Search Results
Found 4 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(111 days)
VPS Impression Material(Light Body) is to be used as syringeable impression materials for:
-Two-step putty-wash impression technique;
-One-step putty-wash impression technique;
- Two-step impression technique using dual viscosities ;
- Reline impressions ;
-Fabricating full or partial dentures;
K203824:VPS Impression Material is dental Impression Material. It complies with the requirements of ISO 4823:2015 for dental elastomeric impression materials. It is supplied as atwo-part base/catalyst formulation preloaded in a dual-barrel cartridge. The VPS Impression Material package includes four dual-barrel 50ml cartridges.
The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a dental impression material (VPS Impression Material) and does not contain information about an AI/ML powered medical device. Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information regarding acceptance criteria and study details for an AI/ML device from this document.
The document describes the submission of a conventional medical device (dental impression material) and references standard performance testing (physical properties according to ISO 4823:2015) and biocompatibility testing (ISO 10993-5 and ISO 10993-10) to support its substantial equivalence to a predicate device. These tests are not related to AI/ML device performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or AUC, nor do they involve ground truth established by experts or multi-reader studies.
Therefore, I am unable to fulfill the request as it pertains to AI/ML device characteristics.
Ask a specific question about this device
(139 days)
VPS Impression Material is intended for use with all crowns, bridges, occlusal and dental implant impression techniques to reproduce the structure of a patient's teeth and gums.
VPS Impression Material is dental Impression Material. It complies with the requirements of ISO 4823:2015 for dental elastomeric impression materials. It is supplied as a two-part base/catalyst formulation preloaded in a dual-barrel cartridge. The VPS Impression Material package includes four dual-barrel 50ml cartridges.
The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a dental impression material. The document demonstrates substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than proving a device meets specific acceptance criteria through a clinical study. Therefore, much of the requested information regarding study details and expert adjudication is not present in this document.
However, I can extract the acceptance criteria and performance data for the device based on the non-clinical performance tests presented.
Here's the information derived from the document:
1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
| Physical Parameters | Acceptance Criteria (Standard ISO4823) | Reported Device Performance (K191034) |
|---|---|---|
| Consistency | ≤35mm | 31 mm |
| Working time | ≥1'30" | 2' |
| Detail reproduction | 50μm | complies (implicitly meets 50μm) |
| Linear dimensional change | ≤1.5% | 0.16% |
| Compatibility with gypsum | 50μm | complies (implicitly meets 50μm) |
| Elastic recovery | ≥96.5% | 99.06% |
| Strain-in-compression | >0.8% |
Ask a specific question about this device
(131 days)
HygePLUS Alginate Impression Material is irreversible hydrocolloids for dental Impressions used by the dentist to take the anatomical data of the patient's mouth. The device is Intended to provide models for study and for production of restorative prosthetic devices, such as gold Inlays and dentures.
HygePLUS Alginate Impression Material is a alginate impression material for general dental practice and for orthodontics. It is presented in the form of a homogeneous yellow powder with spearmint flavour.
The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for an alginate impression material, not an AI-powered device. Therefore, much of the requested information regarding AI models, such as sample sizes for training and test sets, multi-reader multi-case studies, and ground truth establishment methods for AI, is not applicable.
However, I can provide information based on the performance testing conducted for this device, which focuses on physical properties compared against an established standard.
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:
| Physical Parameters | Acceptance Criteria (ADA18 Requirements) | Reported Device Performance (HygePLUS Alginate Impression Material K170812) |
|---|---|---|
| Compatibility with gypsum | 0-50μm | complies |
| Elastic recovery | > 95% | 97.4% |
| Strain in compression | 5-20% | 16% |
| Compressive strength | > 0.35MPa | 1.00 MPa |
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:
The document does not specify the exact sample sizes used for testing each physical parameter. The testing was conducted internally by the manufacturer (Hygedent Inc.) to validate and verify that the proposed device met design specifications. The data provenance is from the manufacturer's performance testing.
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 as the "ground truth" for this device is based on performance against established industry standards (ADA Spec No.18), not on expert consensus of medical images or patient outcomes.
4. Adjudication method for the test set:
Not applicable. The performance was measured objectively against quantitative 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:
Not applicable. This is not an AI-powered device.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
Not applicable. This is not an AI-powered device.
7. The type of ground truth used:
The ground truth used for evaluating the device's performance was the ADA Spec No.18 recommendations for alginate impression materials. This constitutes established industry standards for physical properties.
8. The sample size for the training set:
Not applicable. This is not an AI-powered device and therefore does not have a training set in that context.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
Not applicable. This is not an AI-powered device. The "ground truth" for the performance tests was established by industry standards (ADA Spec No.18).
Ask a specific question about this device
(128 days)
Hygedent Alginate Impression Material is irreversible hydrocolloids for dental impressions used by the dentist to take the anatomical data of the patient's mouth. The device is intended to provide models for study and for production of restorative prosthetic devices, such as gold inlays and dentures.
Hygedent Alginate Impression Material is a dust free alginate impression material with a creamy consistency for general dental practice and for orthodontics. It is presented in the form of a homogeneous orange colored powder with a nice mint flavor. The material has exceptional good elastic properties and a high tear-resistance. The impression surface is very smooth, which gives excellent gypsum compatibility.
This document describes the acceptance criteria and the study conducted for the Hygedent Alginate Impression Material.
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:
The document compares the physical parameters of the proposed device (Hygedent Alginate Impression Material) against a predicate device. While specific "acceptance criteria" for each parameter are not explicitly stated as numerical thresholds, the comparison itself implies that the proposed device must perform comparably to the predicate device.
| Physical Parameters | Proposed Device Performance | Predicate Device Performance | Implied Acceptance Criteria (relative to Predicate) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appearance | Powder | Powder | Must be Powder |
| Odor | Peppermint | Peppermint | Must be Peppermint |
| Compression strength | 0.75 MPa | 0.7 MPa | Must be similar (0.75 MPa is close to 0.7 MPa) |
| Compatibility with gypsum | 50 μm | 50 μm | Must be 50 μm |
| Recovery from Deformation | 96.50 % | 96 % | Must be similar (96.50% is close to 96%) |
2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance:
The document does not specify a separate "test set" and thus no sample size for it. The performance data presented (in the table above) appears to be from non-clinical testing conducted by the manufacturer. The data provenance is not explicitly stated in terms of country of origin or whether it's retrospective or prospective, beyond being generated for the purpose of this 510(k) submission.
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts:
Not applicable. The study did not involve human experts establishing ground truth for a test set. The evaluation was based on physical property measurements against a predicate device and established standards.
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:
Not applicable. There was no test set requiring expert adjudication.
5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study:
No. A multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not conducted as this is a material science study, not an AI or diagnostic imaging study involving human readers.
6. Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Study:
Not applicable. This device is an impression material, not a software algorithm that performs diagnostic tasks. The performance evaluation focuses on the material's physical properties.
7. Type of Ground Truth Used:
The "ground truth" for this study was based on:
- Physical property measurements: Direct measurements of the material's characteristics (compression strength, compatibility with gypsum, recovery from deformation).
- Comparison to a predicate device: The predicate device served as a benchmark for "substantially equivalent" performance.
- Compliance with international standards: ISO 1563:1990 and ADA Specification No.18.1992 were used as benchmarks for acceptable performance.
8. Sample Size for the Training Set:
Not applicable. This is not a machine learning or AI-driven device, so there is no concept of a "training set."
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established:
Not applicable, as there is no training set.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1