Agarwal 2016.

Methods	Trial design: randomised, split‐mouth trial Location: Institute of Dental Sciences, Bareilly, India Number of centres: 1 Recruitment period: not specified Source of funding: nil Ethical approval: Ethics Committee of MJP Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, India Number of surgeons: not reported
Participants	Inclusion criteria: adult patients in good general health and diagnosed with chronic advanced periodontitis, presence of 3 deep intrabony defects (3‐walled) with a PD > 5 mm located in the interproximal area in maxillary or mandibular posterior teeth in 3 different quadrants. Radiographic evidence of the defects should exist Exclusion criteria: smoking, antibiotic, or anti‐inflammatory treatment or the known use of any medication with the potential to affect periodontal tissues within the preceding 6 months, and pregnancy Age at baseline: not reported Gender: F 3/M 7 Smokers: excluded Teeth treated: not specified Number randomised (participants/teeth): 10/30 Number evaluated (participants/teeth): 8/28
Interventions	Comparison: the control group (C) consisted of sites treated with OFD alone. Whereas, test group A consisted of sites treated with PRP alone and test group B received PRP in combination with DFDBA Test group: OFD + PRP and PRP + DFDBA Control group: OFD Surgical technique: OFD Follow‐up duration: 12 months
Outcomes	Clinical: PI, GI, PD, and CAL Radiographic: defect depth reduction and defect resolution. Defect fill was assessed by measuring distance between CEJ and base of the defect. The distance between alveolar crest and base of the defect depicted defect resolution. Change in alveolar crest level was also seen as a measurement of distance between CEJ and alveolar crest
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "The defects were assigned randomly to 3 groups" Comment: insufficient information to determine method of random sequence generation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "The defects were assigned randomly to 3 groups" Comment: insufficient information to determine method of 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	Unclear risk	No information was provided
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Only 2 patients (2 defects) did not return for follow‐up examination
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Data for outcomes of this review were reported appropriately