Aims: This article describes the methodologies used in the dental literature and described how these approaches have changed over time. Materials and methods: Thirty-three ISI peer-reviewed journals were included in the analyses. Data were extracted independently by 11 investigators and in duplicate. Any differences in the results were resolved via discussion or by a third reviewer when necessary. Data were collected regarding the methodology used in the article, and dental specialty related to different study designs. In the case in which more than one study design or specialty was reported, reviewers were trained to identify the main methodology/specialty. Results: The majority (36.96%) used a case report (CR) as the primary methodology, followed by a clinical trial (CT) (18.21%) or randomized CT (15.11%). The least used methodologies included a cohort (COH) study (6.07%) or a systematic review (SA)/meta-analysis (MA) (6.73%). Periodontology published the highest number of case controls (CCs) (46.8%), randomized CTs (RCTs) (29.9%), cross-sectional (CS) studies (26.0%), SRs/MAs (19.8%), and CTs (17.1%). Oral and maxillofacial surgery published the highest number of CRs/case series (54.5%) and COH studies (30.5%), whereas operative dentistry published the lowest number of CRs/case series (0.7%), CCs (2.9%), and SRs/MAs (2.3%). CRs/case series retain the highest number of publications across all time points in the dental literature overall. Conclusion: Our results indicate an improvement in the types of research and the pyramid of evidence, which will help in applying evidence-based dentistry (EBD) in clinical decision-making. Clinical significance: Types of studies used in the dental field are not yet investigated. Thus, little is known about the common study design types in dental literature. This can affect the decision made regarding technique, risk factors, prevention, or treatment.