Orthodontic literature maintains strong scientific and editorial integrity: a cross-sectional study of orthodontic publication retractions

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the rate, characteristics, and reasons for retraction of orthodontic publications, and how often these articles continued to be cited after retraction. Materials and Methods: Retracted orthodontic publications were identified via PubMed and the Retraction Watch Database up to January 2025. Each article was screened and categorized using standardized taxonomy. Data collected included journal type, publisher, research design, study theme, country, and gender of the corresponding author, reasons for retraction, and post-retraction citation counts. Retraction rates were calculated using orthodontic output indexed in Scopus from 2010 to 2024. Results: A total of 39 retracted articles were identified, yielding a retraction rate of 0.08%. Nearly 28% (n = 11) occurred in 2023. Most retractions (66.7%, n = 26) came from multidisciplinary journals; only 15.4% appeared in orthodontic (n = 5) or dental journals (n = 5). Authors from Asian countries contributed to 76.9% (n = 30) of the retractions, with male corresponding authors making up 80% (n = 32). Clinical and in vitro/in vivo studies were the most affected. Retractions were primarily related to data integrity and editorial misconduct. About 60% (n = 23) continued to be cited after retraction. Conclusions: Orthodontic journals show relatively strong integrity but require continued vigilance. Although retractions in orthodontics are rare, they are increasing, particularly in multidisciplinary journals. Persistent citation of retracted research highlights the need for better editorial oversight and researcher awareness.