(289 days)
The US SA 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, screw retained, or overdenture restorations, and final or temporary abutment support for fixed bridgework. It is intended for delayed loading. The abutment is intended for use with a dental implant fixture to provide support for prosthetic restorations such as bridges, or overdenture.
The US SA Implant System is a dental implant made of titanium metal intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw arches. Fixture is made of pure titanium metal and supplied sterile. The surface is SA, Sandblasting and Acid etching, treated. The US Multi Angled Abutment is device made of titanium alloy intended for use as an aid in prosthetic restoration.
The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the "US SA Implant System," a dental implant device. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously marketed predicate devices, rather than establishing acceptance criteria or reporting performance from a clinical study for a new device on its own merits against specific criteria.
Therefore, many of the requested details about acceptance criteria, specific device performance numbers, sample sizes for test/training sets, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, or standalone algorithm performance are not directly applicable or available in this type of submission document.
However, I can extract information related to the non-clinical testing performed to support the substantial equivalence claim.
Here's a breakdown of the information that can be gleaned from the document based on your request:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:
This information is not provided in the document in the format of specific numerical acceptance criteria and corresponding device performance metrics. The document instead focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through comparison of materials, design, indications for use, and non-clinical testing results against predicate devices. The fatigue testing was conducted according to a guidance document, implying the device met the requirements outlined in that guidance, but specific numerical thresholds and results are not detailed.
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:
- Test set sample size: Not specified. The document states "fatigue testing was conducted." The number of devices or iterations in this testing is not mentioned.
- Data provenance: The testing was conducted by the manufacturer, OSSTEM IMPLANT Co., Ltd., likely in a laboratory setting. The country of origin for this specific testing is implied to be Republic of Korea, where the company is based. The nature of the testing is non-clinical (laboratory).
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
- Not applicable. This relates to clinical studies and human interpretation of data. The submission focuses on non-clinical engineering testing (fatigue, sterilization).
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
- Not applicable. This relates to clinical studies and human interpretation of data.
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, an MRMC study was not done. This type of study is for comparing human performance, often in diagnostic imaging, with and without AI. This submission is for a dental implant, which is a physical device, and does not involve AI.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done:
- Not applicable. This device is a physical dental implant, not an algorithm or AI system.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc):
- For the fatigue testing, the "ground truth" would be the engineering standards and requirements for mechanical strength and durability of dental implants, aligned with ISO standards and FDA guidance. The determination of "success" or "failure" would be based on whether the device passed these mechanical tests without fracture or significant deformation.
- For sterilization validation, the "ground truth" is established by adherence to recognized international standards (ISO 11137 series for gamma sterilization and ISO 17665 series for steam sterilization), demonstrating acceptable sterility assurance levels.
8. The sample size for the training set:
- Not applicable. There is no "training set" as this is a physical device, not an AI model or a system that requires machine learning training.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
- Not applicable. As above, there is no training set for this type of device submission.
Summary of Non-Clinical Testing Performed (from the document):
- Fatigue testing: Conducted according to the "Guidance for industry and FDA staff Class II Special Controls Guidance Document Root-form Endosseous Dental Implants and Endosseous Dental Abutment." This testing confirms the mechanical strength and durability of the implant and abutment components. The document indicates that a fatigue test was specifically performed for the US Multi Angled Abutment due to differences in connection structure and shape compared to a predicate, to confirm its strength.
- Gamma Sterilization Validation: Performed with the Fixture System according to ISO 11137-1, ISO 11137-2, and ISO 11137-3.
- Steam Sterilization Validation: Provided according to ISO 17665-1 and ISO 17665-2.
- Biocompatibility and Surface Coating Characterization: The document states that the subject devices are made of the same materials, manufacturing process, chemical composition, and body contact as predicate devices (TS Fixture System, K121995 and Multi Angled Abutment, K123755), thus demonstrating substantial equivalence in these areas.
In conclusion, this 510(k) submission primarily relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through comparisons of design, materials, indications for use, and adherence to recognized non-clinical testing standards (fatigue, sterilization) rather than presenting a clinical study with detailed acceptance criteria and performance statistics for a completely novel device.
§ 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.