Journal of Interdisciplinary Dentistry

: 2020  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 44--47

I-implant notation system: A fundamental implant location system in clinical dentistry

Aruna Wimalarathna 
 Department of Prosthodontics,Faculty of Dental Sciences, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Aruna Wimalarathna
Faculty of Dental Sciences, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya
Sri Lanka


This article is introducing a simple method to locate the implant positions in the dental arch during clinical examination and implant assessment. Basic signs of “I” and “i” which indicate a conventional and mini-dental implant, respectively. The use of the I-Implant Notation System (I-INS) is described by means of its application to common dental implant situations, especially when describe the location of the existing or planned implants locations in the mouth. In addition, the way of notation is blended with the commonly available notation systems. The examples of use of IINS with Universal numbering system, federation dentaire internationale Two-Digit Notation, and Palmer Notation are also illustrated. By using IINS, easily visualized and transcript the existing as well as future implants locations, especially during preliminary implant assessment while communicating among dental professionals and scientific writing.

How to cite this article:
Wimalarathna A. I-implant notation system: A fundamental implant location system in clinical dentistry.J Interdiscip Dentistry 2020;10:44-47

How to cite this URL:
Wimalarathna A. I-implant notation system: A fundamental implant location system in clinical dentistry. J Interdiscip Dentistry [serial online] 2020 [cited 2022 Dec 1 ];10:44-47
Available from:

Full Text

 Clinical Relevance to Interdisciplinary Dentistry

Using a simple implant notation system is easy for the documentation during clinical and radiological assessments.I - implant notation system is helpful to convey the implant dentistry treatment plan among other dental disciplinaries.


The evolution of modern dentistry was remarkably uplifted with the innovation of dental implants in 1969 by Per-Ingvar Branemark.[1] With the increased ability of modern dental implants with an enhanced surface treatment to integrate with bone better, people who look forward to having a tertiary dentition could now go for dental implants with predictable clinical outcomes. Further, the geriatric population is on the rise as a result of advanced health-care systems.[2] As such, the demand for dental implants has been greater than ever before and will be increased further in future. Both smaller diameter mini-dental implants and regular conventional implants have been used to support fixed or removable prosthesis depends on the clinical situation. The root form dental implants which are 3–5 mm in diameter are considered standard diameter (conventional/regular) implants, while <3 mm diameter implants are termed as mini implants.[3]

According to scientific literature, the use of dental implants has increased tremendously during the past five decades.[4] As such dental surgeons are likely to come across more and more patients requesting dental implants and/or having implants in their mouth in their day-to-day practice.

During diagnosis and treatment planning for implants, it is important to chart the location of intended implants. Further, it is also necessary to chart “teeth present” and implants already existing in the mouth. Although we have three popular natural tooth numbering systems, Palmer Notation, the federation dentaire internationale (FDI) two digits Notation and the Universal numbering system, we still lack on implant notation system.[5] Such notation system is important during clinical charting, treatment planning, writing laboratory forms, writing operation records, reporting radiographs, filling legal/insurance documents, and for scientific articles.

Although there are few implant notation systems in scientific literature, they are either too complicated or complex. For example, in the panoramic implant notation system [Table 1], there are so many different signs and symbols the clinician that has to memory.[5] Furthermore, they do not have a system to indicate separately mini implants from that of conventional implants.{Table 1}


This article aimed at introducing a very simple implant notation system named as “I-Implant Notation System” (IINS). IINS could be used to denote the type of implants, conventional or mini, and there locations. There are no symbols to memories in this system. IINS uses “I” and “i” as fundamental signs to indicate conventional and mini implants, respectively. By adding a tooth number with “I” and “i” as in the natural notation, the existing implants or planned implant sites can be expressed.

For example if the upper left central incisor is missing and replaced by conventional implant it can be expressed as I9 or I21 or [INSIDE:1]. In situation where mini implants are using to replace missing teeth or denture retention, they can be noted by using “i” in the same way as shown above. For example, lower complete denture is retaining on four mini implants where implants placed in related to the lower both sides lateral and canine regions, and it can be denoted as i22, i23, i26, i27 or i43, i42, i32, i33 or [INSIDE:2]

When communicating with colleagues and dental laboratory, easy to understand an uncomplicated notation simple sings are important. Otherwise, longer written texts such as “conventional implant in related to lower left first molar region” will have to be used instead of [INSIDE:3] . The simplicity of the proposed IINS is shown using the following clinical [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4] and radiological [Figure 5] examples.{Figure 1}{Figure 2}{Figure 3}{Figure 4}{Figure 5}

As a new suggestion

In addition, when full charting is not required in referring to a particular implant tooth such as in scientific writing or in a referral letter, tooth number could be written in the appropriate position in relation to “I” or “i” as follows [Figure 6].{Figure 6}

Furthermore, both Pterygoid Implants[6] and Zygomatic Implants[7] are also type of conventional implants when they consider their diameters. Therefore, the Pterygoid implant with the symbol of “Ip” and Zygomatic Implants with the symbol of “Iz” can be denoted according to the quadrant similar to [Figure 6] descriptions or with the palmer notation.

Limitation of I-Implant Notation System

Although there are many advantages that were introduced with this notation system, there are some limitations also be identified such as,

Only address the preexisting and future locations of conventional and mini implantsCannot be used to indicate the variety of implant supra structures and components (e.g., attachment types, retention types, abutment types, etc.,)Cannot be used to recognize the implants materialCannot be used to express the implant therapy designs.


It is always better for dental implant notation systems to be compatible with more familiar natural teeth notation systems for them to be user-friendly. During primary clinical examination and treatment planning, what is more important is to indicate the positions of the implants more than the type of subsequent prosthetic restorations. As such, it is better to keep the notation system simple by not introducing more and more signs and symbols to denote the type of prosthetic restorations. IINS System with minimum sings ensures the simplicity of the system and makes it user-friendly.

Despite this system is very simple, it could be easily written down and read. Furthermore, it will drastically reduce the hassle of writing long texts while communicating with professional colleagues.


The IINS is a simple, easy to use system that would enable to record the positions of existing as well as planned implant locations.

Financial support and sponsorship


Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.


1Jayesh RS, Dhinakarsamy V. Osseointegration. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2015;7:S226-9.
2Anderson GF, Hussey PS. Population aging: A comparison among industrialized countries. Health Aff (Millwood) 2000;19:191-203.
3Kumari P, Verma M, Sainia V, Gupta A, Gupta R, Gill S. Mini-implants, mega solutions: A case series. J Prosthodont 2016;25:682-6.
4Gaviria L, Salcido JP, Guda T, Ong JL. Current trends in dental implants. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014;40:50-60.
5Murakami I, Murakami Y, Kopp CD, Palacci P, Kasugai S. Panoramic implant notation system: A method to denote implant positions and prosthodontic modalities. J Prosthodont Res 2012;56:65-9.
6Nag PVR, Sarika P, Bhagwatkar T, Dhara V. Pterygoid Implant: Option for Rehabilitation of the Atrophic Posterior Maxilla. Int J Contemp Dent Med Rev 2019;2019:1-5.
7Prithviraj DR, Vashisht R, Bhalla HK. From maxilla to zygoma: A review on zygomatic implants. J Dent Implant 2014;4:44-7.