Bozbay et al. (2018) found that the percentage of coronal cementum remaining following subgingival instrumentation was 84% for U, 80% for U + AP, 94% for AP and 65% for HC. Although subgingival instrumentation of apical portions of the cementum demonstrated 6% less retained cementum in comparison with coronal portions, the amount of retained cementum with AP was still significantly higher than with HC. SEM results found the smoothest root surfaces created by the HC followed by the AP, while root surfaces instrumented by U or U + AP presented grooves and scratches. This study demonstrated that AP was superior to U devices in preserving cementum, whereas HC were the most effective instruments in removing cementum. While Devaraj C G, Marda P, Prakash S, Vastardis S. (2012) determined that the RCI and LTSI show statistically nonsignificant differences between all the three experiment cohorts, the RLTSI showed a statistically significant difference between the Slimline™ ultrasonic insert and a hand curette as well as between the Slimline™ and the Desmo-Clean™ ultrasonic. The Slimline™ showed the least mean scores for RCI, LTSI, and RLTSI. Though the difference was not correctable, the Slimline™ insert was shown to be more effective than the other methods as scored by the indices and the instrumentation time. Moreover, Antush M., Ashish S. N., Ranganath V, Vuppalapati R. (2014) showed that residual deposits were similar in all experimental groups. Concerning roughness parameters, Root mean square roughness and Total roughness, the study observed a significant difference between hand instrumentation and ultrasonic devices. The SEM analysis revealed a similar root surface pattern for the ultrasonic devices, but the curette showed many instrument scratches, gouges, and removal of large amounts of cementum. The curette produced the rougher root surfaces than two ultrasonic devices used in the study and caused more root surface removal. Piezoelectric devices produced minimum root surface roughness but caused more root substance removal and more cracks than Magnetostrictive ultrasonic devices. And Attaei, E., Birang, E., Birang, R., Naghsh, N., Yaghini, J. (2015) showed the surface after SRP with the Er:(YAG) laser was not statistically different from hand scaling but did produce a higher root surface roughness than the utiliz>