McGuire 2016.

Methods	RCT, split‐mouth design, 2 treatment groups, 5 years' duration
Participants	25 individuals, 17 females, aged 18 to 70 years, with 2 Miller Class II buccal gingival recessions of at least 3 mm. 23 individuals completed the 12 months follow‐up, whereas 17 the 5 years follow‐up
Interventions	1. XCM + CAF 2. SCTG + CAF
Outcomes	ACC GRC*(2) CALC*(2) KTC SCC PCRC MRC (Manual probe)
Notes	Practice‐based and supported by Giestlich Pharma AG Unpublished data were included following contact with author
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer generated randomisation list
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Adequate ‐ sealed envelope
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Information not reported
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	All measurements were performed by 1 examiner not aware of the type of surgical procedure
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	The 25 patients included in the study completed the initial 6‐month follow‐up, whereas 17 were available for a 5‐year recall (quote: "seven patients unavailable for recall had moved, were not reachable, or had conflicting engagements, and one had received a class 5 restoration that eradicated the baseline measurement reference point") Data are equally missing in both intervention groups (split‐mouth design), but reasons for these are both reported and balanced across groups, then important bias is not to be expected
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Evidence of selective reporting of outcomes was not detected
Other bias	Low risk	Evidence of other bias was not detected