Gupta 2014.

Methods	Trial design: randomised, split‐mouth trial Location: not reported Number of centres: not reported Recruitment period: not stated Source of funding: reported, no funding Ethical approval: yes, Institutional Review Board Number of surgeons: not stated
Participants	Inclusion criteria: patients selected were in good general health, having an intrabony defect ≥ 2 mm with PD ≥ 6 mm Exclusion criteria: patients with abnormal platelet count, smokers, and pregnant women Age at baseline: not stated Gender: not stated Smokers: excluded Teeth treated: maxillary and mandibular arch Number randomised (participants/teeth): 10/20 Number evaluated (participants/teeth): 10/20
Interventions	Comparison: PRP/HA versus HA alone Test group: PRP/HA (n = 10) Control group: HA alone (n = 10) Surgical technique: OFD + intrabony defects were treated with HA bone graft in control group and PRP was additionally applied in test group Follow‐up duration: 1 year
Outcomes	Clinical: plaque control record, BOP, PD, and relative attachment level Radiographic: INFRA (size of the defect) Other: none
Notes	Sample size calculation: not reported Radiographs were taken with a bite block for ensuring reproducibility Comparability at baseline: yes, assessed Complications reported: no Dropouts: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "10 L‐AgP [localized aggressive periodontitis] patients having bilateral intrabony defect ≥ 2 mm and probing depth (PD) ≥ 6 mm were randomly treated either with the PRP/HA graft or HA graft alone" Comment: not sufficient information provided regarding the method of random sequence generation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "10 L‐AgP patients having bilateral intrabony defect ≥ 2 mm and probing depth (PD) ≥ 6 mm were randomly treated either with the PRP/HA graft or HA graft alone" Comment: not sufficient information provided regarding the method of 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	Unclear risk	No information provided
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	It is not reported wether all patients concluded the study or not
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes properly reported