Search Results

The DIFOTI USB 2.0 System (DIFOTI System for Dental Examinations, Model B) is indicated for detection of frank or incipient caries lesions above the gum line, and for monitoring the progression of such lesions.

The device known as the DIFOTI USB 2.0 System, also known as the DIFOTI System for Dental Examinations, Model B, is a dental examination system that utilizes visible light from an internal diode laser source. delivered with fiberoptic technology, for transillumination imaging of teeth as a technique for visualizing dental caries. An electronic (CMOS) camera is used to capture the image(s). The light and the camera are connected via a USB 2.0 cable to a small PC that serves for data acquisition and storage, and the computer monitor is used for image visualization.

The provided text states that "Safety and performance testing included image quality evaluation, software hazard analysis, in-vitro vs. in-vivo performance evaluation, and software verification and validation." However, it does not provide specific acceptance criteria or detailed results of these studies, nor does it provide information regarding sample sizes, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, or ground truth establishment relevant to the device's performance characteristics.

Therefore, I cannot populate the table or answer the questions with the requested level of detail based solely on the provided text.

Here's a breakdown of what can and cannot be extracted:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance:

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

• Sample Size (Test Set): Not provided.
• Data Provenance (Country of origin, retrospective/prospective): Not provided.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

• Number of Experts: Not provided.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not provided.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• Adjudication Method: Not provided.

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, and the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance:

• MRMC Study: Not indicated. The device description does not explicitly mention AI or human-in-the-loop assistance for the task, rather it presents as an imaging system for visualization.
• Effect Size: Not applicable/not provided.

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

• Standalone Performance: The device is described as an "examination system" that provides "visualization" of caries. While it captures images, the text doesn't explicitly detail an automated algorithmic detection or diagnosis, making the concept of "standalone performance" in the AI context difficult to assess from this document. It appears to be a tool for human examiners.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• Type of Ground Truth: Not explicitly stated. The "in-vitro vs. in-vivo performance evaluation" suggests comparison against some form of diagnostic standard, but the specific nature of this (e.g., comparison against histological confirmation, clinical consensus, etc.) is not detailed.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Sample Size (Training Set): Not provided. (Note: This type of device, from 2004, is unlikely to have had a "training set" in the modern machine learning sense, as it appears to be a direct imaging and visualization tool rather than an AI-driven diagnostic algorithm).

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

• Ground Truth Establishment (Training Set): Not provided. (See note for point 8).

Summary of available information:

The 510(k) summary focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to predicate devices and generally stating that the device is "safe and effective." It lists various testing activities (image quality, software hazard, in-vitro/in-vivo performance, software V&V) but does not provide the specific quantitative results, methodologies, or data characteristics (like sample sizes, ground truth details, or expert involvement) that would be needed to answer your questions comprehensively. This level of detail is often found in the full 510(k) submission, not typically in the summary provided for the public.

Ask a specific question about this device

The DIFOTI System for Dental Examinations is indicated for detection of frank or incipient caries lessions above the gum line, and for monitoring the progression of such lesions.

The DIFOTI device is a dental examination system that utilizes visible light delivered with fiberoptic technology for transillumination imaging of teeth as a technique for visualizing dental caries. An electronic charge-coupled device (CCD) camera is used to capture the image(s), a small PC serves for for data acquisition and storage, and a computer monitor is used for image visualization,

The provided text is a 510(k) Premarket Notification for the DIFOTI Dental Examination System. It includes basic information about the device, its intended use, and a general statement about safety and performance testing. However, it does not contain specific details about acceptance criteria, detailed study results, sample sizes for test or training sets, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, or MRMC studies.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill all parts of your request with the input provided.

Here's what can be extracted and what is missing:

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

• Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated in the document.
• Reported Device Performance: Not detailed in the document. The document only generically states "Safety and performance testing included image quality evaluation, software/hardware hazard analysis, invitro vs. in-vivo performance evaluation, and software verification and validation." It concludes that the device "has been shown to be safe and effective."

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

• Sample Size: Not mentioned.
• Data Provenance: Not mentioned (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). While "in-vitro vs. in-vivo performance evaluation" is mentioned, no details are provided.

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)

• Number of Experts: Not mentioned.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not mentioned.

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

• Adjudication Method: Not mentioned.

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

• MRMC Study: Not mentioned as being performed. The device is described as a "dental examination system" that utilizes visible light for transillumination imaging, and a CCD camera for image capture, data acquisition, and visualization. There's no indication of an AI component or a study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance.

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

• Standalone Performance: Not explicitly stated. The device functions as an imaging system for "detection" and "monitoring." While it captures images, it doesn't describe an automated diagnostic algorithm without human involvement.

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

• Type of Ground Truth: Not mentioned.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Sample Size: Not mentioned. The device predates the common use of "training sets" in the context of AI/machine learning. This filing is from 1999.

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

• Ground Truth Establishment: Not mentioned. (See point 8).

In summary, the provided 510(k) summary is very high-level and lacks the granular detail required to answer most of your questions regarding acceptance criteria and study particulars for device performance. It emphasizes the device's technical characteristics and comparison to predicate devices rather than detailed performance metrics from a specific study.

Ask a specific question about this device