We developed a new titanium spray technique using an inert gas shielded arc spray (titanium arc spray). Hydroxyapatite (HA)-coating can be applied to the implant without any surface pore obstruction after the rough surface is made by this technique. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) of various porous implant surfaces after HA-coating revealed that the bead and fiber metal-coated implants had either a pore obstruction or an uneven HA-coating. On the other hand, the titanium arc sprayed implant demonstrated an even HA-coating all the way to the bottom of the surface pore. In the first set of animal experiments (Exp. 1), the interfacial shear strength to bone of four kinds of cylindrical Ti-6A1-4V (Ti) implants were compared using a canine transcortical push-out model 4 and 12 weeks after implantation. The implant surfaces were roughened by titanium arc spray (group A-C) and sand blasting (group D) to four different degrees (roughness average, Ra = group A: 56.1, B: 44.9, C: 28.3, D: 3.7 microns). The interfacial shear strength increased in a surface roughness-dependent manner at both time periods. However, the roughest implants (group A) showed some failed regions in the sprayed layers after pushout test. In the second set of animal experiments (Exp. 2), four kinds of Ti implants; HA-coated smooth Ti (sHA) with Ra of 3.4 microns, bead-coated Ti (Beads), titanium arc sprayed Ti (Ti-spray) with Ra of 38.1 microns and HA-coated Ti-spray (HA + Ti-spray) with Ra of 28.3 microns were compared using the same model as that in Exp. 1. The interfacial shear strength of HA + Ti-spray was significantly greater than that of sHA and Beads at both time periods, and that of Ti-spray at 4 weeks. Although a histological examination revealed that HA-coating enhanced bone ingrowth, sHA showed the lowest shear strength at both time periods. SEM after pushout test showed that sHA consistently demonstrated some regional failure at the HA-implant substrate interface. HA + Ti-spray had many failed regions either at the HA-bone interface or within the bone tissue rather than at the HA-implant substrate interface. These results suggested that the HA-coated smooth surfaced implants had a mechanical weakness at the HA-substrate interface. Therefore, HA should be coated on the rough surfaced implants to avoid a detachment of the HA-coating layer from the substrate and thus obtain a mechanical anchoring strength to bone. HA-coating on this new type of surface morphology may thus lead to a solution to the problems of conventional HA-coated and porous-coated implants.