(86 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.
All digitally-designed custom abutments for use with Pre-Milled CAD-CAM Abutments are to be sent to a S.I.N.-validated milling center for manufacture.
The purpose of this submission is to add components to the S.I.N. Dental Implant System, which includes components cleared previously in K221453, K222231, K211921, K193096, and K170392.
This submission adds Pre-Milled CAD-CAM Abutments to the S.I.N. Dental Implant System. The subject device abutments are provided with 11.5° CM and 16° CM connections compatible with the above S.I.N. dental implants.
The design parameters for the CAD-CAM fabrication of patient-specific abutments from Pre-Milled CAD-CAM Abutments are the same for the 11.5° CM implant connection and the 16° CM implant connection. The design limit parameters are:
Minimum wall thickness - 0.55 mm Minimum post height for single-unit restoration - 4.0 mm Minimum gingival height - 0.55 mm Maximum gingival height - 3.5 mm Minimum prosthetic platform diameter - 3.5 mm Maximum prosthetic post height - 6 mm Maximum angulation - 30°
The subject device abutments are compatible with previously cleared S.I.N. Dental Implant bodies summarized in the following table.
All subject device abutments are manufactured from titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) conforming to ASTM F136, and are to be used with compatible abutment screws previously cleared in K170392. All subject device abutments are provided non-sterile and are to be moist heat sterilized by the end user.
This document describes the regulatory clearance for the S.I.N. Dental Implant System, specifically focusing on the addition of Pre-Milled CAD-CAM Abutments. This is a 510(k) submission, which means the device is seeking clearance by demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving safety and effectiveness through extensive clinical trials.
Therefore, the information you're requesting regarding "acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in terms of clinical performance, sample sizes for test sets, ground truth establishment by experts, MRMC studies, and training sets, is not applicable to this type of regulatory submission.
Here's why and what information is provided in the document related to "acceptance criteria" from a substantial equivalence perspective:
In a 510(k) submission for a device like this, "acceptance criteria" are primarily met through non-clinical performance data demonstrating that the new device (the subject device with the added components) is as safe and effective as the predicate device(s). The "study" proving this typically involves engineering analyses and bench testing, comparing the subject device to the predicate device(s) or established standards.
Detailed breakdown based on the provided document:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria (from a Substantial Equivalence Perspective) and Reported Device Performance:
The "acceptance criteria" for a 510(k) are essentially demonstrating that the new device has the same intended use and similar technological characteristics as the predicates and that any differences do not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness. The reported performance is shown through the non-clinical tests.
| Acceptance Criteria (Demonstration of Substantial Equivalence) | Reported Device Performance/Evidence from Document |
|---|---|
| Intended Use Equivalence | 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. All digitally-designed custom abutments for use with Pre-Milled CAD-CAM Abutments are to be sent to a S.I.N.-validated milling center for manufacture. |
This statement is identical to the primary predicate device (K193096) for the core indications, and similar to reference devices with minor differences that are addressed (e.g., specific implant lengths not relevant to the subject device, or predicate not explicitly mentioning CAD-CAM abutments which is addressed by K193096). |
| Technological Characteristics Equivalence | Abutment Design Parameters: The design parameters for the CAD-CAM fabrication of patient-specific abutments from Pre-Milled CAD-CAM Abutments are provided (Minimum wall thickness - 0.55 mm, Minimum post height for single-unit restoration - 4.0 mm, Minimum gingival height - 0.55 mm, Maximum gingival height - 3.5 mm, Minimum prosthetic platform diameter - 3.5 mm, Maximum prosthetic post height - 6 mm, Maximum angulation - 30°). These parameters are compared to those of predicate abutments (e.g., Abutment Cemented Angled Indexed SIT with CM 11.5° interface and Abutment Cemented Morse Angled with CM 16° interface).
Material: Titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) conforming to ASTM F136, same as predicate devices.
Sterilization Method: Non-sterile, to be moist heat sterilized by end-user. Validation performed to a sterility assurance level of 10^-5 by the overkill method according to ANSI/AAMI/ISO 17665-1 and ANSI/AAMI/ISO TIR 17665-2. Similar to some predicate devices.
Biocompatibility: Referenced from K170398 for abutment material ASTM F136 (ISO 10993-5 cytotoxicity).
MR Safety: Referenced from K221453 (ASTM F2052, F2213, F2182, F2119, and FDA guidance).
Mechanical Performance: Engineering analysis provided to demonstrate that the subject device abutments, in combination with compatible previously cleared dental implants, do not create a new worst-case construct in terms of mechanical testing according to ISO 14801. Mechanical testing data were referenced from K200992 conducted according to ISO 14801. |
| Safety and Effectiveness Equivalence (absence of new risks)| An engineering rationale was provided to demonstrate that the use of the subject device abutments in combination with the compatible implants raise no new risks and that mechanical testing data provided in a prior submission (K200992) are applicable to the subject abutments. The non-clinical performance data (sterilization, biocompatibility, MR safety, mechanical) supports this. |
2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective):
- Sample Size for Test Set: Not applicable in the context of clinical performance evaluation for this 510(k). The "test set" here refers to the samples of the device and implant components used for bench testing (e.g., mechanical testing, sterility validation). The document indicates mechanical testing was done per ISO 14801, which would have defined the number of samples required for that specific test, but the exact number isn't provided in this summary.
- Data Provenance: The manufacturing entity, S.I.N. - Sistema de Implante Nacional S.A., is based in São Paulo, Brazil. The testing would typically be performed either in-house by the manufacturer or by contract research organizations (CROs) in a relevant country. The document does not specify the country where the non-clinical tests (e.g., mechanical, sterilization validation) were explicitly conducted. These non-clinical tests are prospective, meaning they are performed specifically to support the submission.
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. This device clearance is based on non-clinical performance data (bench testing, engineering analysis) and substantial equivalence to predicate devices, not on human interpretation or diagnosis. Therefore, there is no "ground truth" established by medical experts in the way it would be for an AI diagnostic device.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
- Not Applicable. As no expert review or clinical trial data requiring adjudication was performed, this concept is irrelevant to this 510(k) submission.
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. This is not an AI/software as a medical device (SaMD) and no MRMC study was conducted or is required for this type of implant device.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
- Not Applicable. This is a physical dental implant system, not a software algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc):
- For this 510(k) submission, the "ground truth" for demonstrating device performance is typically established by:
- International Standards: e.g., ISO 14801 for mechanical testing of dental implants, ISO 10993 for biocompatibility, ISO 17665 for sterilization. These standards provide accepted methodologies and performance requirements.
- Engineering Principles and Analyses: Demonstrating that the new components, when combined with existing cleared components, do not introduce new failure modes or decrease mechanical integrity compared to the predicate.
- Comparison to Predicate Devices: Showing that the subject device's characteristics (design, material, intended use) are sufficiently similar to legally marketed devices.
8. The sample size for the training set:
- Not Applicable. This is not a machine learning/AI device, so there is no "training set."
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
- Not Applicable. As there is no training set, this question is not relevant.
In summary: The provided document is a 510(k) clearance letter for a dental implant system, a physical medical device. The "acceptance criteria" and "proof" are demonstrated through extensive non-clinical (bench) testing and engineering analyses to show substantial equivalence to predicate devices and adherence to relevant industry standards, rather than clinical trials involving human subjects or AI algorithm performance metrics.
§ 872.3630 Endosseous dental implant abutment.
(a)
Identification. An endosseous dental implant abutment is a premanufactured prosthetic component directly connected to the endosseous dental implant and is intended for use as an aid in prosthetic rehabilitation.(b)
Classification. Class II (special controls). 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.)