Background and Aim: In the last decade, implant surface treatment in order to maintain rapid and improved osseointegration has been considered worldwide. This study reviews methods used to increase osseointegration of dental implants by surface modification techniques.Materials and Methods: A search in PubMed was performed by typing the following words: dental implant surface, implant surface treatment, implants surface modification and 48 relevant articles were extracted from 2000 to 2012.Results: surface characteristics of dental implants such as surface chemistry, thickness of the TiO2 layer, wettability, surface charge, and surface roughness can increase the rate and strength of osseointegration. Many of these methods have been shown to have clinical efficacy (>95% over 5) years.Conclusions: The exact role of the surface chemical characteristics and surface topography in the primary events of osseo integration has not been clarified precisely. In addition, human clinical trials that compare current methods simultaneously in a split mouth design are rare. Many of these studies were in vitro and generalizing the results of these studies to the clinical practice is difficult. Therefore, more clinical trials are suggested.

Introduction: Several techniques have been used to modify the surface of commercially pure titanium (CPTi) implants to improve osseointegration using lasers, sandblasts, sandblasts with acid etching, and other modalities. For implant-osseointegration, surface features like the chemical composition of a surface, topography, and surface energy are essential. The present comparative study aimed to compare the impact of Er, Cr: YSGG laser, sandblasting, and acid etching implant surface modifications on the surface topography, roughness, and element chemical composition of the Ti dental implant. Methods: Thirty CPTi dental implants were divided into three groups according to the surface modification (n=10 for each group): Group A: Sandblasting with acid etching (SLActive), group B: Sandblasting, and Group C: Er, Cr: YSGG laser surface modifications. The modified surfaces were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), profilometer, and energy dispersive x-ray spectrometry (EDS). Results: One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that there were significant differences in the mean values of average roughness (Ra) of the three groups (P<0. 05). Tukey’s post hoc test showed that the average roughness (Ra) of laser-surface modification (group C) of the implant had the highest mean value (2. 30 µm) among the different groups, while sandblasted surface modification (group B) of the implant had the lowest mean value (1. 39 µm). The SLActive (group A) sandblast with acid etching had a mean value of 1. 63 µm. SEM analysis showed that significantly modified surface topographies and different element concentrations were found within all modified groups. Conclusion: The Er, Cr: YSGG laser irradiation increased the implant surface roughness value after implant surface modification, compared to sandblasts and sandblasts with acid etching application. The observations for the SEM-EDS analysis revealed several elements with different concentrations, which were affected by the physical–chemical characteristics of the surface modification techniques. The SEM analysis showed a significant modification in implant surface topographies of the tested groups