Completeness in mathematics is essentially a metric concept (that means that every Cauchy sequence in the metric space converges to an element of the space).
Sometimes (but I think more on a physical standpoint, and I agree is a sort of repetition and not so common) it is used to characterize bases in vector spaces, in the sense that a basis is complete if its linear span is the whole vector space (the. The axiom of choice implies that every vector space has a basis.
The orthonormal basis beingon a special case where the vectorHilbert space is given anactually different: the space has such additional inner product structure) that we can afford to do infinite linear combinations of vectors, provided they converge in norm. BeHowever, be warned that a (complete) orthonormal basis of orthogonal vectors in a vector space with inner product $V$ may(in the finite linear combination sense), it is not bein general a (complete) basis of the metric (Hilbert) space obtained as the completion of $V$ with respect to the metric induced by the inner product. However it may happen that it is a basis in the Hilbert space sense, i.e. if infinite linear combinations are allowed.
Apart from that and mathematical logic, that is probably quite far from what it is intended here, I cannot think of other instances of the word complete in math (but maybe I am forgetting something).
However, since in one case "complete" is associated to a (metric) space, and in the other to a basisbases in a vector spacespaces (possibly with additional care to specify if we allow finite or infinite combinations), I think it reasonably easy to avoid confusion; even if the latter can be indeed a complete space itself in some metricconfusion.