High speed handpieces are used intraorally by trained dental professionals for drilling and preparation of dental cavities for restoration, such as fillings. The intended use of this device is identical to the predicate 430 series handpiece currently marketed under 510(k) numbers K960719 and K982593.

Device Description

The Solara Series High Speed Dental Handpieces are pneumatically driven, handheld devices intended for use by trained dental professionals for drilling in the oral cavity. Procedures include but not limited caries removal, restorative work and crown preparations.

AI/ML Overview

This 510(k) premarket notification for the Solara Series High Speed Dental Handpieces does not contain a study section that describes acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets said criteria in the way a modern AI/software as a medical device (SaMD) submission would.

The document is for a traditional medical device (dental handpieces) and focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than providing performance metrics against predefined acceptance criteria from a clinical study. The "study" mentioned here refers to the comparative analysis performed to show that the proposed device is as safe and effective as existing legally marketed devices.

However, based on the provided text, I can infer the context of "acceptance criteria" through the lens of safety and effectiveness equivalence, and describe the "study" as a comparative analysis.

Here's an attempt to structure the information based on your request, with significant caveats that many sections will be marked "Not Applicable" or "Not specified" due to the nature of this particular 510(k) submission:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

This submission for the Solara Series High Speed Dental Handpieces is a 510(k) premarket notification, which seeks to demonstrate substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices. The "acceptance criteria" are therefore inferred to be that the proposed device is as safe and effective as the predicate devices, with similar technology and design, and the same intended use and means of operation. Device performance is therefore assessed relative to the function and safety profile of the predicate.

Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Acceptance Criteria (Inferred from Substantial Equivalence)	Reported Device Performance (Inferred from Substantial Equivalence Claim)
Safety: Device is as safe as predicate devices.	"Improvements made to the proposed device were initiated to improve the handpiece performance while maintaining the safety of the device." - Implies safety is maintained at predicate level.
Effectiveness: Device is as effective as predicate devices for drilling in the oral cavity.	"The determination of substantial equivalence is based on the premise that the proposed device and the predicate devices have the same intended use, similar technology and design. Both devices have the same means of operation and are used for the same procedures." - Implies effectiveness is equivalent to predicate.
Intended Use: Device performs the stated indications for use.	"High speed handpieces are used intraorally by trained dental professionals for drilling and preparation of dental cavities for restoration, such as fillings. The intended use of this device is identical to the predicate 430 series handpiece..." - Implies all intended uses are met, identical to predicate.
Technology and Design Similarity: Device utilizes similar underlying technology and design principles.	"similar technology and design." - Directly stated in the substantial equivalence argument.
Means of Operation: Device operates in a similar manner.	"Both devices have the same means of operation..." - Directly stated in the substantial equivalence argument.

Details of the "Study" (Substantial Equivalence Analysis)

The "study" in this context is the substantial equivalence comparison performed by the manufacturer, Star Dental Products, against their own previously cleared devices and another manufacturer's device. This is not a prospective clinical trial or a performance study with a test set as would be common for AI/SaMD.

Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:
- Sample Size: Not applicable. There is no "test set" in the sense of a dataset of cases used to evaluate an algorithm's performance. The comparison is conceptual and based on the design, materials, and intended use of the devices.
- Data Provenance: Not applicable. The comparative analysis is based on the known specifications and performance characteristics of the proposed Solara Series handpieces and the predicate devices (StarDental 430 Series High Speed Handpiece (K960719 and K982593) and NSK TI-Max Titanium Handpiece). This is a retrospective analysis of device specifications and clinical indications, rather than a prospective study.
Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
- Not applicable. There is no "ground truth" establishment in the context of expert consensus on a test set of data. The "ground truth" for the predicate devices' safety and effectiveness was established through their original 510(k) clearances and their market history. The manufacturer's engineering team (Contact Person: William Guscott, Engineering Manager) performed the comparison.
Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
- Not applicable. No test set requiring adjudication was used. The substantial equivalence determination is made by the FDA based on the provided submission.
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 is not an AI/SaMD device, and therefore no MRMC study was conducted.
If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
- Not applicable. This is a mechanical dental handpiece, not an algorithm.
The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):
- The "ground truth" in this context is the established safety and effectiveness profile of the predicate devices. This
  "ground truth" was initially validated through the FDA's 510(k) clearance process for the predicate devices, which would have involved assessing their design, performance data (e.g., durability, RPM, torque, vibration), and intended use. Outcomes data, while not explicitly detailed in this document for the predicates, would have contributed to their market acceptance and the FDA's initial clearance.
The sample size for the training set:
- Not applicable. This is a traditional medical device, not an algorithm that requires a training set.
How the ground truth for the training set was established:
- Not applicable. No training set was used.

Summary

{0}------------------------------------------------

K030133

Image /page/0/Picture/1 description: The image shows the logo for DentalEZ Group. The text "DentalEZ" is in a bold, sans-serif font, with "GROUP" in a smaller font size underneath. A stylized graphic of a partial circle is to the right of the text.

APR 2 9 2003

Star Dental Products 1816 Colonial Village Lane Lancaster, PA 17601-5864 717/291-1161 Fax 717/391-2757 www.dentalez.com

510(k) Summary Solara Series High Speed Dental Handpieces January 10, 2003

Company:

StarDental, Div. DentalEz Inc. Owner/operator number 2520265

Contact Person:

William Guscott Engineering Manager StarDental, Div. DentalEz Inc. 1816 Colonial Village Lane Lancaster, PA 17601 Phone: (717) 291-1161, ext. 4319 (717) 391-2757 Fax:

Proprietary/Trade Name:

Solara Series High Speed Dental Handpieces, which includes Solara High Speed Dental Handpiece and Solara Plus High Speed Dental Handpiece

Common/Usual Name:

Dental Handpiece

Classification:

Dental handpiece and accessories (per 21 CFR 872.4200)

Predicate Device:

StarDental 430 Series High Speed Handpiece (K960719 and K 982593) NSK TI-Max Titanium Handpiece

Image /page/0/Picture/17 description: The image contains the logo for StarDental. The text "StarDental" is written in a bold, italicized font. To the right of the text is a stylized star symbol.

{1}------------------------------------------------

Device Description/Intended Use:

Substantial Equivalence:

The determination of substantial equivalence is based on the premise that the proposed device and the predicate devices have the same intended use, similar technology and design. Both devices have the same means of operation and are used for the same procedures. Improvements made to the proposed device were initiated to improve the handpiece performance while maintaining the safety of the device.

Image /page/1/Picture/4 description: The image shows the word "StarDental" in a bold, sans-serif font. The word is all in lowercase except for the "S" and "D". To the right of the word is a stylized star shape. The star is black and has a curved design.

{2}------------------------------------------------

Image /page/2/Picture/1 description: The image is a black and white seal for the Department of Health & Human Services - USA. The seal is circular with text around the perimeter. Inside the circle is a stylized image of an eagle with three stripes above it.

Public Health Service

APR 2 9 2003

Food and Drug Administration 9200 Corporate Boulevard Rockville MD 20850

Mr. William Guscott Engineering Manager DentalEZ, Incorporated Star Dental Products Division 1816 Colonial Village Lane Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17601-5864

Re: K030133

Trade/Device Name: Solara Series Comprised of the Solara High Speed Dental Handpiece and the Solara Plus High Speed Dental Handpiece Regulation Number: 21 CFR 872.4200 Regulation Name: Dental Handpiece and Accessories Regulatory Class: I Product Code: EBF Dated: April 7, 2003 Received: April 9, 2003

Dear Mr. Guscott:

We have reviewed your Section 510(k) premarket notification of intent to market the device referenced above and have determined the device is substantially equivalent (for the indications for use stated in the enclosure) to legally marketed predicate devices marketed in interstate commerce prior to May 28, 1976, the enactment date of the Medical Device Amendments, or to devices that have been reclassified in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Act) that do not require approval of a premarket approval application (PMA). You may, therefore, market the device, subject to the general controls provisions of the Act. The general controls provisions of the Act include requirements for annual registration, listing of devices, good manufacturing practice, labeling, and prohibitions against misbranding and adulteration.

If your device is classified (see above) into either class II (Special Controls) or class III (PMA), it may be subject to such additional controls. Existing major regulations affecting your device can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Parts 800 to 898. In addition, FDA may publish further announcements concerning your device in the Federal Register.

{3}------------------------------------------------

Page 2 - Mr. Guscott

Please be advised that FDA's issuance of a substantial equivalence determination does not mean that FDA has made a determination that your device complies with other requirements of the Act or any Federal statutes and regulations administered by other Federal agencies. You must comply with all the Act's requirements, including, but not limited to: registration and listing (21 CFR Part 807): labeling (21 CFR Part 801): good manufacturing practice requirements as set forth in the quality systems (QS) regulation (21 CFR Part 820); and if applicable, the electronic product radiation control provisions (Sections 531-542 of the Act): 21 CFR 1000-1050.

This letter will allow you to begin marketing your device as described in your Section 510(k) premarket notification. The FDA finding of substantial equivalence of your device to a legally marketed predicate device results in a classification for your device and thus, permits vour device to proceed to the market.

If you desire specific advice for your device on our labeling regulation (21 CFR Part 801), please contact the Office of Compliance at (301) 594-4613. Also, please note the regulation entitled. "Misbranding by reference to premarket notification" (21CFR Part 807.97). You may obtain other general information on your responsibilities under the Act from the Division of Small Manufacturers, International and Consumer Assistance at its toll-free number (800) 638-2041 or (301) 443-6597 or at its Internet address http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/dsma/dsmamain.html

Sincerely vours.

Siva Kumar

Susan Runner, DDS, MA Interim Director Division of Anesthesiology, General Hospital, Infection Control and Dental Devices Office of Device Evaluation Center for Devices and Radiological Health

Enclosure

{4}------------------------------------------------

of_1 Page |

K030133 510(k) Number (if known):

Device Name: Solara Series Comprised of the Solara High Speed Dental Handpiece and the Solara

Indications For Use:

(PLEASE DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE-CONTINUE ON ANOTHER PAGE IF NEEDED)

Concurrence of CDRH, Office of Device Evaluation (ODE)

(Optional Format 3-10-98)

Robert S. Betz DDS for Dr. K.P. Mulvey

510(k) Number: K030133

Regulation Number and Section

§ 872.3690 Tooth shade resin material.

(a)
Identification. Tooth shade resin material is a device composed of materials such as bisphenol-A glycidyl methacrylate (Bis-GMA) intended to restore carious lesions or structural defects in teeth.(b)
Classification. Class II.