Purpose: The present study was performed to evaluate the effect of surface treatment of the cervical area of implant on bone regeneration in fresh extraction socket following implant installation. Materials and methods: The four minipigs, 18 months old and 30 kg weighted, were used. Four premolars of the left side of both the mandible and maxilla were extracted. ${phi}$3.3 mm and 11.5 mm long US II plus implants (Osstem Implant co., Korea) with resorbable blasting media (RBM) treated surface and US II implants (Osstem Implant co., Korea) with machined surface at the top and RBM surface at lower portion were installed in the socket. Stability of the implant was measured with $Osstell^{TM}$ (Model 6 Resonance Frequency Analyser: Integration Diagnostics Ltd., Sweden). After 2 months of healing, the procedures and measurement of implant stability were repeated in the right side by same method of left side. At four months after first experiment, the animals were sacrificed after measurement of stability of all implants, and biopsies were obtained. Results: Well healed soft tissue and no mobility of the implants were observed in both groups. Histologically satisfactory osseointegration of implants was observed with RBM surface, and no foreign body reaction as well as inflammatory infiltration around implant were found. Furthermore, substantial bone formation and high degree of osseointegration were exhibited at the marginal defects around the cervical area of US II plus implants. However, healing of US II implants was characterized by the incomplete bone substitution and the presence of the connective tissue zone between the implant and newly formed bone. The distance between the implant platform (P) and the most coronal level of bone-to-implant contact (B) after 2 months of healing was $2.66{pm}0.11$ mm at US II implants group and $1.80{pm}0.13$mm at US II plus implant group. The P-B distance after 4 months of healing was $2.29{pm}0.13$mm at US II implants group and $1.25{pm}0.10$mm at US II plus implants group. The difference between both groups regarding the length of P-B distance was statistically significant(p<0.05). Concerning the resonance frequency analysis (RFA) value, the stability of US II plus implants group showed relatively higher RFA value than US II implants group. Conclusion: The current results suggest that implants with rough surface at the cervical area have an advantage in process of bone regeneration on defect around implant placed in a fresh extraction socket.