## 4 Discussion
For this reason, this is considered a limitation of the study, since these additional parameters offer a better understanding of the surface microtopography. These types of surfaces have often been compared in the literature. [PERSON] et al. compared commercially pure titanium implants with HA blasting and subsequent acid etching (HA + AE), which were placed on mini pigs. BIC was analyzed in the coronal area. A total of 80.79% was obtained in the SLA group and 83.53% in the HA + AE group, without statistically significant differences between both [38]. These values are much higher than those obtained in our study, in which our comparable surfaces obtained values of 40.6% (SLA) and 27.60% (HA + AW); a statistically significant difference between both groups was observed. Another study compared sandblasted surfaces with biphasic tricalcium phosphate (BCP) and surfaces with SLA treatment on implants placed in rabbits. BIC was evaluated at 8 weeks and SLA (\(\approx\)68%) was found to have a significantly higher BIC value than BCP (\(\approx\)47%). These authors explain these results by the fact that BCP-type surfaces are not treated with acid etching and, therefore, do not create a nanometer-scale topography, which would favor the adhesion and proliferation of osteoblasts [23]. In our study, no statistically significant difference was observed between both groups at the BIC level, as in other studies found in the literature [39; 40; 41; 42]. [PERSON] et al. developed an in vitro study in which they compared titanium discs with different treatments similar to those carried out in this study: SLA, HA/TCP, and HA/TCP + acid etching. It is important to be cautious when comparing, since the latter group was sandblasted with TCP and then acid etched, unlike our HA + AW group which only has sandblasting with HA and washing with non-etching acid. As in our study, a viability test with MTS was carried out after 24 h. No statistically significant differences were observed between the groups [43]. Differences found in BIC when compared to other studies may be due, among other factors, to the fact that different animals are used (mini pigs, goats, dogs, or rats) whose bone characteristics may not be similar. Furthermore, the site of implantation may vary from one study to another (more or less trabecular or cortical area); therefore, comparisons between publications should be analyzed with caution. To assess the results of our study, the macrodesign characteristics of each type of implants must also be integrated, although this has not been the primary objective of our study. For example, primary or mechanical stability depends mainly on three factors: the surgical procedure applied (relationship between the size of the implant and the surgical site prepared), bone density, and the design of the implant at both a macro and microscopic level [44]. On the other hand, the different elements of the implant (neck, body, and apical region), in addition to having the mission of procuring greater primary stability to the implant, are also involved in promoting the transmission of masticatory forces in the most homogeneous and natural way possible, as well as maintain a biological environment as compatible as possible with the function of dental implants [45; 46]. Finally, the three groups showed good osseointegration according to the values obtained in terms of dimensions and bone density. The SLA group showed higher values in terms of bone volume, mean density, and accumulated density, although not significantly in comparison to the other two groups. Similarly, no significant differences were observed between the groups at the area level. In this sense, similar and good bone behavior can be observed in both pure titanium and alloy. In addition, there was also agreement between the in vitro study of cell viability and the in vivo histometric and bone density study.