Search Results

ND air powered low speed airmotor is used to power various U-type attachment which helps dental clinician perform the hygiene dentistry work. All the devices are autoclavable.
ND air powered low speed airmotor is used to power various attachment which helps dental clinician perform various dental procedures. All the devices are autoclavable.
ND highspeed airturbine handpiece is an air-powered dental handpiece for removing carious material and excess filling material, cavity and crown preparation, root canal preparations, finishing tooth preparations, restoration and polishing teeth. All the devices are autoclavable.
ND straight nosecone is powered by either lowspeed airmotor or electric micromotor for removing carious material and excess filling material, cavity and crown preparation, root canal preparations, finishing tooth preparations, restorations and polishing teeth. ES-30A is E-type 1:1 ratio, ESG-30AR is E-type 4:1 ratio, and MWS-30A is Midwest-type 1:1 ratio. All the devices are autoclavable. They accept 2.35mm (3/32") standard burs and can have prophy angles mounted.
ND e-type contra angle is powered by either lowspeed airmotor or electric micromotor for removing carious material and excess filling material, cavity and crown preparation, root canal preparations, finishing tooth preparations, restorations and polishing teeth. EC-20L and EC-30BL are 1:1 ratio, EG-20L is 4:1 ratio, and EGG-20L is 16:1 ratio. All of the devices are autoclavable.
ND u-type prophylaxis angle is used mounted on U-type nose attachment powered by either lowspeed airmotor or electric micromotor for hygiene dentistry work. All the devices are fully autoclavable.

ND air powered low speed airmotor is used to power various U-type attachment which helps dental clinician perform the hygiene dentistry work. All the devices are autoclavable.
ND air powered low speed airmotor is used to power various attachment which helps dental clinician perform various dental procedures.
ND highspeed airturbine handpiece is an air-powered dental handpiece for removing carious material and excess filling material, cavity and crown preparation, root canal preparations, finishing tooth preparations, restoration and polishing teeth. All the devices are autoclavable.
ND straight nosecone is powered by either lowspeed airmotor or electric micromotor for removing carious material and excess filling material, cavity and crown preparation, root canal preparations, finishing tooth preparations, restorations and polishing teeth. ES-30A is E-type 1:1 ratio, ESG-30AR is E-type 4:1 ratio, and MWS-30A is Midwest-type 1:1 ratio. All the devices are autoclavable. All the devices accepts 2.35mm (3/32") standard burs and can have prophy angles mounted.
ND e-type contra angle is powered by either lowspeed airmotor or electric micromotor for removing carious material and excess filling material, cavity and crown preparation, root canal preparations, finishing tooth preparations and polishing teeth. EC-20L and EC-30BL are 1:1 ratio, EG-20L is 4:1 ratio, and EGG-20L is 16:1 ratio. All of the devices are autoclavable.
ND u-type prophylaxis angle is used mounted on U-type nose attachment powered by either lowspeed airmotor or electric micromotor for hygiene dentistry work. All the devices are fully autoclavable.

The request asks for specific information regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving a device meets these criteria. However, the provided text consists of several 510(k) summaries for various dental handpieces and attachments. These summaries primarily focus on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to predicate devices rather than presenting detailed acceptance criteria and performance study results.

The concept of "substantial equivalence" in a 510(k) submission means that the new device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device. The evidence for this is typically based on comparing the new device's technological characteristics, materials, operating principles, and performance specifications to those of the predicate device. It usually does not involve presenting a specific clinical or performance study with acceptance criteria in the manner requested for an AI/clinical device study.

Therefore, most of the requested information cannot be extracted from the provided text because:

• Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Table): The summaries state that the "performance specification is virtually identical" to the predicate devices. There are no specific quantitative acceptance criteria or detailed performance metrics reported for the subject devices.
• Sample size for the test set and data provenance: No new performance studies with test sets are described. The equivalence is based on comparison to existing predicate devices.
• Number of experts and their qualifications: Not applicable as no ground truth establishment for a test set is reported.
• Adjudication method: Not applicable.
• Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study: Not applicable, as this is a comparison of physical device characteristics, not an AI efficacy study.
• Standalone (algorithm only) performance: Not applicable, as these are physical medical devices, not algorithms.
• Type of ground truth used: Not applicable.
• Sample size for the training set: Not applicable.
• How ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

The core argument for acceptance in these documents is based on the similarity of the device's design, materials, and intended use to a previously approved (predicate) device, asserting that this similarity demonstrates equivalent safety and effectiveness.

Here’s a summary of what can be extracted or inferred regarding "acceptance" in the context of these 510(k) submissions:

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The acceptance criteria are implicitly met by demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to the predicate devices. The "reported device performance" is essentially that the device functions identically to the predicate device in its intended use.

2. Study Description and Evidence of Meeting Acceptance Criteria:

The "study" that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria is the 510(k) substantial equivalence comparison against predicate devices. This is not a clinical trial or performance study in the traditional sense, but rather a regulatory submission based on comparative analysis.

• Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: There is no specific "test set" or explicit data provenance mentioned beyond the comparison to the existing predicate devices already on the market. These are retrospective comparisons to existing approved devices.
• Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. The "ground truth" for the predicate devices' safety and effectiveness was established through their prior market clearance.
• Adjudication method: Not applicable.
• If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done: No.
• If a standalone performance was done: No standalone algorithm performance was done as this is a physical device submission.
• The type of ground truth used: The ground truth for the predicate devices is their previous regulatory clearance based on their demonstrated safety and effectiveness in the market. For the subject devices, the "truth" is the argument of their equivalence to these predicate devices.
• The sample size for the training set: Not applicable.
• How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

In conclusion, the provided documents are 510(k) summaries, which aim to demonstrate substantial equivalence to previously approved devices. They do not contain the type of detailed performance study data, acceptance criteria, test set information, or expert adjudication typically found for AI or clinical performance studies. The "proof" lies in the direct comparison of features and intended use to existing, legally marketed devices.

Ask a specific question about this device