(64 days)
The wide body abutments and pre-angled abutments are similar to those of other implant systems in their intended use which is to facilitate the proBthetic phase and installation of the progressions who works we 302 for the patient .
Endosseous implant system consists of implants. tools and This submission includes pre-machined angulated abutments. abutments less than 30 degrees, specifically 15 and 25-degree abutments are included. In addition, in the wide-body abutment series, a series of one and two-piece prosthetic abutments are included in 4, 5 and 6 mm. platform diameters. These devices are similar in their use in that they are placed on top of the implant fixtures after the appropriate integration phase and prosthetic attachments are fabricated to these abutments.
The provided text does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving device performance in the context of specific metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or any numerical performance targets.
Here's a breakdown of why I cannot fulfill your request with the given input:
- No Acceptance Criteria: The document describes the device, its intended use, and its similarities to predicate devices, but it does not specify any quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., "device must achieve X% accuracy").
- No Study Details for Performance: The text mentions "substantial equivalence" to predicate devices, but this refers to the regulatory pathway for market clearance, not a performance study with a test set, ground truth, or statistical analysis. It states that the "CDRH, as well as the Office of Compliance have received a substantial equivalence letter," indicating a regulatory review, not a clinical or technical performance study in the way typically required for AI/diagnostic devices.
- No "Reported Device Performance": Since no acceptance criteria or performance study is detailed, there's no reported numerical performance to include in a table.
- No Details on Sample Size, Data Provenance, Experts, Adjudication, MRMC, Standalone, or Training Set: All these elements are crucial for describing a performance study, and they are entirely absent from the provided text. The document focuses on regulatory equivalence and device description.
Therefore, I cannot generate the table or answer the specific questions about sample sizes, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, or study types because the necessary information is not present in the provided 510(k) summary. This document is focused on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on design, materials, manufacturing, and intended use, rather than on providing detailed performance metrics from a dedicated study.
§ 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.