Wennström 2005.

Methods	Study design: RCT with 2‐arm parallel design Recruitment period: during 2002 Setting: University Dental Hospital (Sweden), private dental office (Italy) Number of centres: Two Funding Source: Industry funding
Participants	Inclusion criteria: Diagnosis: Chronic periodontitis‐ with PD of > 5 mm and BOP. All patients were in good general health Exclusion criteria: SRP over last 12 months, antibiotics from 3 months before or during study, pregnant Age: 25 to 75 Gender: 19 F (8/11) and 22 M (12/10) Smokers: 20 (9/11) Number randomised: 42 Number evaluated: 41 (20/21)
Interventions	Comparison: FMS vs control Test group: (FM‐UD‐test): FMS 1‐h session ultrasonic scaling with water, re‐instrumentation after 3 months in PPD > 4 mm. Control group: (Q‐SRP‐control): QRP 4 sessions hand instrumentation ‐ 1‐week intervals (time recorded, no time restriction), re‐instrumentation after 3 months in PPD > 4 mm OHI before study start: yes Instruments used: Hand and US instruments Time per Q: 1 hour Maintenance: 1 month following completion of instrumentation (both groups) Retreatment: at 3 months Duration of study: 6 months
Outcomes	Primary outcome: PPD (6 sites per tooth) Secondary outcomes: CAL, BOP (6 sites per tooth). Manual probe for all measurements Teeth: Whole‐mouth recordings (baseline, 3 and 6 months). Data split in initial moderate (PPD 5 to 6 mm) and deep pockets (PPD > 6 mm) Pocket depth at baseline: moderate (PPD 5‐6 mm) and deep pockets (PPD > 7 mm) Outcome time reported: 3 months used. 3 and 6 months measured. Other outcomes: PI, Average pain VAS score (100 mm scale)
Notes	For BOP: Data supplemented by authors
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"Within each of these subgroups, a random assignment to the two treatment protocols (Fig. 1) was subsequently performed by the use of computer‐generated tables".
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"Allocation concealment was secured by (i) having a person not otherwise involved in the study performing the randomisation and (ii) providing the centres (the dental hygienists) with sealed envelopes containing only the assignment for the individual subject"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: 42 enrolled, 41 randomised, and 41 present at 6 months.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	"One examiner (a periodontist), who was masked with respect to the treatment assignments, performed all examinations".
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Data reported on all primary and secondary outcomes.
Other bias	Low risk	Baseline balance good for pocket depth and smoking. No apparent other biases.