(139 days)
The OsseoFuse Dental Implant System is indicated for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae, in support of single or multiple-unit restorations including; cemented retained, or overdenture restorations, and terminal or intermediate abutment support for fixed bridgework. This system is dedicated for one and two stage surgical procedures. This system is intended for delayed loading.
The OsseoFuse Dental Implant System includes Hexa-Plus S fixture, Hexa-Plus S abutment, and Hexa-Plus S Lab Components. This system made of Titanium intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw arches for loading after a conventional healing period. Implants may be used to replace one or more missing teeth. It is similar to other commercially available products based on the intended use, the technology used, the claims, the material composition employed and performance characteristics. The surface of this system has been treated with R.B.M (Resorbable Blast Media).
The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the OsseoFuse Dental Implant System. It describes the device, its intended use, and compares it to a predicate device to establish substantial equivalence. However, it does not contain information about acceptance criteria, device performance metrics, or any clinical studies (retrospective, prospective, standalone, or comparative effectiveness) that would typically be conducted for a medical device that claims to meet specific performance criteria based on a study.
Instead, the submission relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device (K110577, also named "OsseoFuse Dental Implant System" by KJ Meditech Co., Ltd.). The provided text explicitly states:
- "Based n a risk analysis of the modifications, no additional testing was added for this submission." (Page 3)
- "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..." (Page 4)
- "When compared with predicate device, no new questions of safety or effectiveness have been raised." (Page 2)
Therefore, I cannot fulfill the request to provide a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance or details about a study, as such information is not present in the provided document. The basis for clearance is substantial equivalence, not a direct demonstration of performance against predefined acceptance criteria through new testing.
§ 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.