Spahr 2005.

Methods	RCT, split‐mouth design, 2 treatment groups, 24 months' duration
Participants	37 individuals, 17 females, aged 22 to 62 years, with 2 Miller Class I or II buccal gingival recessions of at least 3 mm. 30 individuals completed the study
Interventions	1. EMP + CAF 2. Placebo (propylene glycol alginate) + CA
Outcomes	GRC CALC KTC PCRC MRC (Automated controlled force probe, calliper and manual probe)
Notes	University/hospital‐based and supported by BIORA AB (currently Straumann) Data from earlier article (Hagewald 2002) were reported as part of this trial
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomly permuted blocks
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Method not reported
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	6 patients could not be recalled after the follow‐up period (they moved with address unknown) and 1 patient was excluded after enrolment in the study due to injuries of gingival tissues in the course of dental treatment by the referring dentist 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