Abstract

Attempts have been made at formulating standardized nomenclature for implantology. Although these classification systems have advanced the concept of universal nomenclature in implantology, they can be improved upon. Most of them present terms in glossary form, which can limit their applicability. Others deviate significantly from accepted basic terminology and can be foreign or ambiguous to the average clinician. This article outlines the semiotic approach to language formulation, discusses slight changes to accepted conventional prosthodontic terminology to better encompass implant dentistry, and introduces the shortform and support-retention-connection-prosthesis classification systems.