Search Results

Temporary anchorage point for the attachment of Orthodontic appliances

Not Found

This document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for a dental implant, not a study evaluating a device's performance against acceptance criteria. Therefore, most of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study design, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, and MRMC studies is not present in the provided text.

The document states that the Infinitas Mini-Implant is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices. This equivalence determination is based on the device's indications for use: "Temporary anchorage point for the attachment of Orthodontic appliances."

Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted or inferred from the provided text, and what is missing:

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

• Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated in the document. The FDA determined the device is "substantially equivalent" to predicate devices, which implies that it meets certain safety and effectiveness standards, likely based on material properties, design, and intended use as compared to existing devices.
• Reported Device Performance: Not explicitly reported in terms of specific performance metrics within this document. The substantial equivalence determination is the primary "performance" reported by the FDA in this letter.

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

• Not provided. This document is an FDA clearance letter, not the submission itself. The data supporting the substantial equivalence would have been part of the K100633 submission, which is not included here.

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/Not provided. This type of information would be relevant for a clinical performance study using expert evaluation, which is not detailed in this clearance letter.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided. Similar to point 3, this is relevant for clinical studies not detailed here.

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 indication. This document refers to a physical device (mini-implant), not an AI algorithm. Therefore, an MRMC study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance is not relevant or mentioned.

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

• No indication. This document refers to a physical device (mini-implant), not an AI algorithm.

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

• Not provided with explicit detail regarding a 'test set'. For a physical device like this, ground truth would relate to its physical properties (e.g., material strength, biocompatibility, dimensions) and potentially clinical outcomes in comparison to predicate devices, but the specific methodology for establishing this is not in the clearance letter.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable/Not provided. This term typically refers to machine learning models, which is not the subject of this document. For a physical device, testing would involve samples of the device itself.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided.

Ask a specific question about this device

Temporary anchorage point for the attachment of orthodontic appliances

Not Found

The provided document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the Infinitas Mini-Implant System. It does not contain information about acceptance criteria for a device's performance, nor does it describe any study that proves a device meets such criteria.

The document primarily focuses on:

• Stating that the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices.
• Listing the regulation number, name, and product code.
• Outlining the general controls and additional controls that may apply.
• Providing contact information for regulatory guidance.
• Stating the intended use of the device ("Temporary anchorage point for the attachment of orthodontic appliances").

Therefore, I cannot answer your request as the information regarding acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, ground truth, expert qualifications, or MRMC studies is not present in the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device