## 4 Discussion  
We examined the changes in the surfaces of SLA titanium implants irradiated with diverse types of diode lasers. Previous studies [7; 8] have focused on only the alteration in SEM images when diode lasers are irradiated on titanium implants or implants. [PERSON] et al. [7] reported that the diode laser (980 nm) did not damage the titanium surface. [PERSON] et al. [8] reported that the titanium surface was significantly altered when scaling using a metal instrument. In this work, however, we intended to \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Group**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Laser Types**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Output** \\ **Powers** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Weight Percentage**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Atomic Percentage**} \\ \cline{3-8}  & & **C** & **O** & **Ti** & **C** & **O** & **Ti** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Experimental** \\ **Group 1** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{3}{*}{K2 mobile} & 1.0 W & 0 & 4.50 & 95.50 & 0 & 12.36 & 87.64 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & 2.0 W & 0 & 3.50 & 96.50 & 0 & 9.0 & 90.20 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & 3.0 W & 2.91 & 5.01 & 92.08 & 9.77 & 12.64 & 77.59 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Experimental** \\ **Group 2** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{3}{*}{Epic 10 TM} & 1.0 W & 2.10 & 4.24 & 93.65 & 7.31 & 11.08 & 81.62 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & 2.0 W & 2.43 & 5.05 & 92.52 & 8.27 & 12.89 & 78.85 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & 3.0 W & 2.17 & 4.91 & 92.92 & 7.43 & 12.64 & 79.92 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Experimental** \\ **Group 3** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{3}{*}{Saeshin} & 1.0 W & 1.89 & 5.79 & 92.32 & 6.45 & 14.79 & 78.76 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & 2.0 W & 0 & 4.11 & 95.89 & 0 & 11.38 & 88.62 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & 3.0 W & 0 & 4.52 & 95.48 & 0 & 12.40 & 87.60 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Control Group** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{No irradiation} & 2.03 & 4.33 & 93.65 & 7.05 & 11.29 & 81.66 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Atomic and weight percentages of carbon, oxygen, and titanium atoms on the SLA titanium implants under various laser types and output powers. Figure 4: Scanning electron microscope (SEM) images and energy-dispersive spectrometry (EDS) analyses of SLA titanium surfaces irradiated with various types of lasers and nonirradiated specimens: (**A**) control specimen, (**B**) specimen irradiated with K2 mobile laser, (**C**) Epic 10 TM laser, and (**D**) Saeshin laser. observe the changes in surface roughness and chemical characterization beyond alterations in SEM images when the diode laser was irradiated at titanium discs. Diode lasers emit light between 805 and 980 nm [15]. In this study, three kinds of diode lasers were used. The wavelengths of the K2 mobile, Epic 10\({}^{\text{TM}}\), and Saeshin diode lasers were 980, 940, and 980 nm, respectively. In the case of Epic 10\({}^{\text{TM}}\) having a wavelength of 940 nm, which is relatively smaller than 980 nm, the surface roughness values were slightly higher than those of the other two laser groups. This is because diode lasers with shorter wavelengths tend to have higher energy per photon, which might damage the surface, such as by forming a crack or crevice, consequently increasing the surface roughness [9]. In the case of the 3.0-W irradiation, the surface roughness values were slightly higher than those irradiated at 1.0 and 2.0 W. This is likely due to the higher intensity of laser irradiation. Laser irradiation might lower the surface roughness by melting the titanium surface [16]. We observed lower surface roughness values at lower powers, such as 1.0 W, compared to the control specimen. However, there were no statistical differences in surface roughness between laser-irradiated and nonirradiated discs, so more studies must be conducted for validation. The different laser types with different wavelengths used in this work did not significantly affect the Ra of titanium disks. Further research is needed using lasers with more diverse wavelengths.