Search Results

Dental casting alloy for making dental restorations and appliances. is not indicated for use with don't a posislaw, (this ally

Silver-palladium based casting alloy

This document is a 510(k) summary for AURECAST 2 Dental casting alloy. It describes a comparison between the new device and a legally marketed predicate device (Jelenko Maestro) to demonstrate substantial equivalence, rather than providing a study proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria in the context of AI/software performance. Therefore, most of the requested information cannot be extracted directly from this document.

However, I can extract the information related to the comparison of properties that serves as the basis for demonstrating substantial equivalence.

Here's an analysis based on the document:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

The document doesn't define explicit "acceptance criteria" in the typical sense of a software or medical device performance study (e.g., minimum sensitivity/specificity). Instead, it uses a comparison to a predicate device to establish substantial equivalence. The "acceptance criteria" can be inferred as the properties of the legally marketed predicate device, and the "reported device performance" are the properties of the AURECAST 2.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

This document describes a comparison of material properties, not a clinical study with a "test set" in the sense of patient data. The "test methods" applied are "as in ANSI/ADA 5 and ISO 8891," which are standards for dental casting alloys. The data provenance is not specified beyond being generated for the purpose of this 510(k) submission, and the manufacturing company is based in South Africa. It's likely laboratory testing data.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

Not applicable. This is not a study requiring expert readers to establish ground truth for a test set.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

Not applicable. This is not a study requiring adjudication of expert readings.

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

Not applicable. This document is for a dental casting alloy, not an AI or software device.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done

Not applicable. This is not an AI or software device.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

The "ground truth" here is the measured chemical composition and physical/mechanical properties of the alloy, determined through standardized laboratory test methods (ANSI/ADA 5 and ISO 8891).

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is not a machine learning model.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

Not applicable. This is not a machine learning model.

Ask a specific question about this device