(216 days)
S.I.N. Dental Implant System is intended for placement in the maxillary or mandibular arch to provide support for single-unit or multi-unit restorations. When a one-stage surgical approach is applied, the S.I.N. Dental Implant System is intended for immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading.
The purpose of this submission is to add to the S.I.N. Dental Implant System components cleared in K170392 and K170398. This submission adds the following components to the S.I.N. Dental Implant System:
Tryon CM Conical implants, Tryon CM Cylindrical implants, Tryon CM Cylindrical Body and Conical Apex implants, and Strong SW implants, each with a Morse taper connection and the identical acidetched endosseous surface cleared in in K170392;
Strong SW Plus implants with a Morse taper connection and an endosseous surface produced by acidetching followed by application of a hydroxyapatite coating (HA™M) identical to the coating cleared in K170392:
conventional angled abutments and healing caps with a Morse taper connection that are compatible with the Strong SW CM implant line cleared in K170392;
conventional angled abutments and healing caps with a Morse taper connection that are compatible with the subject device Tryon CM implant lines, the subject device Strong SW/Plus implant lines, and the Unitite implant line cleared in K17039;
healing caps with a Morse taper connection that are compatible with the Unitite Compact implant line and the Unitite Slim implant line cleared in K170392;
healing caps with an external hex (HE) or internal hex (HI) connection that are compatible with the Strong SW HE, the Tryon HE implant lines, and the Strong SW HI implant lines, cleared in K170398;
abutment screws for use with the angled abutments or healing caps.
This document is a 510(k) summary for the S.I.N. Dental Implant System. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices rather than proving a device meets specific acceptance criteria through a standalone study with defined performance metrics.
However, the document does contain information about performance data used to support the substantial equivalence claim. Here's a breakdown of the relevant information:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
The document does not present acceptance criteria in a structured table with corresponding device performance metrics. Instead, it lists various non-clinical tests conducted and states that these tests demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices, implying these tests met the necessary standards for such a claim.
Based on the "Performance Data" section (Page 6), the following can be inferred as the type of performance evaluation conducted:
| Performance Area | Acceptance Criteria (Inferred from testing) | Reported Device Performance |
|---|---|---|
| Sterilization | Sterility Assurance Level (SAL) of 10^-6 | Validated for all subject devices (dental implants, abutments, prosthetic components, healing caps) to a SAL of 10^-6 by selecting and substantiating a 25 kGy dose using method VDmax25, according to ISO 11137-1 and ISO 11137-2. |
| Bacterial Endotoxin | Limit of |
§ 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.