Madan 2014.

Study characteristics
Methods	Trial design: randomised, split‐mouth trial Location: Uttar Pradesh, India Number of centres: single centre, Saraswati Dental College and Hospital, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India Recruitment period: not stated Funding source: self‐funded
Participants	Inclusion criteria: patients required extraction of non‐molar tooth and committed to replacement with dental implant after 6 months; systemically healthy, compliant Exclusion criteria: systemic disease; radiographic bone height of < 7 mm at the site intended for surgery Age at baseline: range 20 to 45 years Gender: M 7/ F8 Smokers: 0 Teeth extracted: non‐molar teeth Number randomised (participants/sites): 15/60 Number evaluated (participants/sites): 15/60
Interventions	Comparison: ARP (grafting material) versus extraction alone Test group: (n = 30 extraction sockets) resorbable polylactide and polyglycolide (PLA‐PGA) sponge (Fisiograft, Ghimas SpA, Italy) Control group: (n = 30 extraction sockets) extraction alone Surgical technique: flapless, no primary closure Type of socket: 4‐wall socket Duration of follow‐up: 6 months
Outcomes	Width and height of alveolar ridge, histologic analyses Method of assessment: periodontal probe, computed tomography, template
Notes	Sample size calculation: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Extraction sockets were randomly allocated for test and control groups by the toss of a coin into equal numbers"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No information in the article
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No information in the article
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