A Proposal for Universal Nomenclature in Implant Prosthodontics
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.Abstract
A syntagm is used to illustrate construction of a naming system. Linnean taxonomy uses this method to name plants and animals, for example: Mycobacterium tuberculosis (bovine)
and 3. Figure 2. Example of an implant-tissue–supported, attachment-retained, prefabricated abutment level, clip-bar/ERA, metal-acrylic, complete overdenture. (A) Substructure. (B) View of the removable attachments. (C) The prosthesis placed intraorally. Figure 3. Exploded view of a screw-retained, prefabricated abutment-level, emergence-profiled, PFM crown
Contributor Notes
John B. Nase, DDS, FAGD, is an associate professor of restorative dentistry (adjunct), Temple University School of Dentistry, Philadelphia, PA. Address correspondence to Dr Nase at 404 Main Street, Harleysville, PA 19438 (DrJohn@adamember.net).