(76 days)
The implant for dental purposes, used to replace missing dental organs (teeth). The implant is self-tapping (threads) and is screwed into a pilot bore formed in the jawbone. Upon healing, the implant receives a post, which has a stem, and is adapted to carry dental supra-structures (false teeth).
The modification is to be able to use stronger titanium because of situations in which this could be beneficial. Since B.A.S.I.C. Dental has been approved as a system using CP Titanium, which is the weakest of the standard titanium available, we would like to be able to use stronger titanium to increase the overall strength of the implant. By using stronger titanium there should be no need for further testing, however the following tests were performed to compile with design controls. The testing revealed as expected that implants produced with stronger titanium had better shear/lateral forces, with no lateral constraints.
I'm sorry, but the provided text does not contain the information required to describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them. The document is a 510(k) summary for a dental implant modification, focusing on material changes and substantial equivalence to a predicate device. It discusses:
- Device Identification and Modification: B.A.S.I.C. Dental Implant System, modified to use stronger titanium.
- Intended Use: Identical to the predicate device, for replacing missing teeth.
- Comparison to Predicate Device: Argues substantial equivalence based on identical dimensional characteristics and indications for use. Mentions other predicate devices with similar dimensions and titanium alloy materials.
- Testing: States that "the following tests were performed to compile with design controls. The testing revealed as expected that implants produced with stronger titanium had better shear/lateral forces, with no lateral constraints."
- Sterilization and Biocompatibility: Confirms the sterilization process remains the same and references ISO standards.
- Conclusion: Reaffirms substantial equivalence.
- FDA Letter and Indications for Use: The official FDA clearance letter and the stated indications for use.
Crucially, it does not provide details about acceptance criteria, specific study designs, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, or comparative effectiveness with human readers (MRMC studies). The mention of "testing revealed... better shear/lateral forces" is too high-level to infer specific acceptance criteria or detailed study methodologies.
Therefore, I cannot populate the requested table or answer the specific questions about the study design, ground truth, or expert involvement based on the provided text.
§ 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.