Search Results

Direct restoration of Class I-V cavities (according to G.V. Black) Direct composite veneers Shape corrections of teeth (i.e. diastemas, congenital defects in teeth, etc.) Splinting of teeth loosened by trauma or periodontal disease Restoration of primary teeth Repairs of porcelain, composite (in combination with an adequate repair-system)

Not Found

I am sorry, but the provided text from the FDA 510(k) approval letter for "Charisma" a "Tooth Shade Resin Material" does not contain any information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria. The letter confirms that the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices, but it does not detail performance data, clinical study designs, or technical acceptance criteria for the device itself.

The document primarily covers:

• The FDA's review and determination of substantial equivalence.
• Regulatory information and requirements for marketing the device.
• Contact information for FDA divisions.
• The indications for use for the "Charisma" device, listed as:
  • Direct restoration of Class I-V cavities (according to G.V. Black)
  • Direct composite veneers
  • Shape corrections of teeth (i.e., diastemas, congenital defects in teeth, etc.)
  • Splinting of teeth loosened by trauma or periodontal disease
  • Restoration of primary teeth
  • Repairs of porcelain, composite (in combination with an adequate repair-system)

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information regarding acceptance criteria and performance study details based on the given text.

Ask a specific question about this device

The iBond Universal System consists of iBond Universal bonding agent and iBond Universal Ceramic Primer. The iBond Universal indications are: Bonding of direct restoration for all cavity classes (Black) using light curing, dual curing or self-curing methacrylate based composites/compomers, Bonding of light curing dual curing or selfcuring core build up materials, sealing of hypersensitive tooth areas, sealing of cavities prior to amalgam restorations, bonding of fissure sealants, sealing of cavities and core preparations prior to temporary cementation of indirect restorations(according to the immediate dentin sealing technique), cementation of indirect restorations with light curing dual-curing or self-curing adhesive resin cements, intraoral repair of composite and compomer restorations, porcelain fused to metal, all ceramic as well as metal restorations.

The iBond Ceramic Primer indications are; surface conditioning of silicate/glass ceramic, specifically for the fixation of indirect restorations with luting composites, for intraoral repair of ceramic veneerings, as well as full ceramic restorations.

Not Found

I am sorry, but the provided text from the FDA 510(k) summary for K150933, regarding the iBond Universal and iBond Ceramic Primer, does not contain any information about acceptance criteria, device performance studies, sample sizes, expert qualifications, or ground truth establishment.

The document is a clearance letter from the FDA stating that the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices and outlines the indications for use. It does not include the technical study details typically found in a clinical study report or a more comprehensive 510(k) submission summary.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information in the table or answer the specific questions about the study design and results based on the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device

Xantasil is a medium flow, addition-curing, elastomer dental impression material that can be used to cover all impression needs where a traditional alginate material would be used, such as impressions for temporaries, crown and bridges, removable dentures, orthodontic models, opposing jaw models, splints, mouth guards and bleaching trays. It is used to get a negative copy of the patients' dental situation.

Xantasil is an addition-curing polyvinyl-siloxane impression material. Xantasil is delivered in 50 ml and 380 ml cartridges. Xantasil is an optimized A-silicone impression material with medium consistency meant as a replacement for alginates. The mouth removal time for the product is 1.5 minutes Xantasil is for use in the Dynamix automatic dispensing and mixing system and the 1:1 Cartridge dispenser.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for a dental impression material named Xantasil. The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on physical properties, not on a study with AI in a diagnostic context. Therefore, many of the requested fields are not applicable to this document.

Here's the relevant information that can be extracted:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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. This is a dental impression material, and the "test set" here refers to the physical properties measured against ISO 4823 standards for dental materials, not a patient-based test set for an AI device. The document does not specify sample sizes for these physical property tests or data provenance beyond "in compliance with ISO 4823."

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. Ground truth as typically understood for AI/diagnostic devices doesn't apply here. The "experts" mentioned in the document are involved in judging the benefit/risk ratio, not establishing ground truth for a test set.

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

• Not applicable.

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 is not an AI device.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an AI algorithm.

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

• For the physical properties, the "ground truth" is defined by the technical specifications and test methods outlined in ISO 4823 for dental impression materials.
• For the biological compatibility, "bridging data from predicates in accordance with the international standard ISO 10993-1" was used.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This is not an AI device that requires a training set.

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

• Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

iBond Self Etch is used for bonding of direct light-cured composite restorations (including Polyglas and copomers), bonding of indirect restorations in combination with a light-curing luting cement; porcelain, Polyglas®, and composite restorations (inlays, onlays, veneers, crowns) and sealing hypersensitive areas of teeth.

iBond Self Etch(new formulation is an acetone/water-based formulation of light activated methylacrylate resins.

The provided text refers to a dental bonding agent, iBond Self Etch, and its new formulation. The "study" described is a declaration of substantial equivalence to a predicate device, focusing on material properties and biocompatibility rather than a clinical trial in the traditional sense of comparing AI performance to human performance. As such, many of the requested elements for AI/MRMC studies are not applicable.

Here's an analysis of the provided information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• The document describes a modification to an existing device (iBond Self Etch) and a comparison to its predicate (HK Bond K063062).
• The "test set" in this context refers to the samples of the new formulation used for laboratory testing of properties like shear bond strength.
• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for each test, but it is implied that standard laboratory testing procedures were followed for material characterization.
• Data Provenance: The studies were conducted internally by Heraeus Kulzer, LLC. The document does not specify country of origin for the data (beyond the applicant being in the US) or if it's retrospective or prospective, but it implies prospective lab testing of the new formulation.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications

• Not applicable. This is not a study requiring human expert assessment for ground truth. The "ground truth" for material characteristics like shear bond strength is established by standardized laboratory testing protocols, not expert consensus.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable for the reasons stated above.

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 is not an AI device, and therefore no MRMC study was conducted or is relevant.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) Was Done

• Not applicable. This is not an AI device.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

• For the material properties (e.g., pH, refractive index, shear bond strength), the ground truth is established through objective, standardized laboratory measurements following established protocols relevant to dental materials.
• For biocompatibility, the ground truth is based on adherence to international standards (EN ISO 10993) and a toxicological assessment of leachable compounds.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This is not an AI device, so there is no "training set." The understanding of the device's formulation and properties comes from chemical development and iterative laboratory testing, not machine learning training.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

• Not applicable for the reasons stated above.

Summary of the "Study" (Rationale for Substantial Equivalence):

The submission argues for substantial equivalence by demonstrating that the new iBond Self Etch formulation is comparable to its predicate (HK Bond K063062) despite minor modifications (addition of a stabilizer, change in rheological additive). The key elements of the "study" are:

• Comparison of Technical Characteristics: A detailed table highlights that many parameters (content of BHT, indications for use, visual appearance, pH, refractive index, application, dwell time, curing time, compatibility) remain the same.
• Performance Testing: The crucial difference in shear bond strength was tested, and the new formulation exceeded the predicate's performance requirement (>15 MPa for predicate vs. ≥20 MPa for new formulation).
• Biocompatibility Evaluation: The biological compatibility was verified in accordance with EN ISO 10993. A toxicologist reviewed the leachable compounds, concluding that the safety is equivalent to the predicate. No in vivo toxicity studies were performed on the new formulation due to low exposure and animal welfare, relying on the previous testing of the predicate and the toxicological assessment of leachable compounds.
• Risk Analysis: A risk analysis according to ISO 14791 was conducted, concluding that the safety of the new formulation is substantially equivalent.
• Improved Usability: The new formulation offers improved convenience (no refrigeration required, no shaking necessary) while maintaining or improving performance.

In essence, the study is a series of laboratory tests and regulatory assessments to confirm that the minor formulation changes do not negatively impact the device's safety and effectiveness and, in some cases, improve its performance and user convenience.

Ask a specific question about this device

Flexitime Fast & Scan is an addition-cross-linking polyvinyl siloxane impression material for all inlay, crown and bridges, endentulous and partial impression.

The Flexitime Fast & Scan range of products are prepared without requiring additional surface treatment for optical scanning in dental scanners designed for scanning impression materials, such as the 3 shape D700 laser scanners.

Flexitime Fast & Scan Impression Materials are addition-cross-linking polyvinyl siloxane materials. The Flexitime Fast & Scan Impression Materials family consists of Light Flow, Medium Flow, Dynamix Putty, Easy Putty and Dynamix Heavy Tray. Flexitime Light Flow, Medium Flow, Heavy Tray are delivered in 50 ml cartridges while Flexitime Fast & Scan Dynamix Putty and Dynamix Heavy Tray are delivered in 380 ml Cartridges and Flexitime Fast & Scan Easy Putty is delivered in a 300 ml container.

The Flexitime Fast & Scan assortment is characterized by the addition of Titanium Dioxide (in order to ensure scannability) and is technically characterized by an extra-oral working time of up to 1.5 minutes and a short time in mouth of 2.0 minutes. The materials were developed to ensure hydrophilic characteristics for optimal impression taking in the wet surroundings of the mouth combined with good mechanical properties. Also, they ensure scannability with state of the art red laser light impression scanners.

Flexitime Fast & Scan products are part of the Flexitime System.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study information for the Heraeus Flexitime Fast & Scan Impression Materials:

Upon review of the provided 510(k) summary, it's immediately apparent that this document describes a dental impression material, not a medical device in the typical sense of a software-driven diagnostic or imaging tool. As such, many of the requested categories for AI-based device studies (like sample sizes for test sets, number of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, training set details, and ground truth establishment) are not applicable to this type of product.

This 510(k) is focused on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on physical properties, biocompatibility, and intended use as an impression material. The "study" referenced is primarily a non-clinical evaluation against established ISO standards and a clinical evaluation based on the existing scientific literature and technical results for similar products.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information, noting where it is not applicable (N/A):

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

Study Details (Applicability to this type of device)

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

   • Not Applicable (N/A) in the context of an AI device. This 510(k) does not describe a study involving a "test set" of patient data for diagnostic accuracy like an AI algorithm would. Instead, performance is assessed through material property testing and reference to standards.
   • For Biocompatibility: "The biological compatibility of Flexitime Fast & Scan was verified in accordance with the international standards." This implies testing on biological models or in-vitro tests, but specific sample sizes or provenance of test samples are not detailed in this summary.
   • For Material Properties: Testing of physical properties (working time, setting time, hydrophilicity, mechanical properties, scannability) would involve batches of the material itself, tested in laboratory settings. Details on the number of samples tested for each property are not provided in this summary.

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

   • N/A. There isn't a "ground truth" establishment in the sense of expert annotation of medical images for an AI algorithm.
   • For the Clinical Evaluation: The document mentions "experts" stating a positive benefit-risk ratio for Flexitime Fast & Scan, and a "toxicologist" performed the biocompatibility evaluation. Specific numbers and detailed qualifications beyond "toxicologist" and "experts" are not provided. These are likely experts in dental materials science and toxicology, respectively.

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

   • N/A. This concept applies to expert consensus in AI model validation, not to the testing of physical properties or biological compatibility of a dental impression material.

4. 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. This is completely irrelevant for a dental impression material. There are no "human readers" or "AI assistance" in the context described in this 510(k).

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

   • N/A. This device is a material, not an algorithm.

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

   • N/A (in the AI context).
   • For material properties: The "ground truth" would be established by validated test methods specified in standards like ISO 4823.
   • For biocompatibility: The "ground truth" is defined by the criteria within ISO 10993-1.
   • For clinical evaluation: The "ground truth" is based on existing scientific data and accepted dental practices for impression materials, leading to an expert-judged benefit-risk assessment rather than a direct patient outcome study of the device itself.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • N/A. This concept is for machine learning models and does not apply to a physical impression material.

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

   • N/A. This concept is for machine learning models and does not apply to a physical impression material.

Summary of the Device's "Study" Approach:

The "study" for this device, as detailed in the 510(k) summary, is primarily a non-clinical evaluation against recognized international standards for dental impression materials (ISO 4823 for physical properties, ISO 10993-1 for biocompatibility) and a clinical evaluation that critically assesses scientific data and technical results to confirm expected performance and a favorable benefit-risk profile. The crucial aspect for its FDA clearance is demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing legally marketed predicate devices, particularly regarding its physical properties (adherence to ISO standards), biocompatibility, and intended use, with an added feature of scannability without powdering.

Ask a specific question about this device

It is used to get an exact negative copy of the patient's dental situation and can be used for optical scanning in dental scanners designed for scanning impression material.

Flexitime Monophase Pro Scan is an addition-cross-linking polyvinyl siloxane impression material. Flexitime Monophase Pro Scan is delivered in 380 ml cartridges and is part of the Flexitime Dynamix System. Flexitime Monophase Pro Scan is characterized by the addition of a scannable dye (for scannability). Flexitime Monophase Pro Scan was developed to complement flexitime Monophase regarding scannability and shore hardness, thus improving the impression taking especially for dental implants. Additionally the hydrophilic characteristics for optimal impression taking in the wet surroundings combined with good mechanical properties should be ensured. The mouth retention time for the product is 2.5 minutes.

Flexitime Monophase Pro Scan is for use in the Dynamix automatic dispensing and mixing svstem.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a dental impression material, Flexitime Monophase Pro Scan. It focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices based on physical properties, biocompatibility, and intended use.

Based on the provided document, the requested information for an acceptance criteria and study proving device performance is largely not applicable or not explicitly detailed in the context of a typical AI/medical device performance study.

This document is a regulatory submission for a dental impression material, not an AI or imaging device that would typically have performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or reader studies. The "study" mentioned here refers to non-clinical testing to ensure the material meets ISO standards and is biocompatible.

However, I can extract and structure the available information as best as possible to answer your questions where applicable, and note where information is missing or irrelevant to this type of device.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for Flexitime Monophase Pro Scan

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Regarding the other questions, they are largely not applicable to this type of regulatory submission for a dental impression material. This document is a 510(k) summary focused on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices, rather than a de novo clinical trial for a novel AI or diagnostic device.

Here's an assessment for each point:

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 in the typical sense. The "testing" referred to here are non-clinical lab tests for physical properties (ISO 4823 compliance) and biocompatibility (ISO 10993). The document does not specify sample sizes for these lab tests or their data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective).

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. "Ground truth" in the context of diagnostic accuracy studies (e.g., for AI) is not relevant here. For biocompatibility, an unnamed "toxicologist" performed an evaluation, and "experts" were mentioned in concluding a positive benefit vs. risk ratio, but their number and specific qualifications are not detailed beyond "toxicologist."

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

   • Not Applicable. This is specific to human reader studies or expert consensus for ground truth establishment, which is not described 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:

   • Not Applicable. This is a dental impression material, not an AI-assisted diagnostic device.

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

   • Not Applicable. This is a dental impression material, not an algorithm.

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

   • Not Applicable in the typical diagnostic sense. The "ground truth" for this device's performance would be compliance with ISO standards for physical properties and biocompatibility as determined by laboratory testing. For "scannability," the ground truth is simply whether it can be scanned without special preparation.

8. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not Applicable. This is not an AI model, so there is no training set.

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

   • Not Applicable. No training set exists for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device

• Direct restoration of Class I V cavities (acc. to G.V. Black) .
• . Direct composite veneers
• Shape corrections of teeth (i.e. diastemas, congenital defects in teeth etc.) .
• Splinting of teeth loosened by trauma or periodontal disease .
• . Indirect restorations (inlays, veneers)
• Restoration of primary teeth .
• Core build-up .
• Repairs of porcelain, composite (in combination with an adequate repair . system)

Venus Pearl is a, universal light-curing, radio-opaque nano-hybrid composite for antenor and posterior use. Due to the excellent material properties, a beautiful aesthetic result and a durable, high lustre polish is easily reached. Nano hybrid composite contain a blend of small particle fillers and large particle fillers that create durable and aesthetic restorations. The nano fillers panide micro that croate darable of the filler content and provide the natural aesthetic appearance. It is used as a base in Class I -- V restorations and can be placed in increments it is used as a base in Glass in Glass in othersal shades and special shades, 3 mm for the core-build-up shade and 1 mm for opaque-shades. Venus Pearl is used following the application of a dentin/enamel addlesive (e.g. Venus Fear is used lollowing the upper for use with light cured composite restorations. Venus Pearl is based on 2-Propenoic acid, (octahydro-4,7-methano-1Hindenes / Carrie bleneiminocarbonyloxy-2- , 1-ethanediy()ester (TCD-Dlindene-5-dify)blo(methyl-4,13-dioxo-3,14-dioxe-5,12-diazahexadecane-1,16diy-dimethacrylate (UDMA) (approximately 59% filler by volume, with 58% anorganic filler by volume, Banum aluminium Fluoride glass, pre-polymerized filler and highly discrete nanoparticles . The filler particle size is between 5 nm and 5 um

This document describes the 510(k) submission for the dental restorative material "Venus Pearl." Since this is a submission for a restorative material and not a medical device with an algorithm or AI component, many of the requested categories for acceptance criteria and study details (like sample size for test sets, data provenance, number of experts for ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone algorithm performance, and training set details for AI) are not applicable.

The acceptance criteria here refer to the product's compliance with established standards for dental materials. The study proving this compliance is primarily based on non-clinical testing and comparison to an equivalent predicate device.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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. This document is for a dental restorative material, not an AI or algorithm-based device that would typically have a "test set" in the context of data analysis. The testing for Venus Pearl involved in-vitro physical property tests and biocompatibility tests, not data sets in the traditional sense for algorithm evaluation. The document does not specify the number of material samples used for these tests. Data provenance is not mentioned.

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. As above, a "test set" in the computational context does not apply here. Ground truth for material properties is established through standardized laboratory testing protocols, not expert consensus on images or diagnostic data.

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

• Not Applicable. No adjudication method is described, as there is no diagnostic test set requiring expert review.

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 is not an AI-assisted device, so no MRMC study or AI-related effectiveness metrics are relevant.

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

• Not Applicable. This is not an algorithm-only or AI device.

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

• The "ground truth" for the performance of Venus Pearl is based on:
  • Standardized Physical Property Measurements: Adherence to defined thresholds and methodologies outlined in international standards like EN ISO 4049.
  • Biocompatibility Testing: Results from established in-vitro and in-vivo toxicology tests (e.g., cytotoxicity, sensitization, irritation) according to ISO 10993 standards.
  • Clinical Evaluation: A literature review and risk assessment process (MEDDEV 2.7.1, EN ISO 14971) comparing the new device's characteristics and intended use to known performance and safety data of similar, well-established restorative materials (like the predicate device, Venus Diamond). This is effectively a "retrospective" clinical evaluation drawing on existing knowledge and safety profiles of the material class, rather than new prospective clinical trials for this specific submission for a similar device.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not Applicable. There is no "training set" as this is not an AI/ML product.

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

• Not Applicable. No training set exists.

Ask a specific question about this device

Paladon ultra is a heat curing high impact denture base resin designed for injection procedure and press and pack technique for:

• . maxillary and mandibular prostheses
• implant over-denture .

Paladon ultra was developed as a heat curing high impact denture base resin similar to the substantially equivalent device Palaimpact. The product consists of powder in various shades (pink, pink veined, pink live, R50 ыланың жұмысыздың құрылы veined, light pink, light reddish pink, shade 200, dark pink) and liquid. 80 ml or 500 ml of liquid is supplied in brown glass bottles in an outer cardboard box, the 100 g or 1000 g powder is supplied in square HD-PE bottles in an outer cardboard box. 12000 g are available upon request. To make a denture, powder and liquid are mixed, in a ratio of 21 g : 10 m!. The material should be polymerised by heating. The material has a shelf life of five years and fully complies with the requirements of ISO 20795-1:2008 for denture base polymers with improved impact resistance.

The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for the dental device "Paladon ultra." It details the device's substantial equivalence to a predicate device and notes its compliance with ISO 20795-1:2008 for denture base polymers. However, the document does not describe a study involving readers (human or AI), sample sizes for test sets, ground truth establishment by experts, or any MRMC comparative effectiveness study. The testing mentioned is focused on the physical and biological properties of the material itself.

Therefore, many of the requested items cannot be extracted from this document, as they pertain to clinical or reader-based evaluations that are not present.

Here's what can be extracted and what cannot:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. The tests are on the material properties, not a dataset from patients or images.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. Ground truth as typically defined for AI/reader studies (e.g., disease presence) is not established in this document.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable.

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 document describes a dental material, not an AI or imaging device involving human readers.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This document describes a dental material, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc):
For physical properties: The ground truth is defined by the technical specifications and test methods outlined in ISO 20795-1:2008.
For biocompatibility: The ground truth is established through laboratory tests as required by ISO 10993-1.
For clinical performance: The ground truth is established by clinical evaluation in accordance with MEDDEV 2.7.1, assessing expected performance and safety based on existing knowledge and the properties of the material.

8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This document describes a dental material, not an AI system with a training set.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Study Proving Device Meets Acceptance Criteria:

The study proving the device meets the acceptance criteria is a combination of non-clinical (laboratory) tests and a clinical evaluation, rather than a single study with a "test set" in the context of reader studies or AI performance.

• Nonclinical Tests: These involved evaluating the material's physical properties according to ISO 20795-1:2008 for denture base polymers with improved impact resistance. Additionally, biocompatibility was assessed in accordance with ISO 10993-1, covering tests for cytotoxicity, sensitization, irritation/intracutaneous reactivity, subacute/subchronic toxicity, and genotoxicity. The document states that toxicological risk was evaluated, and a biological evaluation report confirmed the product meets ISO 10993 requirements.
• Clinical Evaluation: This evaluation was performed in accordance with MEDDEV 2.7.1 and the Medical Device Directive 93/42/EEC. It involved a critical assessment of the clinical benefits versus potential risks of Paladon ultra. The evaluation concluded that the product exhibits the claimed clinical and technical performance and that potential undesirable clinical effects and risks are well controlled and acceptable when weighed against their benefits in dentistry.

In essence, the "study" is a comprehensive regulatory assessment involving adherence to established international standards for material properties and biological safety, coupled with a clinical risk/benefit analysis based on the device's intended use and comparison to existing well-known materials.

Ask a specific question about this device

Universal high fracture resistant denture base material. Used with injection or pouring techniques for fixed or removable dentures.

Injection procedure:

• Full maxillary and mandibular prostheses
• Implant over denture
• Pouring procedure:
• Implant over denture
• Partial dentures. Multiple or single saddles
• Marginal contour and reshaping
• Repairs and additions
• Relines
• Dental splints

PalaXpress ultra was developed as an auto-polymerizing denture and differs from the substantially equivalent device Palapress vario in the increased fracture resistance compared with that material. The product was developed as an autopolymerizing universal denture base material.

The product consists of powder in various shades (pink veined, link live, pink opaque, R50 veined, clear, light pink, light reddish pink, shade 200, dark pink) and liquid. 80 ml or 500 ml of liquid is supplied in brown glass bottles in an outer cardboard box, the 100 g or 1000 g powder is supplied in square HD-PE bottles in a outer cardboard box. 12000 g are available upon request.

To make sure denture, powder and liquid are mixed, in a ratio of 30 g : 15 ml (2:1) for the injection procedure, and in a ratio of 10 g powder : 7 ml liquid for the pouring procedure, Polymerization time in the pressure vessel is 30 min, at a water temperature 55°C and a pressure of 2 bar.

The material has a shelf life of 42 months and complies with the requirements of ISO 20795-1:2008 for denture base polymers.

Please note: The provided text describes the PalaXpress ultra, a denture base material. The concept of "acceptance criteria" and related study details you've requested (sample sizes, expert consensus, MRMC studies, standalone performance, training sets) are typically associated with the evaluation of artificial intelligence (AI) or diagnostic devices. This document does not describe such a device or AI-related study.

However, I will extract the closest analogous information available in the document to address your request as best as possible, focusing on the material's compliance with established standards and its claimed performance.

Here's the information based on the provided text, adapted to your request where applicable, and highlighting where the requested information is not available due to the nature of the device:

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

Explanation:
The "acceptance criteria" here are drawn from the relevant international standards (ISO 20795-1 for material properties, ISO 10993-1 for biocompatibility) and regulatory guidelines (MEDDEV 2.7.1 for clinical evaluation, Medical Device Directive 93/42/EEC). The "reported device performance" reflects whether the device met or exceeded these standards as stated in the submission.

2. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance

• Sample size for test set: Not explicitly stated. The document refers to "test results" and "evaluated data" but does not provide specific sample sizes for property testing or biocompatibility assessments.
• Data provenance: The standard compliance tests (ISO 20795-1, ISO 10993-1) and clinical evaluation (MEDDEV 2.7.1) were conducted as part of the manufacturer's regulatory assessment for European medical device legislation. The submission is from Heraeus Kulzer, GmbH (Germany) and submitted to the US FDA. The studies were likely performed in Europe. The data is retrospective in the sense that it was generated for internal regulatory purposes before submission.

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

This information is not applicable/available for this type of device. The "ground truth" for a material like PalaXpress ultra is established by adherence to specified physical, chemical, and biological properties as defined by international standards (e.g., ISO) and regulatory requirements, not by expert consensus on interpretations of images or clinical outcomes in the way an AI diagnostic device would be.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

This information is not applicable/available for this type of device. Adjudication methods (like 2+1 or 3+1) are common in clinical trials or studies involving expert assessment of ambiguous cases for diagnostic tools. For a material properties and biocompatibility study, the "adjudication" is typically the successful completion and approval of tests according to established protocols and standards.

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

This information is not applicable/available. An MRMC study is relevant for diagnostic devices (especially those involving image interpretation) to compare the performance of human readers, with and without AI assistance. PalaXpress ultra is a denture base material, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool.

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

This information is not applicable/available. This question is relevant for AI algorithms. PalaXpress ultra is a physical material, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used

The "ground truth" for PalaXpress ultra is based on:

• Standard Specifications: Compliance with material properties defined by ISO 20795-1:2008 for denture base polymers.
• Biocompatibility Standards: Adherence to biological safety requirements specified by ISO 10993-1.
• Clinical Evaluation: Assessment against the expected clinical performance and safety benchmarks outlined in MEDDEV 2.7.1.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable/available. There is no "training set" in the context of developing a physical dental material like PalaXpress ultra, unlike machine learning models. The development process involves iterative formulation and testing, but not a formally defined "training set" for an algorithm.

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

This information is not applicable/available as there is no "training set" for this product as described in machine learning contexts. The "ground truth" for the development and validation of the material's properties was established through adherence to the aforementioned ISO standards and regulatory guidelines during the material formulation and testing phases.

Ask a specific question about this device

Flexitime Fast & Scan is an addition-cross-linking polyvinyl siloxane impression material for all inlay, crown and bridges, edentulous and partial impression.

The Flexitime Fast & Scan range products are prepared without requiring additional surface treatment for optical scanning in dental scanners designed for scanning impression materials, such as the 3 Shape D700 laser scanners.

The products are developed under the project name D 942. The Flexitime Fast & Scan Light Flow. Flexitime Fast & Scan Medium Flow and Flexitime Fast & Scan Dynamix Putty each are addition-cross-linking polyvinyl siloxane impression materials. Flexitime Fast & Scan Light Flow and Medium Flow are delivered in 50 ml cartridges while Flexitime Fast & Scan Dynamix Putty is delivered in 380 ml cartridges.

They are part of the Flexitime-system. The Flexitime Fast & Scan assortment is characterized by the addition of Titanium- Dioxide (in order to ensure scannabilty) and is technically characterized by a extraoral working time of up to 1.5 min and a short time in mouth of 2.0 min. These products are highly desired for double-mix impressions (single step) and correction impressions (two step technique).

The materials were developed to ensure hydrophilic characteristics for optimal impression taking in the wet surroundings of the mouth combined with good mechanical properties. Furthermore the materials were developed to ensure scannability with state of the art red laser light impressions scanners. The materials are based on the existing materials D 919 (Flexitime Light Flow and Flexitime Medium Flow) and Flexitime Dynamix Putty to meet the requirements of the European and US market. Flexitime Light Flow and Flexitime Medium Flow are marketed since August 2009 and Flexitime Dynamix Putty is marketed since Mav 2007.

The provided document does not contain explicit acceptance criteria in the form of a table with specific thresholds for device performance. It describes the physical, biocompatibility, and clinical evaluations conducted for the Flexitime Fast & Scan dental impression material, stating that it meets relevant standards and has a positive benefit/risk ratio.

However, based on the information provided, here's a structured response addressing the requested points where data is available or inferred:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance
The document does not explicitly state the sample size used for the test set or the data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective) for any of the non-clinical or clinical evaluations.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
The document mentions "experts" involved in the clinical evaluation ("A positive benefit versus risk ratio can be stated by the experts for Flexitime Fast & Scan"). However, it does not specify the number of experts or their qualifications (e.g., "radiologist with 10 years of experience").

4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set
The document does not describe any specific adjudication method for establishing ground truth or evaluating the test results.

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
This device is a dental impression material, not an AI or imaging device that would typically involve human readers or AI assistance. Therefore, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving AI assistance would not be applicable or expected. The document does not mention any such study.

6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
As mentioned above, this is a dental impression material, not an algorithm, so a standalone algorithm performance study is not applicable.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)
For the clinical evaluation, the "ground truth" seems to be derived from a "critical evaluation [that] followed the procedures outlined in the corresponding clinical evaluation plan" and resulted in a "positive benefit versus risk ratio" as stated by experts. For physical properties, the "ground truth" is adherence to international standards like EN ISO 4823. For biocompatibility, it's adherence to EN ISO 10993. These rely on established scientific and regulatory benchmarks.

8. The sample size for the training set
The document refers to the product as a "revised version" of existing products (Flexitime Dynamix Putty, Flexitime Light Flow, and Flexitime Medium Flow) and that the materials were "based on the existing materials D 919 (Flexitime Light Flow and Flexitime Medium Flow) and Flexitime Dynamix Putty." It also mentions "accepted laboratory prototypes" (JAG 165-02/ULL 1150-2, FRM 14240-1/FRM 14242-1, and ULL 1152-1/ULL 1152-2) used for target-performance comparisons and further development. However, it does not provide specific sample sizes that would constitute a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI models, as this is a material science product.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
Given that this is a material, not an AI system, the concept of a "training set" and its "ground truth" in the AI sense is not directly applicable. However, the development process involved utilizing "existing materials" and "laboratory prototypes" for which target performance requirements were established. These requirements likely served as the "ground truth" or benchmarks during the experimental and development phases to ensure the new formulation met the desired characteristics (e.g., scannability, mechanical properties, hydrophilicity). These benchmarks would have been established through established material science testing methodologies and regulatory standards (e.g., EN ISO 4823).

Ask a specific question about this device