OBJECTIVE To compare peri-implant tissue healing at implants installed in sites prepared with conventional drills or a sonic device. MATERIAL AND METHODS In six Beagle dogs, the mandibular premolars and first molars were extracted bilaterally. After 3 months, full-thickness muco-periosteal flaps were elevated and recipient sites were prepared in both sides of the mandible. In the right side (control), the osteotomies were prepared using conventional drills, while, at the left side (test), a sonic device (Sonosurgery(®)) was used. Two implants were installed in each side of the mandible. After 8 weeks of non-submerged healing, biopsies were harvested and ground sections prepared for histological evaluation. RESULTS The time consumed for the osteotomies at the test was more than double compared to the conventional control sites. No statistically significant differences were found for any of the histological variables evaluated for hard and soft tissue dimensions. Although not statistically significant, slightly higher mineralized bone-to-implant contact was found at the test (65.4%) compared to the control (58.1) sites. CONCLUSIONS Similar healing characteristics in osseointegration and marginal hard tissue remodeling resulted at implants installed into osteotomies prepared with conventional drills or with the sonic instrument (Sonosurgery(®)).