(218 days)
INNO SLA Submerged Hybrid Ti-Base System is intended for use in conjunction with the fixture in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae, in support of single or multiple-unit cement retained restorations. All digitally designed zirconia superstructures for use with the INNO SLA Submerged Hybrid Ti-Base System are intended to be sent to a Cowellmedi validated milling center for manufacture.
INNO SLA Submerged Hybrid Ti-Base System consists of a two-piece abutment, where the titanium base is a pre-manufactured abutment that will be used to support a CAD/CAM designed superstructure (the second part of the two-piece abutment). These two pieces together form the final abutment. Ti-base Abutment System is made of titanium alloy conforming to ASTM F136 Standard Specification for Wrought Titanium-6Aluminum-4Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) Alloy for Surgical Implant Applications. The zirconia material is InCoris Zi, cleared under K123664, and the cement is RelyX Unicem 2Automiz, cleared under K100756. Zirconia CAD/CAM abutment or superstructure that composes the final prosthetics is intended to be designed and milled, according to the prosthetic planning and patient clinical situation. It is compatible with the following systems: INNO SLA Submerged Implant System(K132242) by Cowellmedi Co., Ltd. The system offers the following three types of Ti-Base with a screw that fix the abutment into the fixture. Hybrid S Ti-Base, Hybrid L Ti-Base, Hybrid A Ti-Base.
The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for the INNO SLA Submerged Hybrid Ti-Base System. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than providing detailed acceptance criteria and performance data from a clinical or extensive non-clinical study that would typically be conducted for a de novo device or a device requiring premarket approval (PMA).
Therefore, the information required to fully answer your request (acceptance criteria, specific study results proving the device meets criteria, sample sizes for test/training sets, expert details, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and ground truth establishment) is not present in this 510(k) summary.
A 510(k) submission primarily relies on demonstrating that the new device has the same intended use and similar technological characteristics to a legally marketed predicate device, or if there are differences, that these differences do not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness. The "Performance Data (Non-Clinical)" section lists the types of tests performed (sterilization, biocompatibility, fatigue, MR environment review) and states that the "test results support that the subject device is substantially equivalent to the predicate devices." However, it does not provide the actual acceptance criteria or the specific numerical performance results against those criteria.
Here's what can be extracted and what is missing:
1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:
- Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated in terms of pass/fail thresholds for each test. The implicit acceptance criterion for a 510(k) is that the device is "substantially equivalent" to the predicate.
- Reported Device Performance: Only general statements are made:
- "Sterilization validating testing has been performed in accordance with ISO 17665-1 and ISO 17665-2 for steam sterilization." (Result: Implied adequate sterilization)
- "Biocompatibility testing has been performed in accordance with ISO 10993-3, 5, 6, 10, 11, and 23." (Result: Implied biocompatible)
- "Fatigue test in accordance with ISO 14801" (Result: "the result supports that the [subject device is] substantially equivalent to the predicate device in the market.")
- "MR Environment Condition... Non-clinical worst-case MRI review was performed... based on the entire system including all variations... Rationale addressed parameters per the FDA Guidance... including magnetically induced displacement force and torque." (Result: Implied suitable for MR environment, likely "MR Conditional" or "MR Safe" based on the referenced guidance, though not explicitly stated.)
2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance:
- Not specified. This document describes non-clinical engineering and materials testing, not a clinical study involving human patient data.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
- Not applicable. This pertains to an AI/ML device where expert review establishes ground truth for image interpretation or diagnosis. This document is about a dental implant abutment system.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
- Not applicable. This applies to expert review of data for AI/ML performance evaluation.
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/ML device for diagnostic assistance.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
- Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML diagnostic software.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert concensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc):
- Not applicable in the AI/ML sense. For the engineering tests, the "ground truth" would be established by the specifications of the relevant ISO standards (e.g., ISO 14801 for dental implant fatigue, ISO 10993 for biocompatibility) and comparison to the predicate device's performance (though the specific predicate's performance is not numerated here).
8. The sample size for the training set:
- Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
- Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.
In summary: The provided 510(k) summary for the INNO SLA Submerged Hybrid Ti-Base System details the types of non-clinical tests performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices (URIS Base, Preat Abutment, BioHorizons CAD/CAM Abutments). It does not provide the specific numerical acceptance criteria or quantitative performance results, as is typical for a 510(k) submission which relies heavily on comparison to existing legally marketed devices rather than requiring de novo clinical performance validation against novel acceptance criteria. The questions posed align more with the evaluation of AI/ML or diagnostic software devices, which this dental hardware device is not.
§ 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.)