Search Results

Endo Motor with E-LITE MAX, E-LITE PRO and ELITE-INO is cordless endodontic treatment motorized handpiece with root canal measurement capability. It can be used for preparation and enlargement of root canals, or measuring the canal length. And it can be used to enlarge the canals while monitoring the position of the file tip inside the canal.

E-LITE MAX & ELITE-INO:

The Endo Motor with E-LITE MAX and ELITE-INO is a low-speed rotating oral equipment mainly used for root canal preparation and root canal measurement. It is designed to enlarge the root canal, facilitate dentin filling, or measuring the root canal length. The product is a portable device consist of a cordless hand-piece and a charge base, it is powered by built-in lithium batteries and charged by the adapter. LCD displays parameters such as speed, torque, file system, Apex etc. Users can also set and modify by keys, and provide design of factory initialization, and calibration of the apex location. It can be used as a low-speed motorized handpiece and device for measuring canal length. The rotary speed and torque range are adjustable.

There are three function features for E-LIT MAX and ELITE-INO:

• Root Canal enlargement: Prepare the root canal with apex locator function.
• Apex Location: Measure the length of the root canal.
• Multi-function: Measuring the length while root canal preparation.

The device can save 9 programs, each program can set different parameters according to the user.

E-LITE PRO:

The Endo Motor with E-LITE PRO is a low-speed rotating oral equipment mainly used for root canal preparation. It is designed to enlarge the root canal or facilitate dentin filling. The product is a portable device having a cordless hand-piece with a charging adapter, it is powered by built-in lithium batteries and charged by the adapter. LCD displays parameters such as speed, torque, file system, Apex etc. Users can also set and modify by keys, and provide design of factory initialization, and calibration of the apex location. It can be used as a low-speed motorized handpiece and device for measuring canal length. The rotary speed and torque range are adjustable.

There is only one function features for E-LITE PRO:

• Root Canal enlargement: Prepare the root canal, without apex locator function.

The device can save 9 programs, each program can set different parameters according to the user.

The Endo Motor must only be used in hospital environments, clinics or dental offices by qualified dental personnel.

The Endo Motor is intended to be sterilized prior to use.

The compatible device can be used with Endo Motor is rotary instruments such as rotary root canal files, the working part of rotary instruments normally made of Nickel titanium (NiTi). These files are not included in the submission.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for the "Endo Motor" (K242514) indicate that this is a dental handpiece and accessories, specifically an endodontic motor with root canal measurement capabilities. This type of device is not an AI/ML-enabled medical device and therefore the provided document does not contain the information typically found in an FDA submission for AI/ML devices regarding acceptance criteria, training data, ground truth establishment, or clinical study design (e.g., MRMC studies).

The document states: "No clinical test data was used to support the decision of substantial equivalence." This further confirms that a study validating an AI/ML component was not part of this clearance.

The "acceptance criteria" and "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in this context refer to the performance of a traditional medical device (an endomotor) against established electrical safety, EMC, usability, and functional standards, as opposed to the performance of an AI/ML algorithm.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information related to AI/ML device validation because it is not present in the provided document. The document describes compliance with recognized standards for traditional medical devices (e.g., IEC 60601-1 for electrical safety, ISO 10993-1 for biocompatibility).

However, I can extract the general "acceptance criteria" and "device performance" as understood for this type of non-AI device from the provided tables, focusing on the comparative aspects:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (Based on traditional device comparison):

The acceptance criteria for the Endo Motor (E-LITE MAX, E-LITE PRO, ELITE-INO) are primarily established through a direct comparison to a predicate device (Guilin Woodpecker Medical Instrument Co., Ltd.'s Endo Motor, K203320) and compliance with relevant international standards for medical devices. The objective is to demonstrate that the proposed device is "substantially equivalent" in terms of safety and effectiveness.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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 model's performance on a dataset of patient cases. Instead, "tests" refer to engineering and biocompatibility validations of the physical device. Therefore, typical sample size metrics for AI/ML validation are not applicable here. The data provenance is implied by the testing standards (e.g., in-house testing by the manufacturer based on international standards). The nature of this submission indicates a retrospective comparison to an already cleared predicate device, rather than a prospective clinical trial.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device and does not involve human expert adjudication of medical image data for ground truth establishment.

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

No. The document explicitly states: "No clinical test data was used to support the decision of substantial equivalence." This type of study is specifically relevant to AI/ML devices where the goal is to show the impact of the AI on human reviewer performance.

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

Not applicable. This is a physical endodontic handpiece, not a software algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used

For this conventional medical device, "ground truth" refers to the established performance requirements defined by recognized standards (e.g., IEC, ISO) and the functional specifications of the predicate device. Compliance is demonstrated through laboratory testing of the physical device, rather than through expert consensus on medical data or pathology results.

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, as this is not an AI/ML device.

Ask a specific question about this device

Apex Locator is used to detect the apex of root canal. This device must only be used in hospital environments, clinics or dental offices by qualified dental personnel.

Apex Locator is an oral equipment used for root canal measurements. It features an LCD color display with functional buttons, enabling users to conveniently view parameters such as battery status, test wire connection status, and apex position etc. Users can easily adjust sound level, brightness, and reference settings using intuitive buttons, and perform functional checks of both the device and cable. The device is intended to be sterilized prior to use.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a medical device called "Apex Locator". It details a comparison to a predicate device and states that non-clinical tests were performed. However, it explicitly states that no clinical test data was used to support the decision of substantial equivalence. This means that a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria, as typically understood in the context of clinical trials or performance evaluations with human subjects/data, was not conducted or reported in this submission. The "acceptance criteria" and "device performance" mentioned here refer to specifications confirmed through non-clinical testing and comparison to the predicate.

Given this, I cannot provide information on:

• The study that "proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in a clinical sense.
• Sample size used for the test set and data provenance (as no clinical test data was used).
• Number of experts used to establish ground truth or their qualifications.
• Adjudication method.
• Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study.
• Standalone (algorithm only) performance.
• Type of ground truth (as no clinical data).
• Sample size for the training set (as no clinical data).
• How ground truth for the training set was established (as no clinical data).

I can, however, provide the acceptance criteria based on the non-clinical tests and the device performance as reported in the comparison table and discussion of differences.

Non-Clinical Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document describes acceptance criteria and reported "performance" based on non-clinical tests and comparison to a predicate device. The primary method for demonstrating performance and safety was through compliance with recognized standards and verification that design differences do not affect safety and effectiveness.

Key takeaway: This submission focuses on engineering, safety, and functional conformance rather than clinical performance data.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

Explanation of "Study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria":

The "study" referenced in the document is a series of non-clinical tests and a detailed comparison to a legally marketed predicate device. The conclusion of substantial equivalence is based on demonstrating that the proposed device:

1. Complies with relevant recognized safety and performance standards: These include IEC 60601-1 (electrical safety), IEC 60601-1-2 (EMC), IEC 62366-1 (usability), IEC 62304 (software), ISO 10993-1 and ISO 10993-11 (biocompatibility), and IEC 62133-2 (battery safety).
2. Performs the same intended function as the predicate device.
3. Has fundamental technological characteristics that are substantially equivalent to the predicate device.
4. Any differences in technological characteristics (e.g., dimensions, weight, battery capacity, means of input) do not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness. For each noted difference, the submitter provided a justification that it "would not affect its safety and effectiveness" or "could not effects the performance and safety."
5. Achieves the same specified performance metric as the predicate device where applicable (e.g., Measurement Accuracy: ±0.5mm).

The document explicitly states: "No clinical test data was used to support the decision of substantial equivalence." Therefore, there is no clinical study that "proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in terms of patient outcomes or comparative clinical performance. The acceptance is based on engineering principles, compliance with standards, and a robust non-clinical comparison to a predicate device.

Ask a specific question about this device