Fernandes 2011.

Study characteristics
Methods	Trial design: randomised, split‐mouth trial Location: São Paulo, Brazil Number of centres: single centre, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil Recruitment period: February 2009 to March 2010 Funding source: BioHorizons, Birmingham, Alabama donated the grafting material used in this study
Participants	Inclusion criteria: systemic health; ≥ 20 teeth in both maxillary and mandibular arches; ≥ 2 hopeless, single‐rooted and non‐adjacent teeth in the maxilla Exclusion criteria: antibiotic therapy in the last 6 months; systemic involvement; smokers; pregnant or lactating patients Age at baseline: mean age 44.0 ± 8.10 years (33 to 58) Gender: M 5/F 13 Smokers: none Teeth extracted: maxillary anterior teeth Number randomised (participants/sites): 18/36 Number evaluated (participants/sites): 18/36
Interventions	Comparison: ARP (grafting material) versus ARP (grafting material) Test group: (n = 18 extraction sockets) acellular dermal matrix (ADM) (AlloDerm, LifeCell Corporation, The Woodlands, Texas, USA) + anorganic bovine bone matrix (ABM) with synthetic cell‐binding peptide P‐15 (PepGen P‐15, DENTSPLY Friadent CeraMed, Lakewood, Colorado, USA) Control group: (n = 18 extraction sockets) ADM only Surgical technique: flap, primary closure Type of socket: all alveolar sockets had buccal bone defects after extraction Duration of follow‐up: 6 months
Outcomes	Width and height of alveolar ridge Method of assessment: periodontal probe, template
Notes	Sample size calculation: reported The sample size was calculated with a power of 83%. A total of 18 participants per group was required to detect a difference in bucco‐palatal alveolar ridge of 1.5 mm
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "The sites for the test and control groups were randomly selected by a coin toss"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	The authors replied that no allocation concealment was attempted
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	The authors replied that examiners were not blinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	All data presented
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes appear to be reported
Other bias	Low risk	None detected