(122 days)
The HG II Fixture System is indicated for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae, in support of single or multiple-unit restorations including; cemented retained, screw retained, or overdenture restorations, and terminal or intermediate abutment support for fixed bridgework. The HG II Fixture System is for single and two stage surgical procedures. It is not for immediate load.
The HG II Fixture System is a dental implant made of titanium metal intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw arches.
The provided document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the "HG II Fixture System," a dental implant device, and focuses on demonstrating its substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices.
This type of submission does not involve clinical studies with acceptance criteria, human readers, or ground truth establishment in the way requested for software algorithms or diagnostic devices. Instead, substantial equivalence is established by comparing the new device's material, design, function, intended use, and performance characteristics to legally marketed predicate devices.
Therefore, most of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study design, sample sizes, expert involvement, and ground truth is not applicable to this 510(k) submission.
Here's an explanation based on the document:
1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:
- Not Applicable. The document does not describe specific numerical acceptance criteria (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) or quantitative performance metrics from a study that would typically be presented in such a table. The evaluation is based on demonstrating similarity to predicate devices rather than meeting a pre-defined performance threshold against a "ground truth."
- The document states: "The HG II Fixture System has been subjected to safety, performance, and product validations prior to release. Safety tests including biocompatibility have been performed to ensure the devices comply with the applicable International and US regulations." However, the specific results or acceptance criteria for these internal validations are not detailed in this 510(k) summary.
2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective):
- Not Applicable. No "test set" in the context of an algorithm or diagnostic study is mentioned. This filing is about a medical device (dental implant).
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. No ground truth establishment by experts for a test set is part of this type of submission.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
- Not Applicable. No adjudication method for a test set is relevant to this submission.
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 is a hardware medical device (dental implant), not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool. Therefore, MRMC studies are not relevant.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done:
- Not Applicable. This is a hardware medical device, not an algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert concensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc):
- Not Applicable. No "ground truth" as typically defined for diagnostic or AI devices is used in this 510(k) submission. The evaluation relies on demonstrating equivalence to predicate devices through comparisons of material properties, design, intended use, and safety testing (biocompatibility).
8. The sample size for the training set:
- Not Applicable. No training set, as typically understood for machine learning or AI models, is used for this device.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
- Not Applicable. No training set or associated ground truth establishment is relevant to this 510(k) submission.
In summary, this 510(k) document demonstrates substantial equivalence by:
- Comparing the device's material, indication for use, design, and technological characteristics to predicate devices.
- Stating that safety tests, including biocompatibility, were performed. (The specific results of these tests are not provided in this public summary, but would have been part of the full 510(k) submission.)
- Concluding that based on this information, the device is safe, effective, and substantially equivalent.
§ 872.3640 Endosseous dental implant.
(a)
Identification. An endosseous dental implant is a prescription device made of a material such as titanium or titanium alloy that is intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw arches to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, in order to restore a patient's chewing function.(b)
Classification. (1) Class II (special controls). The device is classified as class II if it is a root-form endosseous dental implant. The root-form endosseous dental implant is characterized by four geometrically distinct types: Basket, screw, solid cylinder, and hollow cylinder. The guidance document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Root-Form Endosseous Dental Implants and Endosseous Dental Implant Abutments” will serve as the special control. (See § 872.1(e) for the availability of this guidance document.)(2)
Classification. Class II (special controls). The device is classified as class II if it is a blade-form endosseous dental implant. The special controls for this device are:(i) The design characteristics of the device must ensure that the geometry and material composition are consistent with the intended use;
(ii) Mechanical performance (fatigue) testing under simulated physiological conditions to demonstrate maximum load (endurance limit) when the device is subjected to compressive and shear loads;
(iii) Corrosion testing under simulated physiological conditions to demonstrate corrosion potential of each metal or alloy, couple potential for an assembled dissimilar metal implant system, and corrosion rate for an assembled dissimilar metal implant system;
(iv) The device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible;
(v) Sterility testing must demonstrate the sterility of the device;
(vi) Performance testing to evaluate the compatibility of the device in a magnetic resonance (MR) environment;
(vii) Labeling must include a clear description of the technological features, how the device should be used in patients, detailed surgical protocol and restoration procedures, relevant precautions and warnings based on the clinical use of the device, and qualifications and training requirements for device users including technicians and clinicians;
(viii) Patient labeling must contain a description of how the device works, how the device is placed, how the patient needs to care for the implant, possible adverse events and how to report any complications; and
(ix) Documented clinical experience must demonstrate safe and effective use and capture any adverse events observed during clinical use.