Search Results

The Orthopantomograph OP300 panoramic, cephalometric and cone beam computed tomography x-ray device is intended to image the head and neck areas for diagnostic support. This includes temporomandibular Joints (TMJs) and dentomaxillofacial areas, and with the 13x15 cm field of view (FOV) this additionally includes the ear. nose and throat (ENT) regions. The x-ray device produces conventional 2D x-ray images and x-ray projection images for the reconstruction of a 3D view. The device is operated and used by qualified healthcare professionals.

Orthopantomograph OP300 x-ray unit is a software controlled diagnostic dental X-ray equipment for producing panoramic, cephalometric and 3D images of the dentomaxillofacial complex, ENT and airway regions of the head and neck. The Orthopantomograph OP300 is available in different configurations (panoramic, cephalometric, 3D) with different 3D Field of View configurations (6X4 cm, 6X8 cm, 5X5 cm, 8X8 cm, 8X15 cm, and 13X15 cm). The components of the device include column, carriage, rotating unit (containing tube head, sensors and collimator), top-level hanger, patient head support, software for image reconstruction, and an optional software package for image reviewing. The proprietary name of the optional image reviewing software is CLINIVIEW.

Cone Beam Volumetric Tomography is a medical imaging technique that uses X-rays to obtain crosssectional images of the head or neck. The proposed device utilizes cone beam X-ray technology, which generates conical x-ray beams that rotate around the patient's head and incident upon the receptor that generate sufficiently contrasted images. Quality of the images depends on the level and amount of X-ray energy delivered to the tissue. When interpreted by a trained physician, these images provide useful diagnostic information.

The provided text describes the Orthopantomograph OP300, a dental X-ray device. The acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets these criteria are mainly focused on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, particularly the Scanora 3D (K110839), for expanded indications including ENT imaging.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

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

The document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria in a table format with corresponding reported performance values for diagnostic accuracy or specific imaging quality metrics. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence in diagnostic quality.

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

The text mentions an "image comparison study" and "clinical images acquired using Orthopantomograph OP300." However, it does not specify the sample size for the test set or the provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) of the data used in these studies.

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)

The text states that "clinical images acquired using Orthopantomograph OP300 were reviewed by qualified clinicians" and that the image comparison study involved "images from ENT, airway and maxillofacial areas." However, it does not specify the number of experts used or their specific qualifications (e.g., number of years of experience, specific board certifications).

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

The text does not provide any information about the adjudication method used for establishing ground truth or evaluating images in the mentioned studies. It simply states that images were "reviewed by qualified clinicians."

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

The document describes an "image comparison study of predicate device Scanora 3D and proposed device Orthopantomograph OP300 images." This suggests a comparative study between devices rather than a human-in-the-loop study with AI assistance. The device is an X-ray imaging system, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool. Therefore, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving AI assistance for human readers is not applicable and was not reported.

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

This point is not applicable as the Orthopantomograph OP300 is an imaging device, not an AI algorithm. Its performance is evaluated based on the quality of the images it produces for human interpretation, not as a standalone diagnostic algorithm.

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

The ground truth for the "acceptable quality" and "equivalent diagnostic quality" seems to be established through expert clinical review and comparison. There is no mention of pathology or outcomes data being used as ground truth for image quality assessments in the provided text.

8. The sample size for the training set

The document makes no mention of a "training set" as it describes an X-ray imaging device, not an AI model that requires training. The studies mentioned are focused on design verification, validation, and clinical image quality assessment.

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

As there is no mention of a training set, the establishment of ground truth for a training set is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device