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.