Sangiorgio 2017.

Methods	RCT, parallel design, 4 treatment groups, 6 months' duration
Participants	68 individuals, aged 18 to 60 years, with 1 maxillary Miller Class I or II buccal gingival recession of at least 3 mm
Interventions	1. XCM + CAF 2. EMD + CAF 3. XCM + EMD + CAF 4. CAF
Outcomes	ACC GRC*(Groups 1, 2 and 3 were superior to 4) CALC KTC SCRC PCRC*(Groups 2 and 3 were superior to 4) MRC*(Groups 1, 2 and 3 were superior to 4) (Manual probe and digital calliper)
Notes	University/hospital‐based and supported by the State of São Paulo Research Foundation, São Paulo, Brazil
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer‐generated randomisation table
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Sealed and opaque envelopes
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Patients remained unaware of the type of surgical procedures they received
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	All patients completed the follow‐up period
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