Search Results

Measurement of the length of the root canal for the purpose of performing root canals and related dental procedures, for use by a trained professional in general dentistry.

The subject device is a lightweight, fully-automatic, batteryoperated device that allows a dentist or oral surgeon to locate a patient's anatomical root canal apex and obtain accurate root canal length measurements. The device allows the relative position of a dental file and the apex to be determined electrically. Using a standard dental file inserted into the root canal as an electrode, the device emits very small electrical currents having frequencies of 500 Hz and 2000 Hz. The current between the file and mouth is measured at each of these frequencies, and compared, with a readout of the relative proximity to the apex appearing on a stabilized meter. The use of two frequencies minimizes errors introduced by blood or other conducting medicinal fluids in the root canal.

The subject device consists of a main body, incorporating the panel meter, a probe cord and reel, a canal instrument holder, a mouth angle clip, a saliva ejector clip, and batteries. The device operates on four AAA 1.5 v. batteries.

Here is an analysis of the provided text, focusing on acceptance criteria and the study details:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided text does not explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria for the "JUSTWO" Model TME-601 Root Apex Locator. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device and proving its accuracy. However, we can infer the unstated acceptance criterion related to accuracy based on the study's findings.

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

• Test Set Sample Size: The document mentions "sample extracted teeth" but does not specify the exact number of teeth or measurements used in the in vitro testing model.
• Data Provenance:
  • Country of Origin: Not explicitly stated, but the company is Japanese (Toei Electric Co., Ltd., Japan). The study itself is an in vitro test.
  • Retrospective or Prospective: The study was a prospective in vitro testing model.

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

The document does not specify the number of experts or their qualifications. The ground truth was established through physical measurements, radiographic measurements, and Ingle's calculated length. While these methods imply the involvement of skilled individuals (e.g., those performing physical measurements or reading radiographs), the text does not detail their expertise.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe an adjudication method involving experts making decisions. The comparison was made against established measurement methods (physical, radiographic, Ingle's).

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

• Was an MRMC study done? No, the document does not describe an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers. The study was an in vitro assessment of the device's accuracy.
• Effect size of human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance: Not applicable, as no MRMC study involving human readers or AI assistance was conducted.

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

Yes, a standalone study was done. The in vitro testing model assessed the device's accuracy directly by comparing its measurements to physical, radiographic, and Ingle's calculated lengths. This evaluates the algorithm's (or device's electrical measurement system's) performance without direct human intervention in the measurement process beyond initiating the device and recording results.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used was a combination of:

• Physical measurements: Directly measuring the length of the extracted teeth.
• Radiographic measurements: Measurements obtained from radiographs.
• Ingle's calculated length: A standardized method for calculating working length in endodontics.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not mention a discrete training set. The device's design and underlying electrical principles are based on established knowledge of impedance/current changes in the root canal. The "accuracy" study described serves as a validation or test set, not a training set for the device itself.

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

Not applicable, as a separate training set for a "machine learning" type algorithm is not described. The device operates based on fixed electrical principles using two frequencies (500 Hz and 2000 Hz) and comparing currents, rather than being "trained" on a dataset in the modern AI sense.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Toesco Aqua Blue LED Light Curing Device is intended to provide visible light irradiation for the curing of dental VLC resin products.

The Toesco Aqua Blue Led Light Curing Device is a gun-handle shaped dental curing light that is intended to polymerize dental materials such as resins and sealants by transmitting light through a light guiding tip. The source of blue light is a light-emitting diode. The device has two optional curing modes: two full power modes and a 2-step curing mode. It incorporates three pre-set programs and seven user programs. The power source is a 7.4 V Lithium Ion Battery. Wavelength is 450 nm - 480 nm, with wavelength peaking at 470nm.

The provided text describes the Toesco Aqua Blue LED Light Curing Device, its intended use, and its comparison to a predicate device for 510(k) clearance. However, it does not contain information about specific acceptance criteria, a study proving device performance against those criteria, or details regarding ground truth establishment, sample sizes, or expert adjudication.

The document is a 510(k) summary, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than providing detailed clinical study results against acceptance criteria.

Here's a breakdown based on the missing information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Not available in the provided text. The document states "non-clinical testing (bench testing) demonstrates that any differences in their technological characteristics do not raise any new questions of safety or effectiveness," and lists several standards (IEC 60601-1-1, IEC 60601-1-2, Battery and Charger Testing, Environmental Testing, Reliability Testing) that were performed. However, it does not provide specific acceptance criteria values or the measured performance results for the Toesco Aqua Blue LED Light Curing Device against these criteria.

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

Not applicable/Not available. The document explicitly states "Discussion of Clinical Tests Performed: Not Applicable." This indicates that no clinical studies with a test set were conducted or required for this 510(k) submission. The non-clinical tests would have used specific test samples, but the number and nature of these test samples are not detailed.

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

Not applicable/Not available. As no clinical tests were performed, there was no test set requiring expert ground truth establishment.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable/Not available. As no clinical tests were performed, there was no test set requiring adjudication.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

No. The document explicitly states "Discussion of Clinical Tests Performed: Not Applicable."

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

Not applicable. This device is a hardware product (a dental curing light), not an algorithm or AI software. Therefore, the concept of "standalone algorithm performance" is not relevant.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

Not applicable/Not available. As no clinical tests were performed, there was no ground truth to establish in the context of device performance in a clinical setting. The "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests would be the established engineering standards and specifications for electrical safety, battery performance, environmental robustness, and reliability.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This device does not involve AI or machine learning, so there is no "training set."

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

Not applicable. This device does not involve AI or machine learning, so there is no "training set" or ground truth for it.

In summary, the provided document is a 510(k) submission for a non-AI dental device. The core of this submission relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence through non-clinical (bench) testing against a predicate device, rather than through clinical studies with defined acceptance criteria, ground truth, or expert evaluations.

Ask a specific question about this device

Measurement of the length of the root canal for the purpose of performing root canals and related dental procedures.

The subject device is a lightweight, fully-automatic, battery-operated device that allows a dentist or oral surgeon to locate a patient's anatomical root canal apex and obtain accurate root canal length measurements. The device allows the relative position of a dental file and the apex to be determined electrically. Using a standard dental file inserted into the root canal as an electrode, the device emits very small electrical currents having frequencies of 500 Hz and 2000 Hz. The impedance between the file and mouth is measured at each of these frequencies, and compared, with a readout of the relative proximity to the apex appearing on a stabilized meter. The use of two frequencies minimizes errors introduced by blood or other conducting medicinal fluids in the root canal.

The subject device consists of a main body, incorporating the panel meter, a probe cord and reel, a canal instrument holder, a mouth angle clip, a saliva ejector clip, and batteries. The device operates on four AAA 1.5 v. batteries.

Here's an analysis of the provided text, focusing on acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state formal "acceptance criteria" with numerical thresholds. Instead, the performance evaluation aims to demonstrate "no significant difference" between the subject device and the predicate device, and "no significant statistical differences" between the subject device and Ingle's method.

Given this, the table below reflects what can be inferred as the implicit performance target based on the study's conclusions.

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

• Sample Size: The document states that "sample extracted teeth having both straight and curved canals" were used, but it does not specify the exact number of teeth used in the test set.
• Data Provenance: The study was an "in vitro testing model," meaning it was conducted in a laboratory setting using extracted teeth, not on live human subjects. The country of origin of the data is implicitly Japan, as the submitter, Toei Electric Co., Ltd., is based in Japan. The study is described as a "Non-Clinical Data" study.

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

The document does not specify the number of experts used or their qualifications for establishing ground truth. The ground truth was established through "measurements obtained physically, radiographically, and using an Ingle's calculated length." This suggests a combination of objective physical measurements and a recognized clinical method (Ingle's).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe an adjudication method involving multiple readers/experts for the test set. The ground truth was established through specific measurement techniques (physical, radiographic, Ingle's method).

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 was not a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study. The device is an electronic root canal length measurement device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that would typically involve human readers interpreting images. Therefore, the concept of human reader improvement with/without AI assistance does not apply here.

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

Yes, this was effectively a standalone performance study of the device. The "accuracy of the subject device was confirmed using an in vitro testing model" by comparing its output directly against established ground truth methods. It measures an objective physical characteristic (length) and does not involve human interpretation as part of its primary function during this test.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used was a combination of:

• Physical measurements: Direct measurements on the extracted teeth.
• Radiographic measurements: Measurements derived from X-ray images.
• Ingle's calculated length: A well-known clinical method for determining root canal length.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not mention a training set. This type of device, an electronic measurement tool, typically does not involve machine learning or AI models that require a separate training set. Its functionality is based on established electrical impedance principles.

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

As no training set is mentioned or implied for this device, information on how its ground truth was established is not applicable/provided.

Ask a specific question about this device