Francetti 2004.

Methods	2‐year follow‐up parallel group study including 2 groups with 24 patients in total. No drop outs at 1 year.
Participants	Patients in good general health and motivated for good oral hygiene. Teeth with PPD greater or equal to 6 mm and IBD greater or equal to 4 mm. 1‐, 2‐ and 3‐wall defects were included. Teeth with degree III mobility, necrotic, with incongruous reconstructions or under occlusal trauma were excluded. Patients should not have been treated for periodontitis in the last 3 years. Age ranging between 30 and 66; 11 males and 13 females recruited at 1 university dental clinic.
Interventions	Emdogain versus flap surgery.
Outcomes	FMPS, FMBS. For experimental teeth only: PAL, PPD, IBD on standardised intraoral radiographs at baseline, 1 and 2 years. Tooth loss, postoperative infections and adverse events. Additional intrasurgical measurements were taken. 1‐year data used.
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "They were subsequently allocated to either test or control group in accordance with a 1:1 computer‐generated randomization list".
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "The allocation to treatment group was concealed from clinicians until the patients received the treatment". Comment: Author informed us that the allocation to the intervention groups was concealed. During surgery, after debridement a sequentially numbered sealed opaque envelope containing the randomisation code was opened.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Quotes: "It was conducted according to an open‐label, randomized parallel study protocol". "Patients were blinded as to treatment assignment throughout the study". "All radiographs were evaluated by a single examiner blind to treatment". Comment: Assessor was not blinded for the clinical outcomes due to open‐label procedure. He was blinded only for the radiographic evaluation.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Outcome data are presented in Table 1: Mean values of the parameters at baseline and after 12 months and 24 months. Comment: No missing outcome data. No drop outs.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All the pre‐specified outcomes are properly presented in Table 1: Mean values of the parameters at baseline and after 12 months and 24 months. No adverse events for 1‐year data. No teeth were extracted. REC and aesthetics were not evaluated as treatment outcomes.
Other bias	Low risk	No other source of bias can be identified. No fixed reference points were used in the radiographic assessment and therefore we decided not to use those data.