Search Results

to obtain the structure of a patient's teeth and gums

Vinyl polysiloxane is an addition-reaction silicone elastomer (an addition silicone). It is a viscous liquid that cures quickly into a rubber-like solid, taking the shape of whatever surface it was lying against while curing. As with 2-part epoxy, its package keeps its 2 component liquids in separate container until the moment they are mixed and applied, because once mixed, they cure (harden) rapidly.

To create the material, the user simply mixes the base with the catalyst, and the chemical reaction begins. Once the impression material is set and slightly modified, it is taken to patient's mouth for use in the transfer bonding process.

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the Sildent Fast Light Body, Sildent Fast Heavy Body, and Sildent Bite dental impression materials, which are vinyl polysiloxane elastomers. This document does not detail a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria in the context of AI/ML or diagnostic performance, but rather focuses on substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on technological characteristics and non-clinical performance (biocompatibility).

Therefore, many of the requested fields cannot be filled as they pertain to clinical performance studies typically seen with AI/ML devices or diagnostic tools. However, I can extract information related to the acceptance criteria (performance properties) and the non-clinical studies conducted.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text, addressing the relevant points where information is available:

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

The acceptance criteria are implied by the applicable standard ISO 4823 and by comparison to the predicate device's performance.

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

This information is not provided in the document. The document refers to "appropriate study" for non-clinical performance but does not specify sample sizes for these tests. The company location is HRS Co., Ltd. in Korea.

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)

This information is not applicable as this is not a study requiring expert-established ground truth for diagnostic or AI/ML performance. The "ground truth" for material properties is based on standardized physical and chemical tests.

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

This information is not applicable as this is not a study requiring expert adjudication.

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. This submission concerns dental impression materials, not an AI-assisted diagnostic device.

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

This information is not applicable. This submission concerns dental impression materials, not an AI algorithm.

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

The "ground truth" for the performance properties (recovery from deformation, strain in compression, linear dimensional change, working time, intraoral setting time, hardness) is based on physical and chemical measurements performed according to ISO 4823 and DIN 13903 standards.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable as there is no training set mentioned; this is not an AI/ML device.

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

This information is not applicable as there is no training set mentioned; this is not an AI/ML device.

In summary, the provided document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence of dental impression materials to predicate devices based on adherence to international standards (ISO 4823, DIN 13903) for physical properties and biocompatibility studies (ISO 10993). It does not contain information related to clinical performance studies, AI/ML device evaluation, or diagnostic accuracy.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Sildent is a vinyl polysiloxane silicone impression material used for all inlay, crown and bridge, edentulous and partial impressions.

The Sildent is a vinyl polysiloxane silicone impression material used for all inlay, crown and bridge, edentulous and partial impressions.
The Sildent consists of 4 type models. These are Sildent light body, Sildent regular body, Sildent heavy body and Sildent putty.

This describes the acceptance criteria and study proving the device meets those criteria for the Sildent dental impression material.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The submission highlights bench testing against ISO 4823 for various performance characteristics. The acceptance criteria are implicitly that the Sildent device performs comparably to the predicate devices and meets the requirements of ISO 4823.

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

The document does not specify the exact sample sizes for each of the bench tests (e.g., how many samples were tested for dimensional change). The data provenance is Korea, Republic of, as HRS CO., LTD. is located there. The studies were non-clinical bench tests. The document does not explicitly state if the studies were retrospective or prospective, but bench testing on a new product prior to market release is inherently prospective.

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

Not applicable. This was a non-clinical bench study, not involving human interpretation or expert ground truth as typically understood in AI/medical imaging studies. The "ground truth" was established by the physical and chemical properties measured according to ISO 4823 and comparison to predicate devices.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. There was no human adjudication process involved in these bench tests.

5. Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

No. This was a non-clinical bench study for a dental impression material. MRMC studies are typically for diagnostic devices that involve human interpretation of medical images.

6. Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Study

Yes, in a sense. The bench tests evaluated the material's inherent physical and chemical properties in a standalone manner, without human intervention or interpretation of results in the way an algorithm's performance might be evaluated. The "algorithm" here is the material itself.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for the performance characteristics was derived from established scientific measurement standards (ISO 4823) and comparison to the characteristics of legally marketed predicate devices. For biocompatibility, the ground truth was based on the results of standard biocompatibility tests (Cytotoxicity, Sensitization, Short term systemic toxicity, Oral mucosa irritation, Diffusion Test).

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device. Therefore, there is no "training set."

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

Not applicable. There is no training set for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device