Periodontal instrumentation technique: an exploratory analysis of clinical outcomes and financial aspects

Objective This exploratory post hoc analysis sought to investigate clinical outcomes comparing non-surgical treatment for periodontal disease using exclusively hand instruments, exclusively ultrasonic instruments or a combination approach. Differences in time efficiency and equipment use with each treatment method were evaluated. Methods In total, 55 patients with periodontitis were treated across two studies (randomised controlled trial and cohort study) with non-surgical periodontal therapy using hand instruments (HI), ultrasonic instruments (UI) or a combination approach (CI). All patients were re-evaluated 90 days after treatment. Clinical parameters, time taken and financial implications of non-surgical periodontal therapy were explored with a descriptive analysis within this post hoc analysis. Results There were no clinically relevant differences in clinical parameters across all groups at day 90. Inter-group comparisons showed no clinically relevant differences in treatment outcome between groups. UI required less time on average to complete treatment compared to HI. UI provided using a half mouth approach had fewest overall episodes of expenditure and lowest maintenance costs. Conclusions Comparison of clinical outcomes between HI, UI and CI yielded no clinically relevant differences. When comparing HI and UI, UI had a shorter treatment time on average. Full mouth treatment was associated with the least patient visits. UI was least costly on a recurring basis.