Search Results

The DuraFlex thermoplastic resin is used for the fabrication of partial or full removable dentures, as well as occlusal splints and night guards.

The DuraFlex material is a thermoplastic resin that is used to fabricate dental prostheses. The resin is used in an injection molding or pressing device to fabricate the prostheses.

This document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification for a dental resin called DuraFlex. The content describes the device, its intended use, and argues for its substantial equivalence to a predicate device, Lucitone FRS Flexible Dental Resin.

Here's an analysis of the provided information regarding acceptance criteria and studies:

Assessment:

Based on the provided document, the device described, DuraFlex, is a thermoplastic resin used in dentistry. The submission is a 510(k) Premarket Notification which, by its nature, demonstrates substantial equivalence to a previously legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving the device meets specific performance acceptance criteria through clinical studies.

Therefore, the requested information about acceptance criteria, device performance tables, sample sizes for test sets, expert ground truth establishment, MRMC studies, standalone algorithm performance, and training set details are not applicable to this type of submission.

Explanation regarding 510(k) Substantial Equivalence:

A 510(k) submission does not typically involve clinical trials or performance studies to establish new safety and effectiveness. Instead, it aims to demonstrate that a new device is "substantially equivalent" to a predicate device that is already legally marketed in the U.S. This means the new device is as safe and effective as the predicate device, or it has different technological characteristics but does not raise different questions of safety and effectiveness, and the information submitted demonstrates that the device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device.

The "study" described in this document is primarily a comparison of technological characteristics between DuraFlex and Lucitone FRS Flexible Dental Resin.

Specific answers to your questions based on the provided text:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:

   • Not applicable. This document does not present acceptance criteria for performance or a table of reported device performance in the way a clinical study would. The focus is on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device. The performance is implied to be equivalent to the predicate.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective):

   • Not applicable. No test set data or clinical study data is presented in this document. The "study" is a comparison of material properties and intended use.

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. No ground truth establishment by experts is described as there is no test set or clinical study.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:

   • Not applicable. No test set or adjudication method is described.

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:

   • Not applicable. This device is a dental resin, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool. MRMC studies are irrelevant in this context.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:

   • Not applicable. This is a material science product, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc):

   • Not applicable. No ground truth in the context of clinical performance is established or used for this submission. The "ground truth" for substantial equivalence is the known characteristics and safety record of the predicate device.

8. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. This is a material, not a machine learning algorithm. There is no training set mentioned or implied.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

   • Not applicable. There is no training set described.

In summary, the provided document is a regulatory submission focused on substantial equivalence for a physical dental material (resin), not a clinical study to establish new performance metrics for a diagnostic or AI-driven device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The QuickSmile light is intended to emit light in the 600-700 nanometer spectrum to provide a heat source for bleaching teeth.

The QuickSmile light is intended for use by a dental professional as a tooth whitening system. The whitening light heat source is a stand alone unit which emits a biologically safe and effective level of red visible light, which can penetrate the tooth and activate the photoactive substances within the tooth yielding a minimal amount of heat. The general wavelength is 600-700 nanometers. The LED light emits approximately 1º-3º C heat against the tooth surface. To ensure user safety when operating the light, the light has built in features to eliminate any risk for the end user and dental professional. First, the light automatically shuts off after a specified period of time designated by the dental professional. Secondly, the light is supplied with specially designed safety glasses for the patient and dental professional that stop the penetration of the red/orange wavelength and protect the vision of the patient and dental professional.

The provided text does NOT currently contain information about acceptance criteria, device performance, sample sizes used, data provenance, number of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, or how ground truth was established for the QuickSmile Whitening Light.

The document is a 510(k) Pre-Market Notification for the QuickSmile Whitening Light, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, the South Beach Smile Light Whitening System. It describes the device, its intended use, and technological characteristics. The FDA's response letter in the document primarily confirms the substantial equivalence determination for the light source component but explicitly states that the determination does not apply to the whitening component(s) of the device (specifically mentioning malachite green oxalate) because the regulatory status of such tooth whitening preparations was unresolved at the time.

To answer your request, the provided input would need to contain a study report or clinical trial data presenting performance metrics against specific acceptance criteria. This document does not include such a study.

Ask a specific question about this device