Dental implant treatment has become an integral component of contemporary oral rehabilitation, delivering predictable outcomes with high long-term survival rates (Lupi et al. 2026; Howe et al. 2019). As treatment goals have evolved from osseointegration toward long-term biological and esthetic success, precise three-dimensional implant positioning guided by comprehensive prosthetic planning is now fundamental to optimizing clinical outcomes and minimizing complications (Chen et al. 2023).
Translating a treatment plan accurately into clinical practice remains one of the major challenges. Conventional freehand placement of dental implants relies heavily on clinician experience and can lead to clinically relevant deviations, particularly in anatomically complex scenarios. The rapid evolution of digital dentistry has transformed this workflow into computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS). By integrating cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), intraoral scanning, virtual planning, and guided execution, CAIS establishes a streamlined digital protocol, supported by recent systematic reviews demonstrating improved implant placement accuracy (Sadilina et al. 2025; Khaohoen et al. 2025).
However, computer-assisted implant surgery is no longer represented by a single technology. Static guided surgery (sCAIS), dynamic navigation (dCAIS), and, more recently, robotic-assisted implant placement (rCAIS) each have their distinct workflow, technical characteristics, and clinical indications. Although all three approaches aim to improve the precision and predictability of implant placement, important differences exist regarding surgical flexibility, intraoperative adaptability, learning curve, costs, workflow efficiency, and clinical applications. As digital technologies continue to evolve, clinicians are increasingly challenged to select the most appropriate approach for individual clinical scenarios based on available evidence rather than technological novelty alone.
To address this challenge, the Editorial Board of Forum Implantologicum invited internationally recognized experts and their teams to critically evaluate current evidence across various aspects of CAIS workflows:
- Dr. Nikos Mattheos (Bangkok, Thailand) provides a fundamental review of “Definitions and Overview of Computer-assisted Implant Surgery (CAIS).”
- PD Dr. N. Nänni (Zurich, Switzerland) and co-workers provide a review on “Static Computer-assisted Implant Surgery (sCAIS) in Partial Edentulism: Tooth-supported Guides”.
- Dr. P. Papaspyridakos (Boston, USA) focuses on “Full-Arch Guide Concepts in Static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery (sCAIS): Applications in Partial Edentulism and Full-Arch Rehabilitation”.
- Dr. Selene Kuo (Taipei, Taiwan) shines a spotlight on the “Implementation of Navigated Computer-assisted Implant Surgery (nCAIS) in Daily Clinical Practice: Where Do We Stand?”
- Dr. Y. Wu (Shanghai, China) presents the latest evidence focusing on “Robotic Computer-assisted Implant Surgery (rCAIS): The Future of Implant Surgery?”
- Last but not least, the Ask the Experts feature will also focus on this topic, and tries to answer the critical question, “Robots in Implant Dentistry: Will They Replace Us?” with insights from experts James Chow, Stephen Chen, Karim El-Kholy, Yulan Wang, and Hans-Peter Weber.
On behalf of the Editorial Board, we aim to deliver a comprehensive overview of modern CAIS workflows while also highlighting the future potential in precision implant dentistry. We hope to bridge current evidence with clinical practice guidelines while providing readers with valuable insights into the evolving role of digital technologies that aim to deliver more accurate, predictable, and patient-centered implant treatment outcomes.
Teresa Chanting Sun & Michael M. Bornstein