instrumentation during periodontal scaling and root planing and the potentially deleterious effects the different instruments can have on the tooth surface. A small cross-section of the available studies within the last 5-7 years set out to critically examine the impact of various currently available and commonly utilized Hygiene instruments in the removal of plaque and calculus while removing the least amount of tooth surface or providing the smoothest tooth surface post-treatment. Four studies published between 2012 and 2018, will be examined all of which have a congruent goal to examine the role of instrumentation within periodontal therapy for effective treatment while preventing further harm to the patient. The specific objective of the study by Bozbay E, Dominici F, Gokbuget AY, Cintan S, Guida L, Aydin MS, Mariotti A, Pilloni A., 2018, was to evaluate three distinct periodontal treatment instrumentation methods to hand instrumentation on residual cementum of periodontally diseased teeth. Devaraj C G, Marda P, Prakash S, Vastardis S., 2012 set out to determine the correlation between the remaining calculus, the loss of tooth substance, and the roughness of root surface after root planing. The instruments utilized in the study included the Gracey curette, ultrasonic instrument (Slimline® insert FSI-SLI-10S), and DesmoClean® rotary bur. Antush M., Ashish S. N., Ranganath V, Vuppalapati R., 2014 Designed their study in order to compare the weather different ultrasonic scalers and a periodontal curette were more or less useful for calculus removal on the tooth surface as well as the differences on root surface roughness. Attaei, E.; Birang, E.; Birang, R.; Nachsh, N.; Yaghini, J., 2015 set out to discover if the root surface after an SRP with a erbium: yttrium aluminum garnet (Er.YAG) laser compared to ultrasonic and hand instrumentation in the root surface post treatment. Data for the study Preservation of root cementum: a comparative evaluation of power-driven versus hand instruments (Bozbay E. et al., 2018) was collected using forty-eight otherwise healthy, single-rooted teeth. The patients involved in the study were diagnosed with severe chronic periodontitis and had existing treatment plans for tooth extractions. These teeth slated for extraction were treated using four different instrumentation methods. The teeth were treated subgingivally at one approximal site utilizing one of the four distinct instrumentation methods: hand curettes, piezoelectric ultrasonic scalers, piezoelectric ultrasonic scalers following air polishing or air polishing alone. The instrumented and non-instrumented teeth were analyzed post extraction with a dissecting microscope and SEM for measurement of the amount of change in the surface characteristics of the residual cementum. The research methods in the investigation of A comparison of root surface instrumentation using manual, ultrasonic and rotary instruments: An in vitro study using scanning electron microscopy (Devaraj C G, Marda P, Prakash S, Vastardis S., 2012) were both qualitative and quantitative. This data allowed the researchers to provide an analysis of how effe>