Objective: Publications are retracted for many reasons, but the continued use and citation of retracted publications presents a problem for future research. This study investigated retractions in the dental literature to understand the characteristics of retracted publications, the reasons for their retractions, and the nature and context of their citations after retraction. Methods: In September 2018, the authors identified retracted dentistry publications using the Retraction Watch database. Citations to those publications were retrieved from Scopus and Web of Science. Characteristics of retracted publications and their citations were collected, including study design, reasons for retraction, and nature of citation (positive, negative, or neutral). We used chi-square tests to determine if there were notable differences between retracted publications that were cited following retraction and those that were not, and if there were relationships between the nature of the citation, the study design of the original publication, and its reason for retraction. Results: Of the 136 retracted publications, 84 were cited after retraction. When restricted to English language, 81 retracted publications received citations from 685 publications. Only 5.4% of the citations noted the retracted status of the original publication, while 25.3% of citations were neutral and 69.3% were positive. Animal studies were more likely to be uncited after retraction, while in vitro studies and randomized controlled trials were more likely to be cited. Retracted publications that were cited negatively were more likely to have been retracted due to scientific distortion than those that were cited positively or neutrally. Retracted publications that were cited negatively were also more likely to be observational studies than those cited positively or neutrally. Conclusion: Retracted publications in dentistry are continually cited positively following their retraction, regardless of their study designs or reasons for retraction. This indicates that the continued citation of retracted publications in this field cannot be isolated to certain research methods or misconduct but is, instead, a more widespread issue.

中文翻译：

---

继续引用牙科领域撤回的出版物。

目的：出版物被撤回的原因有很多，但撤回出版物的继续使用和引用给未来的研究带来了问题。本研究调查了牙科文献中的撤稿，以了解撤稿出版物的特征、撤稿原因以及撤稿后引用的性质和背景。方法：2018 年 9 月，作者使用 Retraction Watch 数据库确定了撤回的牙科出版物。这些出版物的引用来自 Scopus 和 Web of Science。收集了撤回的出版物及其引用的特征，包括研究设计、撤回的原因和引用的性质（正面、负面或中性）。我们使用卡方检验来确定在撤稿后引用的撤稿与未引用的撤稿之间是否存在显着差异，以及引用的性质、原始出版物的研究设计及其原因之间是否存在关系用于撤回。结果：136篇撤稿论文中，84篇在撤稿后被引用。当仅限于英语时，81 篇撤回的出版物收到了来自 685 篇出版物的引用。只有 5.4% 的引用指出了原始出版物的撤回状态，而 25.3% 的引用是中性的，69.3% 的引用是积极的。动物研究在撤稿后更有可能不被引用，而体外研究和随机对照试验更有可能被引用。与被正面或中立引用的出版物相比，被负面引用的被撤回的出版物更有可能因科学扭曲而被撤回。被负面引用的撤回出版物也比那些被正面或中立引用的出版物更有可能是观察性研究。结论：撤回的牙科出版物在撤回后不断被积极引用，无论其研究设计或撤回的原因如何。这表明该领域撤回出版物的持续引用不能孤立于某些研究方法或不当行为，而是一个更普遍的问题。被负面引用的撤回出版物也比那些被正面或中立引用的出版物更有可能是观察性研究。结论：撤回的牙科出版物在撤回后不断被积极引用，无论其研究设计或撤回的原因如何。这表明该领域撤回出版物的持续引用不能孤立于某些研究方法或不当行为，而是一个更普遍的问题。被负面引用的撤回出版物也比那些被正面或中立引用的出版物更有可能是观察性研究。结论：撤回的牙科出版物在撤回后不断被积极引用，无论其研究设计或撤回的原因如何。这表明该领域撤回出版物的持续引用不能孤立于某些研究方法或不当行为，而是一个更普遍的问题。