Agarwal 2014.

Methods	Trial design: randomised, split‐mouth trial Location: Aligarh, India Number of centres: 1: Department of Periodontics, Dental College, Aligarh, India Recruitment period: not stated Source of funding: not stated Ethical approval: yes, ethical committee of Aligarh Muslim University Number of surgeons: 1
Participants	Inclusion criteria: absence of any systemic disease, not taking any medication, no pregnancy or lactation, non‐smokers, no previous treatment for periodontal reasons, no furcation involved, matched pairs of intrabony defects with PD ≥ 6 mm following initial therapy Exclusion criteria: failure to satisfy inclusion criteria Age at baseline: mean not specified, range 30 to 65 years Gender: F 10/M 14 Smokers: excluded Teeth treated: maxillary/mandibular premolars and first/second molars Number randomised (participants/teeth): 24/48 Number evaluated (participants/teeth): 24/48
Interventions	Comparison: PRP + DFDBA versus DFDBA + saline solution Test group: PRP + DFDBA (n = 24 defects) Control group : DFDBA + saline (n = 24 defects) Surgical technique: OFD with the adjunct of a graft with DFDBA + PRP in test and saline in control Follow‐up duration: 12 months
Outcomes	Clinical: PD, CAL Radiographic: CEJ‐AC, AC‐BD, CEJ‐BD, defect width
Notes	Sample size calculation not reported Radiographs were taken with a bite block for ensuring reproducibility Comparability at baseline: yes, but not specified if it was assessed Complications reported: yes (no complications)
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "defects were randomly divided into 2 groups by the flip of a coin" Comment: correct method for random sequence generation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "defects were randomly divided into 2 groups by the flip of a coin" Comment: not sufficient information provided for allocation concealment
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Impossible to blind the clinician given the surgical nature of the treatment
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "Clinical parameters were recorded preoperatively and at 12 months postoperatively by one trained examiner who was blind to the treatment assignments. Radiographs were assessed on a light box by a single experienced clinician who was blind to the treatment used" Comment: blinding likely to have been done properly
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	All randomised participants were included in the analyses
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Data for outcomes of this review were reported appropriately