Satheesh Elangovan, Sivaraman Prakasam, Praveen Gajendrareddy, Veerasathpurush Allareddy

The objective of this assessment is to evaluate the degree of risk of bias in randomized controlled trials published in 2013 and focusing on periodontal regeneration. Three reviewers searched and selected the trials based on pre-defined inclusion criteria. Predictor variables [number of authors, primary objective of the study, biomaterial employed, follow-up time periods, split mouth study (yes/no), journal, year of publication, country, scale (single/multi-center) and nature of funding] were extracted and risk of bias assessment using Cochrane risk of bias tool were performed independently by the three reviewers. Seventeen RCTs were included in this assessment. The risk of bias in RCTs published in 2013 with a focus in periodontal regeneration varied significantly with only in less than 30% of the included trials, the overall risk of bias was found to be low, while 41% of trials were designated to have a higher degree of bias. Specifically, when looking at the domains assessed, 70% of the included trials reported an accepted method of sequence generation, blinding (whenever possible), completeness of outcome data or avoided selective outcome reporting. Meanwhile, only 47% of the included trials reported some form of allocation concealment. In this assessment, of the included 17 trials, slightly more than 40% of them had a high risk of bias, underscoring the importance of careful appraisal of trials before implementing the study interventions in clinical practice and the need for more detailed analyses.