(81 days)
AIGIS-INLAY is intended for manufacturing
- Inlay / Onlays -
- Crowns -
- Short span bridges -
- Long span bridges -
- Removable partials
Dental casting alloy
This 510(k) summary describes a dental casting alloy, AIGIS-INLAY, and asserts its substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, DEGULOR A. The acceptance criteria and the study proving it meets these criteria are based on direct comparison of physical and mechanical properties and composition.
Here's a breakdown of the requested information:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
The acceptance criteria are established by comparing the AIGIS-INLAY to the predicate device, DEGULOR A, based on specific physical and mechanical properties, and composition. The underlying standard referenced is ANSI/ADA 5 and ISO 9693. Given this is a material comparison for substantial equivalence, the "acceptance criteria" are effectively that the new device's properties are "very similar" or fall within an acceptable range compared to the predicate.
Property | Acceptance Criteria (based on DEGULOR A) | Reported Device Performance (AIGIS-INLAY) |
---|---|---|
Composition | "almost identical" to DEGULOR A | Main elements and their concentration are "almost identical" |
Melting Point Range (°F) | 1,912-2,002 | 1,922-2,002 |
Hardness (Vickers) | 55 | 60 |
Yield Strength (MPa) | 80 | 85 |
Elongation (%) | 45 | 45 |
Density (g/cm³) | 17.2 | 17.2 |
Study to Prove Acceptance Criteria:
The study used to prove the device meets the acceptance criteria is a direct comparison of composition and physical/mechanical properties between the AIGIS-INLAY and the predicate device, DEGULOR A. The methods applied are "as in ANSI/ADA 5 and ISO 9693," which are international standards for dental casting alloys. The conclusion reached is that the AIGIS-INLAY is "substantially equivalent" to DEGULOR A, and "minor differences between them do not affect safety or effectiveness."
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:
- Sample Size: Not specified. The document presents single-point values for each property for both the predicate and the new device. It does not provide information on the number of samples tested to arrive at these values.
- Data Provenance: Not specified. It can be assumed that the data for AIGIS-INLAY was generated by the manufacturer (SB LUCIUS, INC.)
- Retrospective or Prospective: Not applicable as this is a material properties comparison, not a clinical study.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
Not applicable. The ground truth for this device (a dental casting alloy) is established by comparing its physical and mechanical properties against recognized dental material standards (ANSI/ADA 5 and ISO 9693) and a legally marketed predicate device, not by expert consensus on clinical cases.
4. Adjudication method for the test set:
Not applicable. This is a technical comparison of material properties, not a study requiring adjudication of clinical findings or interpretations.
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 pertains to a dental casting alloy, not an AI-powered diagnostic device.
6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
Not applicable. This document pertains to a dental casting alloy, not an algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used:
The ground truth used is primarily physical and mechanical property measurements as defined by the standards ANSI/ADA 5 and ISO 9693, and chemical composition analysis. The properties of the predicate device (DEGULOR A) serve as the benchmark for substantial equivalence.
8. The sample size for the training set:
Not applicable. This is a device substantial equivalence submission, not a machine learning model.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
Not applicable. This is a device substantial equivalence submission, not a machine learning model.
§ 872.3060 Noble metal alloy.
(a)
Identification. A noble metal alloy is a device composed primarily of noble metals, such as gold, palladium, platinum, or silver, that is intended for use in the fabrication of cast or porcelain-fused-to-metal crown and bridge restorations.(b)
Classification. Class II (special controls). The special control for these devices is FDA's “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Dental Noble Metal Alloys.” The devices are exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 872.9. See § 872.1(e) for availability of guidance information.