Search Results

PreFace abutment, TI-Forms abutment, Titanium base 2nd generation, and Titanium base ASC Flex are intended for use with dental implants as a support for single or multiple tooth protheses in the maxilla or mandible of a partially or fully edentulous patient. Abutment-level prosthetic components (Multi-unit Titanium Base, Multi-unit Titanium Cap, MedentiBASE Titanium Base) are intended for use as a support for multi-unit screw-retained bridges and bars in the maxilla or mandible of a partially or fully edentulous patient.

All digitally designed abutments for use with PreFace abutment, TI-Forms abutment, Titanium base 2nd generation, Titanium base ASC Flex, Multi-unit Titanium Base, Multi-unit Titanium Cap, and MedentiBASE Titanium Base are intended to be sent to an FDA-registered Medentika validated milling center for manufacture or to be manufactured according to the digital dentistry workflow, which integrates multiple components: Scans from desktop and intra oral scanners, CAD and CAM software and milling machine with associated accessories.

Medentika abutments for the Nobel Biocare Nobel Active® 3.0 mm, Dentsply Sirona Astra Tech OsseoSpeed EV® 3.0 mm and TX® 3.0 mm, Straumann Bone Level 2.9 implant bodies are indicated for maxillary lateral and mandibular central/lateral incisors only.

The subject devices are Medentika CAD/CAM Abutments, which primarily expand the options for fabricating patient-specific final abutments from a "validated milling center" to a "digital dentistry workflow". This workflow uses scan files from intra-oral and lab (desktop) scanners, CAD software, CAM software, ceramic material, milling machines, and associated tooling and accessories. The devices include Titanium Base abutments, Titanium base ASC Flex abutments, and PreFace and TI-Form (blanks) abutments.

The abutments are made of titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V ELI). Titanium base abutments also include a zirconia superstructure. The specified zirconia materials for milling superstructures are Ivoclar Vivadent IPS e.max ZirCAD Prime, Ivoclar Vivadent IPS e.max ZirCAD Prime Esthetic, Amann Girrbach Zolid Bion, Amann Girrbach Zolid Gen-X, and Institut Straumann AG n!ce Zirkonia HT. The specified cement for bonding superstructures is Multilink Hybrid Abutment Cement from Ivoclar Vivadent AG.

Key design parameters for CAD/CAM zirconia superstructures (on Titanium base and Titanium base ASC Flex) include: minimum wall thickness of 0.5 mm, minimum cementable post height of 4.0 mm for single unit restorations, maximum gingival margin height of 5.0 mm, minimum gingival margin height of 0.5 mm, and maximum angulation of the final abutment of 30°.

PreFace and TI-Forms abutments (blanks) are used by dental laboratories to fabricate customized abutments from titanium alloy. Their design parameters include: minimum wall thickness of 0.4 mm, minimum cementable post height of 4.0 mm, maximum gingival margin height of 5.0 mm, minimum gingival margin height of 0.5 mm, and maximum angulation of 30°.

Prosthetic-level components (Multi-unit Titanium Base, Multi-unit Titanium Cap, MedentiBASE Titanium Base) are provided for use with previously cleared Medentika multi-unit abutments and MedentiBASE abutments.

All abutments are provided non-sterile with appropriate abutment screws. The screws attach the abutment to the implant or the prosthesis to the abutment.

The provided 510(k) clearance letter and summary describe a medical device, Medentika CAD/CAM Abutments, and its substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on non-clinical performance data. The document does not contain information about acceptance criteria or performance data for an AI/ML-based device, nor does it detail a clinical study involving human readers or expert consensus for ground truth.

Therefore, for the information requested in your prompt, I can only extract what is presented in the document, which pertains to the non-AI aspects of device acceptance and testing. Many of the points specifically refer to AI/MRMC studies, which are not applicable to this document.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text:

Device Description and Purpose:
The device is "Medentika CAD/CAM Abutments," which are dental implant abutments. The primary purpose of this submission is to expand the fabrication options for patient-specific final abutments from a "validated milling center" to a "digital dentistry workflow" that integrates CAD/CAM software and milling machines. It also adds new sizes and OEM compatibilities.

Study Type:
This is a pre-market notification (510(k)) submission seeking substantial equivalence to existing legally marketed devices. It relies heavily on non-clinical performance data to demonstrate that the new manufacturing workflow and expanded compatibilities do not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness.

Analysis of Requested Information (based on the provided document):

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

The document outlines various performance tests conducted to demonstrate substantial equivalence, but it does not explicitly present a "table of acceptance criteria" with corresponding "reported device performance." Instead, it states that the tests demonstrate sufficient strength or ensure accuracy and reliability.

Here's a summary of the performance tests and their implied purpose:

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: The document does not specify numerical sample sizes for any of the non-clinical tests (e.g., how many abutments were mechanically tested, how many software validation tests were run). It simply states that "testing was conducted" or "validation was performed."
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin of the data or whether the studies were retrospective or prospective. Given the nature of pre-market non-clinical testing for medical devices, these are typically prospective laboratory tests conducted by the manufacturer or accredited testing facilities. The manufacturer is Medentika® GmbH (Huegelsheim, Germany), suggesting the testing likely occurred in Germany or at internationally recognized labs.

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 to the provided document. The ground truth for this device is established through engineering specifications, material standards (e.g., ASTM F136), and validated manufacturing processes, not through human expert consensus on diagnostic images.

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

This information is not applicable to the provided document, as it describes non-clinical engineering and manufacturing validation, not a multi-reader clinical study for AI.

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 to the provided document. This device is a physical dental abutment and its associated CAD/CAM workflow, not an AI-based diagnostic tool that would require human reader studies. The document explicitly states: "No clinical data were included in this submission."

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

This information is not applicable to the provided document. While the device utilizes CAD/CAM software and milling machines, it is a physical product manufactured through a workflow, not a standalone AI algorithm whose performance needs to be assessed in isolation. The software functions as a design and manufacturing aid, not a diagnostic or decision-making algorithm.

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

The "ground truth" in this context refers to established engineering and material standards:

• Standards Compliance: Adherence to ISO standards (e.g., ISO 14801 for mechanical strength, ISO 10993 for biocompatibility, ISO 17665 for sterilization).
• Dimensional Accuracy: Verification against established design parameters and compatibility specifications for dental implants (e.g., OEM implant body and abutment dimensions).
• Material Specifications: Conformance to ASTM F136 for titanium alloy and specifications for zirconia and cement.
• Software Design Parameters: The "ground truth" for the CAD software validation is the pre-defined maximum and minimum design parameters that the software must enforce.

8. The sample size for the training set:

This information is not applicable to the provided document. The "device" in question is a physical dental abutment and its manufacturing workflow, not an AI/ML model that requires a training set. The CAD/CAM software itself is validated, not "trained" on a dataset in the AI sense.

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

This information is not applicable to the provided document for the same reasons as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

Medentika abutments are intended for use with dental implants as a support for single or multiple tooth prostheses in the maxilla or mandible of a partially or fully edentulous patient.
Medentika abutments for the Dentsply Sirona Astra Tech OsseoSpeed EV 3.0mm and TX 3.0mm implant bodies are indicated for maxillary lateral and mandibular central/lateral incisors only.
Medentika TiBase CAD/CAM Abutments are intended for use with dental implants as a support for single or multiple tooth prostheses in the maxilla or mandible of a partially or fully edentulous patient. Medentika TiBase is intended for use with the Straumann® CARES® System. All digitally designed copings and/or crowns are intended to be sent to Straumann for manufacture at a validated milling center.
Medentika abutments for the Nobel Biocare Nobel Active®* 3.0mm, Dentsply Sirona Astra Tech OsseoSpeed EV®* 3.0mm and TX®* 3.0mm implant bodies are indicated for maxillary lateral and mandibular central/lateral incisors only.
Medentika PreFace CAD/CAM Abutments are intended for use with dental implants as a support for single or multiple tooth prostheses in the maxilla or mandible of a partially or fully edentulous patient.
Medentika Preface is intended for use with the Straumann® CARES® System. All digitally designed abutments for use with Medentika CAD/CAM Abutments are intended to be manufactured at a Straumann® CARES® validated milling center. The final patient matched form is a MedentiCAD abutment.
Medentika abutments for the Dentsply Sirona Astra Tech OsseoSpeed EV 3.0mm implant bodies are indicated for maxillary lateral and mandibular central/lateral incisors only.
Multi-unit abutments are indicated for use with dental implants as a support for multi-unit screw retained bridges and bars in the maxilla or mandible of a partially or fully edentulous patient.

The Medentika abutments include abutments, abutment screws, caps, and bases which are labelled under a specific Medentika series and are compatible with a specified dental implant system. The abutments include sinqle-unit abutments intended for use with dental implants as a support for single or multiple tooth protheses in the maxilla or mandible of a partially or fully edentulous patient. The abutments also include multi-unit abutments indicated for use with dental implants as a support for multi-unit screw retained bridges and bars in the maxilla or mandible of a partially or fully edentulous patient.
The purpose of this premarket notification is to add additional abutments. The subject abutments include abutments compatible with additional dental implant systems forming a new Medentika series (the OT series). The subject abutments also include abutments compatible with new implant diameters in existing Medentika series (E, EV, F, and S). Lastly, the subject abutments include new abutment designs compatible with existing implant diameters in existing Medentika series (R).

This looks like a 510(k) Summary for a medical device (dental abutments), which means the document is about proving "substantial equivalence" to a predicate device, not about proving clinical effectiveness or performance against pre-defined acceptance criteria in the way one might for a novel AI/software medical device.

Therefore, the information requested in your bullet points (e.g., acceptance criteria table, sample size for test set, number of experts for ground truth, MRMC study, standalone performance, training set details) is not applicable to this type of regulatory submission because the device is a mechanical one, not an AI/software device. The data presented here is focused on demonstrating physical and mechanical compatibility and equivalence to previously cleared devices.

Here's why each point is not applicable and what information is provided:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: This document doesn't provide a typical "acceptance criteria" table as would be seen for an AI/software device measuring diagnostic performance (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC). Instead, it relies on demonstrating that the new abutments perform similarly to existing, cleared abutments through "dynamic fatigue testing" and "dimensional analysis and reverse engineering." The performance is implicitly "accepted" if these tests show equivalence to the predicate.

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective): No "test set" in the context of diagnostic performance is mentioned. The "testing" refers to non-clinical, physical testing (fatigue, dimensional analysis). There is no patient data involved in this type of submission for a mechanical device.

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 AI/software sense, is not established for this device. The "truth" is based on engineered specifications and physical testing.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable. No human adjudication of diagnostic output is relevant 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 not an AI-assisted device.

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

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): Not applicable. The "ground truth" is engineering specifications and physical measurements.

8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. There is no AI/machine learning component to "train."

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable for the same reason as above.

What the document does provide regarding device performance and testing:

• Type of Testing:

  • Dynamic fatigue testing according to FDA guidance and ISO 14801 (Dentistry - implants dynamic loading test for endosseous dental implants).
  • Dimensional analysis and reverse engineering of the implant-to-abutment connection platform.
  • Sterilization validation (steam and gamma irradiation) referenced from K191123, ISO 17665-1, ISO/TS 17665-2, ISO 11137-1, ISO 11137-2.
  • Sterile packaging validation referenced from K191123, ISO 11607-1, ISO 11607-2.
  • Biocompatibility evaluations referenced from K142167, K170838, K191123, K150203, K061804 in accordance with ISO 10993-1.
  • MR testing referenced from K180564 in accordance with ASTM F2052-15, ASTM F2213-06 (2011), ASTM F2182-11a, and ASTM F2119-13.

• Conclusion: The tests demonstrated "implant to abutment compatibility" and "established substantial equivalency of the proposed device with predicate devices." This is the "proof" that the device meets the (implicit) acceptance of being substantially equivalent to existing, legally marketed devices.

In summary, this document is for a traditional mechanical medical device, and the regulatory pathway does not involve performance studies in the way you've outlined for AI/software-based devices.

Ask a specific question about this device

CARES® Screw-retained Bars and Bridges are prosthetic components directly connected to the endosseous dental implant as an aid in prosthetic rehabilitations.

CARES® Screw-retained Bridges and Bars are indicated for use as bars and bridges that attach to implants to provide support for prosthetic reconstructions such as bridges and overdentures. The final processed products have the purpose of restoring chewing function. CARES® Screwretained Bridges and Bars are indicated for screw-retained restorations.

CARES® Screw - Retained Bars and Bridges are designed to interface with the following dental implant systems (Implant System Compatibility / Series / Implant diameter (mm) / Platform diameter (mm)):

Nobel Biocare Replace Select / E-Series / Diameters 3.5, 4.3, 5.0, 6.0 / Platform 3.5, 4.3, 5.0, 6.0 Dentsply Implants - ASTRA TECH OsseoSpeed EV / EV-Series / 3.0, 3.6, 4.2, 4.8, 5.4 / Platform 3.0, 3.6, 4.2, 4.8, 5.4

Nobel Biocare NobelActive / F-Series / Diameter 3.0, 3.5, 4.3, 5.0 / Platform 3.0, 3.5, 3.9 (4.3), 3.9 (5.0)

Neodent - Grand Morse / GM Series / Diameters 3.5, 3.75, 4.0, 4.3, 5.0, 6.0 / Platform 3.0

Biomet 3i - Certain / H-Series / Diameter 3.25, 4.0, 5.0 / Platform 3.4, 4.1, 5.0

Biomet 3i – External Hex / I-Series / Diameter 3.25, 3.75, 4.0, 5.0 / Platform 3.4, 4.1, 5.0

Nobel Biocare - Brånemark System / K-Series / Diameter 3.3, 3.75, 4.0, 5.0 / Platform 3.5, 4.1, 4.1, 5.1

Zimmer Dental Tapered Screw-vent / R-Series / Diameter 3.3, 3.7, 4.1, 4.7, 6.0 / Platform 3.5, 4.5, 5.7

Dentsply Implants - ASTRA TECH OsseoSpeed TX / S-Series / Diameter 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0 / Platform 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0

Dentsply Implants – XiVE S / T- Series / Diameter 3.4. 3.8. 4.5. 5.5 / Platform 3.4. 3.8. 4.5. 5.5

The CARES® Screw Retain Bars and Bridges, referenced in Table 1, are used for the restoration of different dental implants systems with different endosteal diameters, lengths and platforms. The bars and bridges presented in the premarket notification submission (identified as "SRBB" for Screw Retained Bridges and Bars) are designed to interface with different implant connections. They allow for individual customization regarding function and esthetics. They attach directly to dental implants. The devices are intended to be finished into a bridge or overdenture using standard dental laboratory techniques and materials. Screw Retained Bars and Bridges (SRBB) devices facilitate customization to meet the functional and esthetic requirements of the individual patient. They are patient-specific medical devices, i.e. they are designed by a dental professional (clinician or dental technician) and fabricated by Medentika specifically for an individual patient. SRBB devices are designed via Computer Aided Design (CAD). After importing a scan of the patient model, Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) Software includes the ability to generate digital restoration models incorporating the subject devices. The digital restoration model is transferred to the milling center where the restoration is produced using Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAM)-techniques. The devices are made entirely of titanium Grade 5 according to ASTM F136, Standard Specification for Wrought Titanium-6Aluminum-4Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) Alloy for Surgical Implant Applications.

The document provided is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (CARES® Screw - Retained Bars and Bridges) and does not contain information about the acceptance criteria and study proving a device meets them. This type of document is a premarket notification to the FDA to demonstrate substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices, not a report of comprehensive performance testing with specific acceptance criteria and detailed study results.

The document discusses performance testing in a general sense, stating that dynamic fatigue testing was conducted according to FDA guidance and demonstrated equivalence to predicate and reference devices. However, it does not provide specific numerical acceptance criteria or the reported device performance against those criteria.

The following information from your request cannot be provided based on the given document:

• A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
• Sample sizes used for the test set and data provenance
• Number of experts used to establish the ground truth and their qualifications
• Adjudication method
• Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study results
• Standalone (algorithm-only) performance results
• Type of ground truth used
• Sample size for the training set
• How the ground truth for the training set was established

The document mentions that dynamic fatigue testing was performed according to FDA guidance and that "Reverse Engineering Analysis" was conducted for certain implant compatibilities. For the GM-Series, implant connections were shared through a business partnership. The change in design workflow did not require additional testing as design parameters are identical and respected by trained technicians.

In summary, the provided text confirms that performance testing was conducted, but it does not detail the acceptance criteria or specific results, nor does it describe a study in the format typically required for your request.

Ask a specific question about this device

MINICONE are dental implants that are intended for the stabilization of removable dentures.

MINICONE Implants ø2.6 mm are suitable for oral endosteal implantation in the upper and lower jaw of fully or partially edentulous patients. The implants can be placed with immediate function when good primary stability is achieved. Furthermore, they are to be used in combination with the corresponding prosthetic Optiloc® matrix system and individual new or existing Optiloc® compatible overdentures or partial dentures.

For mandibular restorations, at least 4 MINICONE Implants should be placed.

For maxillary restorations, at least 6 MINICONE Implants should be placed.

MINICONE consists of 2 MINICONE tapered implants with an external diameter of 2.6 mm and lengths of 10 and 12 mm, as well as related accessories.

The implants are manufactured utilizing Titanium Grade 5 ELI material (Ti-4Al-6V) and are finished with a roughened surface (sandblasted/acid etched). The implant neck is machined, and the attachment element of the implants is acting as a retention feature for dentures. This retention feature is coated using a Titanium Nitride (TiN) to obtain a more wear resistant surface and has the Optiloc® geometry which is connected to the denture.

MINICONE Implants Ø2.6mm are suitable for oral endosteal implantation in the upper and lower jaw of fully or partially edentulous patients.

The implants can be placed with immediate function when good primary stability is achieved. The MINICONE implants are intended for the stabilization of removable dentures. The removable dentures are connected to the MINICONE implants through the incorporated Optiloc® attachment element.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the MINICONE Implant, a dental device. It does not contain information about a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria related to AI/algorithm performance. The information provided is for a traditional medical device, specifically an endosseous dental implant, and focuses on performance testing for mechanical properties and sterilization.

Therefore, many of the requested categories for AI/algorithm-related studies cannot be answered from the provided text.

Here's a breakdown of the information that can be extracted from the document:

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)

This information is not provided in the document. The document describes the types of engineering and mechanical tests performed (insertion torque, wear, fatigue), but does not specify sample sizes for these tests, nor the "data provenance" in the context of clinical/imaging data as typically asked for AI studies.

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 the document describes performance testing for a physical medical device (dental implant), not an AI algorithm that requires expert ground truth for interpretation of images or other data.

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

This information is not applicable as the document describes performance testing for a physical medical device, not an AI algorithm requiring adjudication of interpretations.

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 as the document describes performance testing for a physical medical device, not an AI algorithm that would be used in conjunction with human readers.

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

This information is not applicable as the document describes performance testing for a physical medical device, not an AI algorithm.

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

This information is not applicable in the context of AI studies. For the engineering tests performed:

• Insertion Torque, Wear, Fatigue: Ground truth is established by measured physical properties against established industry standards (e.g., ISO 14801) and comparison to predicate devices, rather than expert consensus on interpretations of data.
• Biocompatibility: Ground truth is based on the known, previously cleared status of the materials (Titanium Grade 5 ELI and TiN coating).
• Sterilization: Ground truth is established by validated processes against microbiological standards (SAL of 10-6 according to ISO 11137-1 and -2).
• Shelf Life: Ground truth is established by accelerated aging tests projecting real-time performance.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable as the document describes performance testing for a physical medical device, not an AI algorithm that requires a training set.

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

This information is not applicable as the document describes performance testing for a physical medical device, not an AI algorithm that requires a training set with ground truth.

Ask a specific question about this device

Multi-unit abutments are indicated for use with dental implants as a support for multi-unit screw retained bridges and bars in the maxilla or mandible of a partially or fully edentulous patient.
Multi-unit Abutments are used for the restoration of the following dental implant systems:
Medentika series EV-Series, Implant system Dentsply® Implants - ASTRA TECH OsseoSpeed®, Implant diameter 3.6, 4.2, 4.8, Platform diameter 3.6, 4.2, 4.8
Medentika series F-Series, Implant system Nobel Biocare NobelActive - NobelReplace Conical, Implant diameter 3.5, 4.3, 5.0, Platform diameter NP 3.5, RP 4.3/5.0
Medentika series H-Series, Implant system Biomet 3i - Certain, Implant diameter 3.25, 4.0, Platform diameter 3.4, 4.1
Medentika series L-Series, Implant system Straumann - Bone Level, Implant diameter 3.3, 4.1, 4.8, Platform diameter 3.3, 4.1, 4.8
Medentika series N-Series, Implant system Straumann - Soft Tissue Level, Implant diameter 4.1, 4.8, Platform diameter 4.8, 6.5
Medentika series R-Series, Implant system Zimmer Dental Tapered Screw-vent, Implant diameter 3.3, 3.7, 4.1, 4.7, Platform diameter 3.5, 4.5

The proposed Multi-unit Abutments are dental abutments, which are intended to be screwed onto osseointegrated dental implants to provide support for prosthetic suprastructures on the gingival level. Multi-unit abutments can be used in combination with screw-retained multi-unit dental prosthetics, e.g. bridges and bars, which are used to reconstruct the function and aesthetics of lost teeth. Multi-unit abutments are very similar to the already FDA-cleared Straumann Screw-Retained Abutment System. Multi-unit abutments are available as straight abutments, which have an integrated thread and can be screwed directly into the implant, or as angled abutments, which can be screwed onto the implant with the corresponding abutment screw. All models of Multi-unit abutments have a universal interface for a variety of prefabricated prosthetic parts, e.g. Multi-unit caps, which become part of the superstructure and ensure a low-tension screw connection of the multi-unit prosthetics.
The Multi-Unit caps or base are used in conjunction with the Multi-Unit Abutment. The Multi-Unit Abutment is considered the bottom half of a two-piece abutment and the Multi-Unit Caps or Multi-Unit Titanium base are considered the top half of the two-piece abutment.
Multi-unit Abutments exist in two model types: straight multi-unit abutments without rotational indexing with various gingival heights and platform diameters and angled multi-unit abutments with rotary indexing with various ginqival heights and platform diameters.

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for "Multi-unit Abutments." This document establishes substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on technological characteristics and performance testing. However, it does not describe a study that proves the device meets specific acceptance criteria related to AI/algorithm performance in a diagnostic or interpretive context.

The "acceptance criteria" and "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" outlined in the request (e.g., MRMC study, ground truth, expert consensus, sample size, effect size) are typically attributes of studies supporting AI/ML-driven medical devices that output a diagnostic or interpretive result. The device described in this 510(k) is a physical dental implant component, not a software or AI device.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information regarding AI/algorithm performance. The provided text outlines:

• Device Description: Multi-unit abutments are dental components screwed onto implants to support prosthetic suprastructures (e.g., bridges, bars).
• Performance Testing: This refers to mechanical and biological testing (e.g., dynamic fatigue, static strength, biocompatibility, sterilization) to ensure the physical device's safety and effectiveness, not the performance of an AI algorithm.
• Substantial Equivalence: The primary goal of this 510(k) is to demonstrate that the new device is as safe and effective as previously cleared predicate devices through comparisons of indications for use, design, materials, and mechanical properties.

Specifically, here's why the requested information cannot be provided from the text:

1. Acceptance Criteria/Reported Device Performance (Table): The document provides a table of "Technological Characteristics" comparing the subject device to predicates, but these are design and material specifications, not performance metrics for an AI algorithm (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC).
2. Sample Size and Data Provenance: Not applicable for an AI test set. The document discusses "test sets" in the context of mechanical fatigue and static strength tests (e.g., testing multiple abutment units), but not a dataset of images or patient cases for AI evaluation.
3. Number of Experts/Ground Truth Establishment/Qualifications: Not applicable. There's no AI component requiring expert review for ground truth.
4. Adjudication Method: Not applicable.
5. MRMC Comparative Effectiveness Study: Not applicable. This device is a physical component, not an AI assisting human readers.
6. Standalone Performance: Not applicable. There is no AI algorithm to evaluate in standalone mode.
7. Type of Ground Truth Used: Not applicable. Ground truth for an AI would involve labeled data (e.g., disease presence/absence from pathology), which is irrelevant for a dental abutment.
8. Sample Size for Training Set: Not applicable.
9. Ground Truth for Training Set: Not applicable.

In summary, the provided document is a regulatory submission for a physical medical device (dental abutments), which successfully demonstrates substantial equivalence based on engineering and biocompatibility standards. It does not involve any artificial intelligence or machine learning component, and thus the acceptance criteria and study details relevant to AI performance are absent.

Ask a specific question about this device

Medentika abutments are intended for use with dental implants as a support for single or multiple tooth prostheses in the maxilla or mandible of a partially or fully edentulous patient.

Medentika Preface CAD/CAM Abutments are intended for use with dental implants as a support for single or multiple tooth prostheses in the maxilla or mandible of a partially or fully edentulous patient.

Medentika TiBase CAD/CAM Abutments are intended for use with dental implants as a support for single or multiple tooth prostheses in the maxilla or mandible of a partially or fully edentulous patient.

The subject devices comprise the metallic endosseous dental implant abutments and metallic prosthetic superstructures cleared to market in the United States as of December 15, 2017 under K170838, K150203, and K142167 by Medentika GmbH as part of the Medentika Multi-Platform System.

Medentika Multi-Platform System is an abutment system including eleven abutment designs compatible with twelve currently marketed implant systems. The abutment designs include abutments for single-tooth and multiple-tooth restoration for supporting cement-retained, screw-retained or overdenture prostheses. Platform diameters range from 3.3 mm to 7.0 mm. Corresponding implant diameters range from 3.25 mm to 7.0 mm. Angled abutment designs for connections with anti-rotational features are available in two orientations, Type 1 and Type 2. Type 1 is for abutments with the cone angle oriented toward the flat of the anti-rotational feature and Type 2 is for abutments with the cone angle oriented toward the corner or lobe of the anti-rotational feature. The maximum angle for any abutment within the eleven systems is 21°.

The TiBases are titanium bases to be used as the lower part of two-piece abutments. The upper part of the two-piece abutment is a CAD/CAM designed and manufactured restoration. The TiBases are provided in several models and dimensions, according to the compatible implant systems declared in the Indications for Use statement.

The assessment of these devices in the MR environment has not resulted in any changes to the devices themselves. The proposed labeling change provides the parameters under which a patient having a restoration constructed using the devices of the Medentika Multi-Platform System can safely undergo an MRI scan.

The stock endossoues dental implant abutments are fabricated from titanium-aluminumvanadium (TAV) alloy and noble metal alloys. The CADCAM abutments are fabricated from commercially pure titanium. The materials for the TiBase copings and/or crowns include zerion and IPS e.max CAD.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

The provided text describes non-clinical testing performed on the device itself to establish its MR compatibility. It does not refer to a "test set" in the context of clinical data (e.g., patient images). Therefore, clinical sample size and data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) are not applicable here. The testing involved various configurations of the metallic implantable devices of the Medentika Multi-Platform System (worst-case constructs).

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications of Experts

This information is not applicable. The study is a non-clinical, laboratory-based assessment of device physical properties in an MR environment, not a study involving human interpretation of medical images. The "ground truth" here is derived from standardized testing methods as outlined by ASTM and FDA guidance.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable for the same reasons as point 3.

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

No. This study examines the device's physical compatibility with MRI, not human reader performance with or without AI assistance.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Study

No. This study is a non-clinical evaluation of the device's physical properties, not an algorithm's performance.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for this study is based on physical measurements and standardized tests according to established guidelines and standards:

• FDA Guidance entitled "Establishing Safety and Compatibility of Passive Implants in the Magnetic Resonance (MR) Environment" (August 2014)
• FDA Guidance document entitled "Assessment of Radiofrequency-Induced Heating in the Magnetic Resonance (MR) Environment for Multi-Configuration Passive Medical Devices" (June 29, 2015)
• ASTM F2052-15: Standard Test Method for Measurement of Magnetically Induced Displacement Force on Passive Implants in the Magnetic Resonance Environment
• Shellock, et al. procedure for torsional force (accepted as an alternative to ASTM F2213-06 (2011))
• ASTM F2182-11a: Standard Test Method for Measurement of Radio Frequency Induced Heating Near Passive Implants During Magnetic Resonance Imaging
• ASTM F2119-13: Standard Test Method for Evaluation of MR Image Artifacts from Passive Implants

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable as this is a non-clinical device safety study, not a machine learning model development or validation study.

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

This information is not applicable for the same reasons as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

Medentika TiBase CAD/CAM Abutments are intended for use with dental implants as a support for single or multiple tooth prostheses in the maxilla or mandible of a partially or fully edentulous patient.

The Medentika TiBases are titanium bases to be used as the lower part of two-piece abutments. The upper part of the two-piece abutment is a CAD/CAM designed and manufactured restoration. The TiBases are provided in several models and dimensions, according to the compatible implant systems declared in the Indications for Use statement.

The design of the CAD/CAM restorations is to be carried out through the Straumann CARES Visual Plug-In for Dental Wings CAD System. The patient-specific restorations must be milled by a Straumann milling center.

This document is a 510(k) submission for the Medentika CAD/CAM TiBases, which are dental implant abutments. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices, rather than a de novo approval requiring extensive clinical studies with acceptance criteria for device performance in terms of diagnostic accuracy or clinical outcomes for AI/ML devices. Therefore, much of the requested information regarding AI/ML specific studies (MRMC, standalone performance, ground truth establishment for training/test sets, expert qualifications, adjudication methods) is not applicable to this type of device submission.

Here's a breakdown of the available information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

For this device (dental implant abutments), the "acceptance criteria" are related to mechanical performance and biocompatibility, demonstrating that the new devices are as safe and effective as the predicate devices. The performance data presented are primarily comparative to predicate devices rather than against specific numerical thresholds in a table.

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

This document does not describe a "test set" in the context of an AI/ML device evaluating data. For mechanical testing, specific sample sizes are not provided in this summary, but would typically be defined by the relevant ISO standards (e.g., ISO 14801). The "data provenance" would be from laboratory testing performed on the physical devices.

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

Not applicable for this type of device submission. Dental implant abutments do not use expert-established ground truth in the same way an AI diagnostic algorithm would.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done

No, this is not an AI/ML device, so an MRMC study is not relevant.

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

Not applicable, as this is a physical medical device (dental implant abutment), not an algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

For biocompatibility and sterilization, the "ground truth" is established by adherence to international standards (ISO 10993-1, ISO 17665-1/2) and successful completion of the tests defined within those standards. For mechanical testing, the "ground truth" is the established performance of the predicate device under specified fatigue test conditions as per ISO 14801.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable, as this is not an AI/ML device.

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

Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

Medentika TiBase CAD/CAM Abutments are intended for use with dental implants as a support for single or multiple tooth prostheses in the maxilla or mandible of a partially or fully edentulous patient.

Medentika PreFace CAD/CAM Abutments are intended for use with dental implants as a support for single or multiple tooth prostheses in the maxilla or mandible of a partially or fully edentulous patient.

The subject device includes two CAD/CAM abutment designs, the Medentika TiBase and the Medentika PreFace. The TiBase is a two-piece abutment used as a base when fabricating a zirconia superstructure and the PreFace is an abutment used in fabricating a full patient-specific abutment in titanium alloy. Both abutment designs are provided non-sterile and are intended to be sterilized by the clinician. Medentika Preface Abutment is available in diameters 3.0 mm to 7.0 mm. Medentika TiBase Abutment is available in diameters 3.25 mm to 7.0 mm. The specific diameters for each Series coordinate with the compatible implant systems and sizes listed below.

TiBase is available in two post designs. TiBase Generation 1 has a conically shaped post that is 4.0 mm high and TiBase Generation 2 has a parallel walled post shape that is 5.5 mm high. PreFace is available in one cylinder height of 20 mm. The maximum angle for abutments fabricated using TiBase or PreFace is 30°, the maximum gingival height is 6 mm and the minimum post height is 4 mm.

Medentika CAD/CAM Abutments are compatible with eleven dental implant systems. Each Medentika abutment series has a precision implant/abutment interface corresponding to the implant system predicate for that series.

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for Medentika CAD/CAM Abutments, asserting substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices. It does not describe a study involving an AI/ML powered device, nor does it detail acceptance criteria related to such a device's performance. Instead, it focuses on non-clinical testing to demonstrate safety and effectiveness for a dental abutment. Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study design for AI/ML performance, ground truth establishment, or human-in-the-loop studies from this document.

The "Performance Data" section (Page 6/7) explicitly states the types of non-clinical testing conducted:

• Engineering analysis and dimensional analysis: To determine compatibility with original manufacturers' components.
• Static and dynamic compression-bending testing: According to ISO 14801 (Dentistry – Implants – Dynamic fatigue test for endosseous dental implants).
• Sterilization testing: According to ISO 17665-1 and ISO 17665-2 to demonstrate an SAL of 10^-6.
• Biocompatibility testing: For cytotoxicity according to ISO 10993-5.

The acceptance criteria would be the successful completion of these tests in accordance with the specified ISO standards and demonstrating compatibility and performance comparable to the predicate devices. However, the document does not list the quantitative acceptance criteria or the specific numerical results obtained for each test (e.g., specific fatigue life, or precise dimensional tolerances met).

In summary, the document does not contain the information required to answer the prompt as it pertains to AI/ML device performance. The device is a physical medical device (dental abutments), and the review is for substantial equivalence based on physical and mechanical properties, not an AI/ML algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

Medentika abutments are intended for use with dental implants as a support for single or multiple tooth prostheses in the maxilla or mandible of a partially or fully edentulous patient.

Medentika Abutment System is an abutment system including ten abutment designs compatible with eleven currently marketed implant systems. The abutment designs include abutments for single-tooth and multiple-tooth restoration for supporting cement-retained, screw-retained or overdenture prostheses. Platform diameters range from 3.3 mm to 7.0 mm. Corresponding implant diameters range from 3.25 mm to 7.0 mm. Angled abutment designs for connections with anti-rotational features are available in two orientations, Type 1 and Type 2. Type 1 is for abutments with the cone angle oriented toward the flat of the anti-rotational feature and Type 2 is for abutments with the cone angle oriented toward the corner or lobe of the anti-rotational feature. The maximum angle for any abutment within the eleven systems is 21 °

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Medentika Abutment System, a medical device. This document is a premarket notification to the FDA to demonstrate that the device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device.

The context of this type of document is a regulatory submission, not a study evaluating AI performance or a diagnostic device. Therefore, the questions related to AI, ground truth establishment, expert consensus, sample sizes for AI training/testing, adjudication methods, and MRMC studies are not applicable to the information contained in this document. The document describes a "substantial equivalence" claim for a physical medical device (dental abutments), meaning it demonstrates the device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed device.

Here's the information that can be extracted or inferred based on the provided text, with responses to your questions where applicable and an explanation when not applicable:

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

The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in the traditional sense of a performance study with defined thresholds. Instead, it refers to regulatory compliance and equivalence to predicate devices. The "reported device performance" is demonstrated through various non-clinical tests designed to show the physical and mechanical properties are comparable to existing, legally marketed devices.

2. Sample sized 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 "non-clinical testing data" for sterilization, biocompatibility, engineering, dimensional, and static/dynamic compression-bending tests. These types of tests typically involve a sample of units for each test, but the specific number of units is not detailed in this summary. The data provenance is also not specified, though the manufacturer (Medentika GmbH) is based in Germany. The tests are prospective in nature, as they involve testing the actual device components.

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 question is not applicable. This document describes a medical device approval based on physical properties and comparison to predicate devices, not an AI or diagnostic study requiring expert ground truth for a test set.

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

This question is not applicable. There is no "test set" in the context of expert review or diagnostic assessment for this type of device approval.

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 question is not applicable. This is a physical medical device (dental abutment), not an AI-assisted diagnostic or imaging system.

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

This question is not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

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

This question is not applicable in the context of expert-determined ground truth for a diagnostic task. For this device, the "ground truth" equivalent would be established by:

• Established ISO standards: For sterilization (ISO 17665-1, ISO 17665-2), biocompatibility (ISO 10993-5), and mechanical fatigue (ISO 14801). Compliance with these standards is considered the "truth" for safety and performance in their respective domains.
• Performance of predicate devices: The "truth" is that the predicate devices are legally marketed and considered safe and effective. The subject device demonstrates comparable performance to these established devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

This question is not applicable. This document describes the approval of a physical medical device, not an AI algorithm requiring a training set.

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

This question is not applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of AI for this device approval.

Ask a specific question about this device