of our analysis revealed that from 1997 to 2010, the number of articles published on salivary biomarkers was relatively small (Figure 2). In 2011, 21 papers were published, while in 2012, 23 papers were published, showing that researchers developed a strong interest in this field. Similarly, in 2013, 30 papers were published, while in 2017 and 2018, 37 articles were published, respectively. The highest numbers of papers were published in 2019, with 51 publications, while in 2021 (up to December), 49 papers were published.
Table 1 identifies the leading countries that published the highest number of papers related to salivary biomarkers. The United States (U.S.) published the highest number of papers (84) and received the highest citations (3778), followed by India and Brazil, which published 60 and 36 articles, respectively. Concerning citations, India (1011) and Japan (627) received the highest citations after the U.S. (Table 1). In the current analysis, Figure 3 identifies a collaborative network among countries that collaborated for salivary biomarker-related research.
Table 2 exhibits the top journals that contributed to the domain of salivary biomarkers. The Journal of Periodontology published the highest number of articles (39) that received the highest citations (1247). The Journal of Oral Diseases and the Journal of Clinical Oral Investigations published 32 and 27 papers, while receiving 1083 (second highest) and 402 citations, respectively. Interestingly, the Journal of Clinical Periodontology only published 23 articles, but received 865 citations (third highest) (Table 2). In this analysis, Figure 4 illustrates the leading journals that have contributed to the domain of salivary biomarkers.
Table 3 displays findings of the leading institutes that published the most within the field of salivary biomarkers. The University of Kentucky from the U.S. published 9 papers, followed by the Ege University of Turkey and Universitas Indonesia, which published 6 papers each. The highest citations were received from the University of Kentucky (625), followed by the University of California and Ege University, receiving 301 and 162 citations, respectively (Table 3).
Table 4 identifies the leading authors who published papers related to salivary biomarkers. Timo Sorsa published 14 papers, followed by Craig Miller, who published 12 articles. At the same time, the authors Robert Jacobs and Tina Tervahartiala published 10 articles each. Craig Miller was the highest cited author (754), followed by Robert Jacob and William Giannobile, who received 745 and 567 citations, respectively (Table 4).
Table 5 displays the highly cited papers on salivary biomarkers. Among these, a paper by Micheal et al., published in 2010, received the highest citation (487) [28]. The subsequent most highly cited articles were by Sridharan et al., published in 2019, which received 266 citations, followed by Ramseier et al.’s paper, which was published in 2009 and received 240 citations [29,30] (Table 5).
In the present analysis, various keywords were used in the domain of salivary biomarkers. The top keywords found in this analysis, according to the level of occurrence, were saliva (318), human (301), female (205), biological marker (204), male (199), and biomarkers (147).

4. Discussion

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first bibliometric analysis focusing on research based on salivary biomarkers published from 1997 to 2021 (the last 25 years). Several parameters, such as leading countries, organizations, journals, contributions of various authors, and keywords, have been analyzed with the help of bibliometric mapping. Bibliometric analysis helps to better visualize the organization and dynamics of scientific domains, to better understand a particular scientific field, and provide predictions regarding future trends [31].
The present analysis identified an increased number of publications from 1997 to 2021 (Figure 2), possibly as researchers identified the importance of salivary biomarkers as an essential indicator of the biological and pathological conditions that provide further information regarding the early detection of a disease [32]. The analysis results revealed that the U.S., India, and Brazil contributed the most to this field, with the U.S. publishing the highest number of papers and receiving the highest citations. A similar pattern of research from the U.S. has been observed in other scientific fields, for instance, dentistry, regenerative endodontology, endodontology, and implant dentistry [33,34,35]. Due to the enormous scientific community, in combination with the availability of funding opportunities by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) in the U.S., the scientific community from this country performs cutting-edge research, resulting in highly impactful publications [36,37].
The University of Kentucky from the U.S. was the most prolific organization that published the highest number of papers, comparable to the previously conducted bibliometric analysis, where universities from the U.S. published the highest number of papers [38,39,40]. Interestingly, Craig S. Miller, followed by Robert Jacobs, both currently associated with the University of Kentucky in the U.S., were highly cited authors, identifying their role in producing highly impactful publications, making the University of Kentucky the leading organization in this domain. Nevertheless, Ege University from Turkey secured the second position, identifying an increase in publications from Turkey related to this domain. Similarly, Indonesian University published the third-highest number of papers, highlighting the rise in research within this field amongst the Southeast Asian countries, which agrees with the previously conducted bibliometric analysis [38].
An interesting finding of this bibliometric analysis was that the majority of the papers were published in the most influential and pertinent journals, having a high impact factor, reiterating the fact that papers published in these journals receive high citations [41,42]. In the current analysis, the Journal of Periodontology published the highest number of articles and received the highest citations. Additionally, publications produced due to international collaborations among the different countries produced research with higher impact and citation counts [43].
Regarding the most highly cited paper, it was published by Micheal et al. in 2010 [28]. In this article, the authors extracted exosomes from human saliva containing microRNAs, taken from the saliva of patients with Sjögren’s syndrome and controls. The microRNAs were further analyzed using real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and microRNA microarrays, which proved valuable in identifying microRNAs [28]. The second most highly cited paper was by Sridharan et al., which discussed the identification of salivary metabolomics within patients with oral leukoplakia, squamous cell carcinoma, and controls, using mass spectrometry. This study proved useful in detecting tumor biomarkers that can be used for the prompt diagnosis and estimation of tumor progression [29]. The third highly cited article was by the author Ramseier et al., published in 2009. This study focused on identifying biomarkers using saliva collected from healthy and periodontitis patients, to identify the periodontal disease status from whole saliva and plaque biofilm. Quantitative PCR and immunoassays were used to measure the levels of multiple pro-inflammatory cytokines and bone resorptive/turnover markers associated with periodontal disease [30].
Various authors have assessed the role of salivary biomarkers with respect to periodontal disease. From the highly cited papers in our analysis, Miller et al. conducted a case–control study where IL-1β, MMP-8, and osteoprotegerin were identified as the biomarkers involved in periodontal disease [44]. Similarly, research by Kinney et al. [45] detected an association between periodontal pathogens and salivary biomarkers with periodontal disease. The authors identified that MMP-8, MMP-9, OPG, and IL-1β demonstrated a strong association with periodontal disease progression [45]. Another research paper by Sexton et al., published in 2011, also evaluated the role of various salivary biomarkers, namely, MMP-8, MIP-1α, OPG, and IL-1β, in periodontitis. The authors identified the positive role of salivary biomarkers in identifying the severity of diseases that could play a crucial role in identifying the periodontitis status [46]. Teles et al. aimed to identify the difference in the levels of 10 different cytokines present within healthy and periodontitis patients; however, no statistically significant association between the two groups was found [47]. Additionally, research by Rathnayake et al. also collected saliva samples for the detection of periodontitis using salivary biomarkers. The study findings revealed that participants with severe periodontitis had increased concentrations of IL-1β and MMP-8, while smokers also had slightly reduced concentrations of IL–8 and MMP-8 [48]. Lastly, Rai et al. compared the levels of MMP-2, MMP-9, and MMP-8 salivary biomarkers present in the GCF and saliva among patients with gingivitis and periodontitis, and healthy individuals. The study results identified a tremendous increase in the levels of MMP-8 and MMP-9, and a decrease in the level of MMP-2, in cases of periodontitis. Hence, the research identified the fact that MMP-8, MMP-9, and MMP-2 biomarkers can aid in the diagnosis of periodontitis [49].
Much scientific literature has been published to assess the role of salivary biomarkers in oral cancer and related conditions. One of the highly cited papers from our analysis (Li et al. [50]) identified 3000 various types of mRNA from the unstimulated and cell-free saliva, performed with the help of microarray technology, which can help to identify various oral and systemic diseases [50]. Similarly, Momen-Heravi et al. [51] also collected saliva to analyze salivary biomarkers in four different study groups, which included patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), OSCC in remission, oral lichen planus, and healthy individuals. The results identified an increased level of miRNA-27b in the OSCC, while miRNA-136 was under-expressed in other groups. Thirteen other miRNAs were also identified that were either deregulated or under-expressed [51]. A scientific paper by Segal and Wong discussed the beneficial role of salivary biomarkers in identifying oral cancer and other related conditions. Saliva can also be used for detecting other systemic conditions, such as diabetes, HIV, arthritis, and heart disease [52].
Keywords play an essential role in the discoverability of printed paper [53,54]. Generally, while performing a literature search, researchers tend to meticulously use the various search terms related to the specific domain [55]. In the current analysis, saliva, human, female, biological marker, male, and biomarkers were frequently used by the researchers as keywords in their publications.
Concerning the limitations of the current analysis, we only chose the Scopus database, and non-English articles were excluded. This can perhaps lead to selection biases. In addition, the method of data extraction was performed manually. Although the authors checked the database carefully, some mistakes might still exist, and readers should interpret the findings of this analysis cautiously.

5. Conclusions

It can be concluded, from this bibliometric analysis on salivary biomarkers, that an increase in the number of publications in recent years was noticed to positively influence the number of citations each paper received. Among the countries producing papers on salivary biomarkers, the U.S. published most of the articles that received the highest citations, and the University of Kentucky stood out amongst all other institutes. The articles were primarily published in the Journal of Periodontology, and the articles published in the same journal received the highest citations. Among the authors, Craig S. Miller received the highest citations, while Tim Sorsa published the highest number of papers. The most cited paper was credited to Michael et al., and it was published in Oral Diseases. The findings of our analysis could help researchers, academics, and students to characterize scientific results regarding salivary biomarkers, to evaluate diagnostic strategies and to identify important topics and issues that will help design future research.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.F.A., T.N., S.A., R.A., A.M.K., M.T.A.H. and I.F.; methodology, B.F.A., T.N., S.A., R.A., A.M.K., M.T.A.H. and I.F.; software, B.F.A., T.N., S.A., R.A., A.M.K., M.T.A.H. and I.F.; validation, B.F.A., T.N., S.A., R.A., A.M.K., M.T.A.H. and I.F.; formal analysis, B.F.A., T.N., S.A., R.A., A.M.K., M.T.A.H. and I.F.; investigation, B.F.A., T.N., S.A., R.A., A.M.K., M.T.A.H. and I.F.; resources, B.F.A., T.N., S.A., R.A., A.M.K., M.T.A.H. and I.F.; data curation, B.F.A., T.N., S.A., R.A., A.M.K., M.T.A.H. and I.F.; writing—original draft preparation, B.F.A., T.N., S.A., R.A., A.M.K., M.T.A.H. and I.F.; writing—review and editing, B.F.A., T.N., S.A., R.A., A.M.K., M.T.A.H. and I.F.; visualization, B.F.A., T.N., S.A., R.A., A.M.K., M.T.A.H. and I.F.; supervision, I.F.; project administration, B.F.A., T.N., S.A., R.A., A.M.K., M.T.A.H. and I.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Dawes, C.; Pedersen, A.M.; Villa, A.; Ekström, J.; Proctor, G.B.; Vissink, A.; Aframian, D.; McGowan, R.; Aliko, A.; Narayana, N.; et al. The functions of human saliva: A review sponsored by the World Workshop on Oral Medicine VI. Arch. Oral Biol. 2015, 60, 863–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Costantini, E.; Sinjari, B.; Piscopo, F.; Porreca, A.; Reale, M.; Caputi, S.; Murmura, G. Evaluation of Salivary Cytokines and Vitamin D Levels in Periodontopathic Patients. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 2669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Sinjari, B.; Feragalli, B.; Cornelli, U.; Belcaro, G.; Vitacolonna, E.; Santilli, M.; Rexhepi, I.; D’Addazio, G.; Zuccari, F.; Caputi, S. Artificial Saliva in Diabetic Xerostomia (ASDIX): Double Blind Trial of Aldiamed® Versus Placebo. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 2196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Botts, S.; Leininger, J.R. Salivary Glands. Boorman’s Pathol. Rat. 2018, 44, 23–34. [Google Scholar]
  5. Veerman, E.C.; Van den Keybus, P.A.; Vissink, A.; Amerongen, A.N. Human glandular salivas: Their separate collection and analysis. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 1996, 104, 346–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kessler, A.T.; Bhatt, A.A. Review of the major and minor salivary glands, part 1: Anatomy, infectious, and inflammatory processes. J. Clin. Imaging Sci. 2018, 8, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Granger, D.A.; Johnson, S.B.; Szanton, S.L.; Out, D.; Schumann, L.L. Incorporating salivary biomarkers into nursing research: An overview and review of best practices. Biol. Res. Nurs. 2012, 14, 347–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Silberring, J.; Ciborowski, P. Biomarker discovery and clinical proteomics. Trends Anal. Chem. 2010, 29, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Ilyin, S.E.; Belkowski, S.M.; Plata-Salamán, C.R. Biomarker discovery and validation: Technologies and integrative approaches. Trends Biotechnol. 2004, 22, 411–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Califf, R.M. Biomarker definitions and their applications. Exp. Biol Med. 2018, 243, 213–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dhama, K.; Latheef, S.K.; Dadar, M.; Samad, H.A.; Munjal, A.; Khandia, R.; Karthik, K.; Tiwari, R.; Yatoo, M.; Bhatt, P.; et al. Biomarkers in stress related diseases/disorders: Diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic values. Front. Mol. Biosci. 2019, 1, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Wagner, P.D.; Verma, M.; Srivastava, S. Challenges for biomarkers in cancer detection. Annu. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2010, 1022, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Torres-Bugarín, O.; Zavala-Cerna, M.G.; Nava, A.; Flores-García, A.; Ramos-Ibarra, M.L. Potential uses, limitations, and basic procedures of micronuclei and nuclear abnormalities in buccal cells. Dis. Mark 2014, 2014, 956835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Kurian, S.; Grigoryev, Y.; Head, S.; Campbell, D.; Mondala, T.; Salomon, D.R. Applying genomics to organ transplantation medicine in both discovery and validation of biomarkers. Int. Immunopharmacol. 2007, 7, 1948–1960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Pan, X.; Wang, Z.; Wu, X.; Wen, S.W.; Liu, A. Salivary cortisol in post-traumatic stress disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry 2018, 18, 324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Santos, S.; Santos, E.; Gaztambide, S.; Salvador, J. Diagnóstico y diagnóstico diferencial del síndrome de Cushing. Endocrinol. Nutr. 2009, 56, 71–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gohel, V.; Jones, J.; Wehler, C. Salivary biomarkers and cardiovascular disease: A systematic review. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 2018, 56, 1432–1442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Parisi, M.R.; Soldini, L.; Vidoni, G.; Mabellini, C.; Belloni, T.; Brignolo, L.; Negri, S.; Schlusnus, K.; Dorigatti, F.; Lazzarin, A. Point-of-care testing for HCV infection: Recent advances and implications for alternative screening. New Microbiol. 2014, 37, 449–457. [Google Scholar]
  19. Nefzi, F.; Ben Salem, N.A.; Khelif, A.; Feki, S.; Aouni, M.; Gautheret-Dejean, A. Quantitative analysis of human herpesvirus-6 and human cytomegalovirus in blood and saliva from patients with acute leukemia. J. Med. Virol. 2014, 87, 451–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Aitken, J.P.; Ortiz, C.; Morales-Bozo, I.; Rojas-Alcayaga, G.; Baeza, M.; Beltran, C.; Escobar, A. α-2-Macroglobulin in Saliva Is Associated with Glycemic Control in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Dis. Mark. 2015, 2015, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Rathnayake, N.; Åkerman, S.; Klinge, B.; Lundegren, N.; Jansson, H.; Tryselius, Y.; Sorsa, T.; Gustafsson, A. Salivary Biomarkers for Detection of Systemic Diseases. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e61356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Azer Samy, A. MD, PhD, MEd, MPH The Top-Cited Articles in Medical Education. Acad. Med. 2015, 90, 1147–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Ellegaard, O.; Wallin, J.A. The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics 2015, 105, 1809–1840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Hossain, M.M. Current status of global research on novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19): A bibliometric analysis and knowledge mapping. F1000 Res. 2020, 9, 374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chahrour, M.; Assi, S.; Bejjani, M.; Nasrallah, A.A.; Salhab, H.; Fares, M.; Khachfe, H.H. A Bibliometric analysis of COVID-19 research activity: A call for increased output. Cureus 2020, 12, e7357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Lou, J.; Tian, S.J.; Niu, S.M.; Kang, X.Q.; Lian, H.X.; Zhang, L.X.; Zhang, J.J. Coronavirus disease 2019: A bibliometric analysis and review. Eur Rev. Med. Pharmacol Sci. 2020, 24, 3411–3421. [Google Scholar]
  27. Husain, S.; Zafar, M.; Ullah, R. Ramadan and public health: A bibliometric analysis of top cited articles from 2004 to 2019. J. Infect. Public Health 2020, 13, 275–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Michael, A.; Bajracharya, S.D.; Yuen, P.S.; Zhou, H.; Star, R.A.; Illei, G.G.; Alevizos, I. Exosomes from human saliva as a source of microRNA biomarkers. Oral Dis. 2010, 16, 34–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Sridharan, G.; Ramani, P.; Patankar, S.; Vijayaraghavan, R. Evaluation of salivary metabolomics in oral leukoplakia and oral squamous cell carcinoma. J. Oral Pathol. Med. 2019, 48, 299–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ramseier, C.A.; Kinney, J.S.; Herr, A.E.; Braun, T.; Sugai, J.V.; Shelburne, C.A.; Rayburn, L.A.; Tran, H.M.; Singh, A.K.; Giannobile, W.V. Identification of pathogen and host-response markers correlated with periodontal disease. J. Periodontol. 2009, 80, 436–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Aksoy, U.; Küçük, M.; Versiani, M.A.; Orhan, K. Publication trends in microCT endodontic research: A bibliometric analysis over a 25 year period. Int. Endod. J. 2021, 54, 343–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Prestiyanti, N.M. The role of salivary biomarker as a diagnostic tool in oral cancer: A literature review. Personnel 2019, 18, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Feijoo, J.F.; Limeres, J.; Fernández-Varela, M.; Ramos, I.; Diz, P. The 100 most cited articles in dentistry. Clin. Oral Invest 2014, 18, 699–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Adnan, S.; Ullah, R. Top-cited articles in regenerative endodontics: A bibliometric analysis. J. Endod. 2018, 44, 1650–1664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Fardi, A.; Kodonas, K.; Gogos, C.; Economides, N. Top-cited articles in endodontic journals. J. Endod. 2011, 37, 1183–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Alarcón, M.A.; Esparza, D.; Montoya, C.; Monje, A.; Faggion, C.M. The 300 most-cited articles in implant dentistry. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2017, 32, e1–e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Kodonas, K.; Fardi, A.; Gogos, C.; Economides, N. Top 50 cited articles on dental stem cell research. Restor. Dent. Endod. 2020, 4, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Qasim, S.S.; Ali, D.; Khan, A.S.; Rehman, S.U.; Iqbal, A.; Baskaradoss, J.K. Evidence-Based Bibliometric Analysis of Research on Silver Diamine Fluoride Use in Dentistry. BioMed Res. Int. 2021, 29, 20–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tarazona, B.; Vidal-Infer, A.; Alonso-Arroyo, A. Bibliometric analysis of the scientific production in implantology (2009–2013). Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2017, 28, 864–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Khan, A.S.; Ur Rehman, S.; AlMaimouni, Y.K.; Ahmad, S.; Khan, M.; Ashiq, M. Bibliometric analysis of literature published on antibacterial dental adhesive from 1996–2020. Polymers 2020, 12, 2848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Casadevall, A.; Fang, F.C. Impacted Science: Impact Is Not Importance. mBio 2015, 6, e01515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Jacimovic, J.; Jakovljevic, A.; Nagendrababu, V.; Duncan, H.F.; Dummer, P.M. A bibliometric analysis of the dental scientific literature on COVID-19. Clin. Oral Investig. 2021, 25, 6171–6183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Ahmad, P.; Della Bella, E.; Stoddart, M.J. Applications of bone morphogenetic proteins in dentistry: A Bibliometric Analysis. BioMed Res. Int. 2020, 2020, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Miller, C.S.; King, C.P.; Langub, M.C.; Kryscio, R.J.; Thomas, M.V. Salivary biomarkers of existing periodontal disease: A cross-sectional study. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2006, 137, 322–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kinney, J.S.; Morelli, T.; Braun, T.; Ramseier, C.A.; Herr, A.E.; Sugai, J.V.; Shelburne, C.E.; Rayburn, L.A.; Singh, A.K.; Giannobile, W.V. Saliva/pathogen biomarker signatures and periodontal disease progression. J. Dent. Res. 2011, 90, 752–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Sexton, W.M.; Lin, Y.; Kryscio, R.J.; Dawson, D.R.; Ebersole, J.L.; Miller, C.S. Salivary biomarkers of periodontal disease in response to treatment. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2011, 38, 434–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Teles, R.P.; Likhari, V.; Socransky, S.S.; Haffajee, A.D. Salivary cytokine levels in subjects with chronic periodontitis and in periodontally healthy individuals: A cross-sectional study. J. Periodontal Res. 2009, 44, 411–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Rathnayake, N.; Åkerman, S.; Klinge, B.; Lundegren, N.; Jansson, H.; Tryselius, Y.; Sorsa, T.; Gustafsson, A. Salivary biomarkers of oral health–a cross-sectional study. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2013, 40, 140–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rai, B.; Kharb, S.; Jain, R.; Anand, S.C. Biomarkers of periodontitis in oral fluids. J. Oral Sci. 2008, 50, 53–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Li, Y.; Zhou, X.; St. John, M.A.; Wong, D.T. RNA profiling of cell-free saliva using microarray technology. J. Dent. Res. 2004, 83, 199–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Momen-Heravi, F.; Trachtenberg, A.J.; Kuo, W.P.; Cheng, Y.S. Genomewide study of salivary microRNAs for detection of oral cancer. J. Dent. Res. 2014, 93, 86S–93S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Segal, A.; Wong, D.T. Salivary diagnostics: Enhancing disease detection and making medicine better. Eur. J. Dent. Educ. Off. J. Assoc. Dent. Educ. Eur. 2008, 12, 22. [Google Scholar]
  53. Karobari, M.I.; Maqbool, M.; Ahmad, P.; Abdul, M.S.; Marya, A.; Venugopal, A.; Shaik, G.M.; Scardina, G.A.; Messina, P.; Noorani, T.Y. Endodontic Microbiology: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Top 50 Classics. BioMed Res. Int. 2021, 2021, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Arshad, A.I.; Ahmad, P.; Karobari, M.I.; Asif, J.A.; Alam, M.K.; Mahmood, Z.; Abd Rahman, N.; Mamat, N.; Kamal, M.A. Antibiotics: A bibliometric analysis of top 100 classics. Antibiotics 2020, 9, 219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Asghari, S.; Navimipour, N.J. Nature inspired meta-heuristic algorithms for solving the service composition problem in the cloud environments. Int. J. Commun. Syst. 2018, 31, e3708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diagnostics 12 01171 g001 550
Figure 1. Four-phase flow diagram of data extraction and filtration process of publications related to salivary biomarkers.
Figure 1. Four-phase flow diagram of data extraction and filtration process of publications related to salivary biomarkers.
Diagnostics 12 01171 g001
Diagnostics 12 01171 g002 550
Figure 2. Total number of publications on salivary biomarkers from 1997 to 2021.
Figure 2. Total number of publications on salivary biomarkers from 1997 to 2021.
Diagnostics 12 01171 g002
Diagnostics 12 01171 g003 550
Figure 3. Showing the collaborative network of countries.
Figure 3. Showing the collaborative network of countries.
Diagnostics 12 01171 g003
Diagnostics 12 01171 g004 550
Figure 4. Showing leading journals that have published articles related to salivary biomarkers.
Figure 4. Showing leading journals that have published articles related to salivary biomarkers.
Diagnostics 12 01171 g004
Table
Table 1. Identifying the leading countries that published the highest number of papers related to salivary biomarkers.
Table 1. Identifying the leading countries that published the highest number of papers related to salivary biomarkers.
CountriesNumber of ArticlesCitationsTotal Link Strength
U.S.843778167
India60101137
Japan3162739
Finland2052283
Turkey2250548
Brazil3638248
Sweden1731664
China PR2629126
Spain1617016
Table
Table 2. Exhibiting the top journals that contributed to the domain of salivary biomarkers.
Table 2. Exhibiting the top journals that contributed to the domain of salivary biomarkers.
JournalNumber of ArticlesCitationsTotal Link Strength
Journal of Periodontology39124794
Oral Diseases32108342
Journal of Clinical Periodontology2386589
Journal of Dental Research1170443
Journal of Oral Pathology and Medicine256097
Clinical Oral Investigations2740218
Archives of Oral Biology1836317
Journal of Periodontal Research1334341
BMC Oral Health116717
Table
Table 3. Displaying leading institutes that published the most within the field of salivary biomarkers.
Table 3. Displaying leading institutes that published the most within the field of salivary biomarkers.
InstituteCountryNumber of Papers CitationsTotal Link Strength
University of Kentucky, LexingtonU.S.962539
University of California, Los AngelesU.S.33010
Ege University, IzmirTurkey61621
University of Helsinki, HelsinkiFinland415710
University of Eastern Finland, KuopioFinland31008
Universitas Indonesia, JakartaIndonesia690
Table
Table 4. Identifying leading authors who published papers related to salivary biomarkers.
Table 4. Identifying leading authors who published papers related to salivary biomarkers.
AuthorNumber of ArticlesCitationsTotal Link Strength
Craig S. Miller12754155
Robert J. Jacob10745144
William Giannobile856774
Jeffrey L. Ebersole9506125
David T.W. Wong843813
Timo Sorsa1439566
Taina Tervahartiala1020239
Gülnur Emingil716420
Diana M. Isaza-Guzmán712815
Sergio I. Tobón-Arroyave712815
Nagihan Bostanci710814
Table
Table 5. Displaying highly cited papers on salivary biomarkers.
Table 5. Displaying highly cited papers on salivary biomarkers.
PaperCitationsLinks
Michael, A.; Bajracharya, S.D.; Yuen, P.S.; Zhou, H.; Star, R.A.; Illei, G.G.; Alevizos, I. Exosomes from human saliva as a source of microRNA biomarkers. Oral Dis. 2010, 16, 34–38.4870
Sridharan, G.; Ramani, P.; Patankar, S.; Vijayaraghavan, R. Evaluation of salivary metabolomics in oral leukoplakia and oral squamous cell carcinoma. J. Oral Pathol. Med. 2019, 48, 299–306.2660
Ramseier, C.A.; Kinney, J.S.; Herr, A.E.; Braun, T.; Sugai, J.V.; Shelburne, C.A.; Rayburn, L.A.; Tran, H.M.; Singh, A.K.; Giannobile, W.V. Identification of pathogen and host-response markers correlated with periodontal disease. J. Periodontol. 2009, 80, 436–446.2403
Miller, C.S.; King, C.P., Jr., Langub, M.C.; Kryscio, R.J.; Thomas, M.V. Salivary biomarkers of existing periodontal disease: A cross-sectional study. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2006, 137, 322–329.2393
Li, Y.; Zhou, X.; St. John, M.A.; Wong DT. RNA profiling of cell-free saliva using microarray technology. J. Dent. Res. 2004, 83, 199–203.1822
Baliga, S.; Muglikar, S.; Kale, R. Salivary pH: A diagnostic biomarker. J. Indian Soc. Periodontol. 2013, 17, 461.1770
Kinney, J.S.; Morelli, T.; Braun, T.; Ramseier, C.A.; Herr, A.E.; Sugai, J.V.; Shelburne, C.E.; Rayburn, L.A.; Singh, A.K.; Giannobile, W.V. Saliva/pathogen biomarker signatures and periodontal disease progression. J. Dent. Res. 2011, 90, 752–758.1322
Sexton, W.M.; Lin, Y.; Kryscio, R.J.; Dawson, D.R., III, Ebersole, J.L.; Miller, C.S. Salivary biomarkers of periodontal disease in response to treatment. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2011, 38, 434–441.1293
Momen-Heravi, F.; Trachtenberg, A.J.; Kuo, W.P.; Cheng, Y.S. Genomewide study of salivary microRNAs for detection of oral cancer. J. Dent. Res. 2014, 93, 86S–93S.1170
Teles, R.P.; Likhari, V.; Socransky, S.S.; Haffajee, A.D. Salivary cytokine levels in subjects with chronic periodontitis and in periodontally healthy individuals: A cross-sectional study. J. Periodontal Res. 2009, 44, 411–417.1142
Rathnayake, N.; Åkerman, S.; Klinge, B.; Lundegren, N.; Jansson, H.; Tryselius, Y.; Sorsa, T.; Gustafsson, A. Salivary biomarkers of oral health–a cross-sectional study. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2013, 40, 140–147.1114
Rai, B.; Kharb, S.; Jain, R.; Anand, S.C. Biomarkers of periodontitis in oral fluids. J. Oral Sci. 2008, 50, 53–56.1061
Segal, A.; Wong, D.T. Salivary diagnostics: Enhancing disease detection and making medicine better. Eur. J. Dent. Educ. Off. J. Assoc. Dent. Educ. Eur. 2008, 12, 22.1021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Alam, B.F.; Nayab, T.; Ali, S.; AlSheikh, R.; Khan, A.M.; Al Hinai, M.T.; Farooq, I. Current Scientific Research Trends on Salivary Biomarkers: A Bibliometric Analysis. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 1171. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12051171

AMA Style

Alam BF, Nayab T, Ali S, AlSheikh R, Khan AM, Al Hinai MT, Farooq I. Current Scientific Research Trends on Salivary Biomarkers: A Bibliometric Analysis. Diagnostics. 2022; 12(5):1171. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12051171

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alam, Beenish Fatima, Talha Nayab, Saqib Ali, Rasha AlSheikh, Asim Mustafa Khan, Muntasar T. Al Hinai, and Imran Farooq. 2022. "Current Scientific Research Trends on Salivary Biomarkers: A Bibliometric Analysis" Diagnostics 12, no. 5: 1171. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12051171

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop