K.A. Scherbakov

Despite the abundance of dental implant surface modification methods, a gap exists between their laboratory efficacy and the level of evidence-based clinical data, complicating the selection of the optimal technology for specific clinical scenarios. Aim: to conduct a comparative analysis of modern surface modification methods (chemical etching, anodization, plasma spraying, laser treatment, nanotechnology) by evaluating their clinical advantages, limitations, and application prospects based on a systematic literature review. Materials and methods. An analysis of publications from 2015—2025 was conducted using the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, eLibrary, and RSCI databases. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied to select peer-reviewed articles, including original research, reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical trials. Results. It was established that each method creates a surface with unique parameters (micro- and nanotopography, chemical composition, bioactivity), which determines the differences in their clinical efficacy. Chemical etching and anodization demonstrate high osseointegration and are supported by long-term studies. Plasma spraying of hydroxyapatite is effective in complex cases but carries risks of coating degradation. Laser treatment and nanotechnology offer the highest precision and multifunctionality but require further long-term clinical studies. Conclusions. The choice of a surface modification method should be based on considering its evidence-based advantages and limitations for specific clinical conditions. Future development prospects are associated with the combination of technologies and the creation of intelligent surfaces with controllable properties. The integration of advanced methods into practice requires the development of standards and long-term randomized studies.