Patterns of scientific misconduct, time to retraction, and post-retraction citation in dental implantology from 2000 to 2024: a bibliometric study

Purpose: This study analyzed retracted publications in dental implantology research to identify reasons for retraction, characterize geographic and journal trends, quantify the time lag from publication to retraction, and assess the impact of retractions through post-retraction citation patterns.Methods: A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EBSCO, Retraction Watch, and Google Scholar identified retracted dental implant–related articles published between 2000 and 2024. Seventy-eight retracted articles were included. Extracted data included article title, journal, authors’ country, publication date, retraction date, retraction notice text, stated reason for retraction, journal impact factor, total citations, and citations after retraction. Descriptive statistics were used. Multiple linear regression evaluated factors associated with time to retraction, and logistic regression evaluated factors associated with post-retraction citation.Results: In the 78 identified articles, the most common reasons for retraction were image duplication or image-related discrepancies (53.8%) and data-related inaccuracies or unreliable data (23.1%). Spain accounted for the largest proportion of retracted articles (56.4%), and Clinical Oral Implants Research had the highest number of retractions. The mean time between publication and retraction was 4.44±3.70 years. Despite retraction, articles continued to be cited, receiving a mean of 6.89±8.26 citations after retraction. Logistic regression showed that the publication-to-retraction interval was the only significant predictor of post-retraction citation (odds ratio, 0.645; P=0.001).Conclusion: Retractions in dental implantology research represent a serious threat to research integrity and highlight the risk of flawed evidence persisting in the literature. Enhanced editorial vigilance, rigorous research integrity training, and faster retraction protocols are essential to safeguard evidence-based dental practice.