Objectives <p>This study aimed to evaluate the effects of three implant decontamination techniques—sodium bicarbonate based powder air abrasion, erythritol-based air abrasion, and titanium brushes—on Sandblasted, Large grit, Acid-etched (SLA) and double acid-etched (DAE) implant surfaces. The primary objective was to assess surface modifications following decontamination, while the secondary objective was to determine whether these techniques affect different implant surfaces differently.</p> Materials and methods <p>Eighteen implants, equally divided between two surface types (DAE and SLA, <i>n</i> = 9 each), were assigned to three groups, each subjected to one of three decontamination techniques. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to assess implant surfaces before and after decontamination. Surface roughness variations were analyzed using ImageJ software based on SEM-generated images.</p> Results <p>For DAE implants, no significant surface alteration was observed with any of the three decontamination techniques (t (t-value) = 0.39, df (Degrees of freedom) = 2, p (p-value) = 0.74; t = -0.01, df = 2, <i>p</i> = 0.99; and t = 1.90, df = 2, <i>p</i> = 0.20, respectively). Similar findings were obtained for SLA surfaces (t = -0.17, df = 2, <i>p</i> = 0.88; t = 2.18, df = 2, <i>p</i> = 0.16; and t = -1.76, df = 2, <i>p</i> = 0.22).</p> Conclusion <p>None of the three decontamination techniques significantly altered the surface roughness of SLA or DAE implants, suggesting their suitability for use in peri-implantitis treatment. Future research should focus on assessing their clinical effectiveness, long-term impact on reosseointegration, and biofilm removal efficiency to establish optimal decontamination protocols.</p> Clinical relevance <p>Maintaining surface roughness while eliminating biofilms is crucial for the successful regeneration of implants with peri-implantitis. These three techniques have been shown to preserve surface roughness, making them viable options for use without any concerns.</p>