Camargo 2009.

Methods	Trial design: randomised, split‐mouth trial Location: School of Dentistry, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Republic of Serbia Number of centres: 1 Recruitment period: 15 May 1999 to 20 March 2000 Source of funding: not stated Ethical approval: yes, University Institutional Review Board Number of surgeons: 2
Participants	Inclusion criteria: patients having 2 similar interproximal defects with PD > 6 mm after initial therapy. Radiographic evidence of intrabony defects had to exist. Upon surgical exposure, defects needed to have a minimum depth of 3 mm and present with 2 or 3 walled defects Exclusion criteria: systemic illnesses, compromised immune system, pregnant and/or lactating women, and patients taking any drug known to cause gingival enlargement. Patients allergic or sensitive to any of the medications to be used, teeth non‐responsive to cold or endodontically treated Age at baseline: 34 to 67 years (mean age = 47 ± 10 years) Gender: F 14/M 9 Smokers: 11 smokers/12 non‐smokers Teeth treated: maxillary and mandibular posteriors Number randomised (participants/teeth): 23/46 Number evaluated (participants/teeth): 23/46
Interventions	Comparison: PRP/BPBM/GTR versus BPBM/GTR Test group: PRP/BPBM/GTR (n = 23) Control group: BPBM/GTR (n = 23) Surgical technique: intrabony defects treated with PRP/BPBM/GTR for test group and BPBM/GTR for control group Follow‐up duration: 6 months
Outcomes	Clinical: PD, CAL, defect fill (re‐entry surgery) Radiographic: none Other: alveolar crest resorption
Notes	Sample size calculation: not reported Comparability at baseline: yes, assessed Complications reported: yes Dropouts: reported, no dropouts
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "The study used a split‐mouth design, and 2 interproximal sites were randomly (toss of a coin) assigned to the control and experimental groups" Comment: correct method for random sequence generation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "The study used a split‐mouth design, and 2 interproximal sites were randomly (toss of a coin) assigned to the control and experimental groups" Comment: correct method for allocation concealment
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Impossible to blind the operator given the surgical nature of the treatment
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "An examiner other than the surgeons performed all clinical measurements without knowledge of the treatment groups" Comment: blinding of outcome assessment done properly
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	All randomised patients completed the study
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Data for outcomes of this review were reported appropriately