(27 days)
Temporary anchorage point for the attachment of Orthodontic appliances
Not Found
This document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for a dental implant, not a study evaluating a device's performance against acceptance criteria. Therefore, most of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study design, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, and MRMC studies is not present in the provided text.
The document states that the Infinitas Mini-Implant is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices. This equivalence determination is based on the device's indications for use: "Temporary anchorage point for the attachment of Orthodontic appliances."
Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted or inferred from the provided text, and what is missing:
1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:
- Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated in the document. The FDA determined the device is "substantially equivalent" to predicate devices, which implies that it meets certain safety and effectiveness standards, likely based on material properties, design, and intended use as compared to existing devices.
- Reported Device Performance: Not explicitly reported in terms of specific performance metrics within this document. The substantial equivalence determination is the primary "performance" reported by the FDA in this letter.
2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective):
- Not provided. This document is an FDA clearance letter, not the submission itself. The data supporting the substantial equivalence would have been part of the K100633 submission, which is not included here.
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/Not provided. This type of information would be relevant for a clinical performance study using expert evaluation, which is not detailed in this clearance letter.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
- Not applicable/Not provided. Similar to point 3, this is relevant for clinical studies not detailed here.
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:
- No indication. This document refers to a physical device (mini-implant), not an AI algorithm. Therefore, an MRMC study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance is not relevant or mentioned.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
- No indication. This document refers to a physical device (mini-implant), not an AI algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert concensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc):
- Not provided with explicit detail regarding a 'test set'. For a physical device like this, ground truth would relate to its physical properties (e.g., material strength, biocompatibility, dimensions) and potentially clinical outcomes in comparison to predicate devices, but the specific methodology for establishing this is not in the clearance letter.
8. The sample size for the training set:
- Not applicable/Not provided. This term typically refers to machine learning models, which is not the subject of this document. For a physical device, testing would involve samples of the device itself.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
- Not applicable/Not provided.
§ 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.