(469 days)
The Orthodontic Screw is indicated for use as a fixed anchorage point for attachment of orthodontic appliances to facilitate the orthodontic movement of teeth. It is used temporarily and is removed after orthodontic treatment has been completed. Screws are intended for single use only. The orthodontic screw is intended in patients aged 12 years and older.
The Mini Screws system has been designed to provide a firm anchorage point in the oral cavity for orthodontic treatment. Mini screws are manufactured with CP Ti Gr 4 and are SLA treated. The Mini Screw system is designed to be applied with different orthodontic solutions and is versatile enough to satisfy different clinical cases. Titanium orthodontic mini screws are intended to provide fixed anchorage for orthodontic treatment used by implanting in the maxillary and mandibular bone. These mini screws used for anchoring purposes can be divided into 3 parts as head, neck and body.
The provided text is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for a medical device called "Proimtech Mini Screw". This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than proving the device meets strict performance acceptance criteria through the kind of study typically associated with AI/ML software.
Therefore, the information required to answer the prompt regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving a device meets these criteria (especially sections related to AI/ML software performance like sample size, experts, MRMC, standalone performance, and ground truth establishment) is not present in the provided document.
The document discusses the physical characteristics, materials, and intended use of a dental mini-screw, and compares it to similar existing devices to show it is substantially equivalent, thus not requiring a new PMA (Premarket Approval Application). It does not involve an AI/ML component or a study with performance metrics in the way the prompt implies.
Here's how to interpret the available information in the context of the prompt:
1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:
- Acceptance Criteria (Implicit for Substantial Equivalence): The implicit acceptance criterion for a 510(k) clearance is that the new device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device. This means it has the same intended use, and the same technological characteristics, or if it has different technological characteristics, these differences do not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness.
- Reported Device Performance: The document states: "However, testing data such as mechanical testing provided in the submission show that these differences do not raise issues in performance." This very generally indicates that the device met certain mechanical performance benchmarks, but no specific quantitative acceptance criteria or results are provided in the public summary.
- The document also mentions: "The biocompatibility of our finished products has been carried out in accordance with EN 10993-1 Standard." and "Tests for the mechanical strength of our products have been carried out in accordance with TS EN ISO 19023 and ASTM F543 Standard." This indicates the types of tests performed for this physical device, but not the specific criteria or results.
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:
- Not applicable (N/A) / Not provided. The summary mentions "testing data" but does not detail sample sizes, data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective), as it's a physical device, not an AI/ML software tested on a dataset of images/cases.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
- N/A / Not provided. This is relevant for AI/ML software that requires expert annotation for ground truth. For a physical medical device like a mini-screw, ground truth is established through material standards, mechanical testing protocols, and biocompatibility assessments, not human expert interpretation of data.
4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
- N/A / Not provided. This concept applies to human reader studies or data annotation for AI/ML, not a physical device's mechanical or material testing.
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:
- N/A / Not provided. This is specific to AI/ML software. The device is a surgical implant.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
- N/A / Not provided. This is specific to AI/ML software.
7. The type of ground truth used:
- For a physical device, "ground truth" would be established through engineering standards, material specifications (e.g., ISO 5832-2, ASTM F67-13 for material composition), mechanical testing protocols (e.g., TS EN ISO 19023, ASTM F543 for mechanical strength), and biocompatibility assessments (e.g., EN 10993-1). The document indicates these standards were followed.
8. The sample size for the training set:
- N/A / Not provided. There is no "training set" in the context of a physical device. This refers to AI/ML model development.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
- N/A / Not provided. As above, no training set for a physical device.
In summary, the provided document details the regulatory clearance of a physical medical device (dental mini-screw) based on substantial equivalence, and therefore does not contain the information typically associated with acceptance criteria and studies for AI/ML software performance.
§ 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.