Study	Reason for exclusion
Archila 2004	Comparison of 2 active agents (stannous fluoride/sodium hexametaphosphate versus triclosan/copolymer/fluoride) with no fluoride‐only control arm. Toothbrushing was supervised
Bogren 2007	Triclosan/copolymer arm also used powered toothbrushes while control arm used manual toothbrushes
Bogren 2008	Triclosan/copolymer arm also used powered toothbrushes while control arm used manual toothbrushes. Participants had periodontitis at baseline
Boneta 2010	Comparison of 2 active agents (stannous fluoride/sodium hexametaphosphate versus triclosan/copolymer/fluoride) with no fluoride‐only control arm
Charles 2001	Even though it would be possible to use 2 of the 3 arms (triclosan/copolymer/fluoride toothpaste plus inactive mouthrinse versus fluoride‐only control toothpaste plus inactive mouthrinse), we consider that any mouthrinse could wash away the active toothpaste ingredients
Cullinan 2003	Participants had periodontitis at baseline
de la Rosa 1992	Triclosan and pyrophosphate, not triclosan/copolymer. Only 9 weeks of intervention
Dóri 1999	From translator: "3 weeks" and "triclosan toothpaste in all three arms"
Kocher 2000	Additional intervention of interdental cleaning in control group only
Mankodi 2002	Comparison of 2 active agents (stannous fluoride versus triclosan/copolymer/fluoride) with no fluoride‐only control arm
Winston 2002	Participants with fewer than 20 gingival bleeding sites at baseline exited the study after 3 months (26%). This could have ruined the effect of the randomisation process, thus introducing selection bias