Not really. Most Holocaust denialism is a grab-bag of non-sequiturs, ad hominems, conspiracy theories, and poorly-reasoned narratives. Very few legitimate Holocaust scholars deal with disproving these jokers in their research. The level of historical understanding denialists have is often laughable and they wear distorting biases on their sleeves. Historical research really does not interact with denialist types because its akin to neuroscientists having to interact with phrenology. There's nothing to be gained by debunking what common sense can debunk.

There is one exception though where denialism has had something of an impact in the historical profession: Hitler's role in the Holocaust. David Irving and other denialists often maintain Hitler's innocence or aloofness from the Holocaust by the absence of a Führerbefehl or similar directive authorizing the mass murder of Jews. Irving's Hitler's War made this one of the central planks of its argument. And Irving even offered a bounty for any researcher who could find such evidence. Irving's obnoxiousness on this matter did refocus some scholarly attention on the surviving documentary record between Hitler and his various subordinates over Jewish affairs. Researchers were not so much interested in collecting Irving's bounty (the man has a history of making bad-faith offers) or even debunking him, but the question of Hitler's role fit within the emerging intentionalist-functionalist debate forming up during the late 1970s and 1980s.

Irving and his ilk though did not really push scholarship though. The intentionalist-functionalist kerfuffle would likely have pushed scholars to reexamine the actual mechanisms of Hitler's rule anyway. What denialists did do though is add a further complicated layer for scholarship. Biographers of Hitler often have to go to great pains to explain the chaotic nature of Hitler's leadership style. The sections on the formation of genocidal policy in Kershaw's biography are somewhat clunky because Kershaw wanted to make it clear that Hitler bore responsibility for the Holocaust. These sections often hem and haw between a judicious explanation of how Hitler's lazy management encouraged subordinates to "work towards the Führer" and an author determined to not to have his words twisted to prove Hitler's aloofness. This was an understandable decision on Kershaw and his editors' part, but one that makes the relevant sections more difficult to read.

I would say the biggest way it has influenced scholarship is in how scholars understand not the Holocaust, but antisemitism. Particularly antisemitism after the Holocaust as well as the "denial" stage of genocide which is included in the Genocide Watch eight phases of genocide. Studying Holocaust denial going back even to the time when the Holocaust was occuring shows us that it is a part of how genocide is perpetrated and how it is perpetuated. It has also bolstered the understanding in scholarship of antisemitism that conspiratorial thinking is a major part of the specific set of beliefs which make up antisemitic thinking even when it comes from a variety of political spheres. For example Holocaust denial, and by extension a conspiratorial thinking about Jews in general, can be found in far right white supremecist and neo-Nazi circles both in the US and Europe, in extremist Islamist circles, and even on the far left, though here you are more likely to see Holocaust obfuscation or supersessionism rather than true denial. From this we can learn that Holocaust denial is an important belief of antisemitism rather than an ideology stemming from a specific form of antisemitism.