Search Results

URIS Long Implant & Abutments are indicated for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae, in support of single or multiple-unit restorations including; cemented retained, screw retained, or overdenture restorations, and final or temporary abutment support for fixed bridgework. It is intended for delayed loading.

URIS Long Implants are dental implants made of Unalloyed Titanium, grade 4 (ASTM F67) intended for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae, in support of single or multiple-unit restorations. The surface is SLA (Sandblasted, Large grit and Acid etched) treated and is provided sterile.

URIS OMNI Long Implants consist of two implant lines, the OMNI Straight and the OMNI Tapered. The OMNI Straight implant features straight walls, with smaller threads at the coronal end and larger threads at the apical end. The OMNI Tapered implant has a tapered wall with a single-thread design.

Both implant lines have two platform sizes, Narrow (Ø 3.5 mm) and Regular (Ø 4.0 – Ø 4.5 mm).

Both implant lines share the following diameters and lengths:

URIS OMNI Long Implants are compatible with the following abutments:

• Cover Screw (K172100)
• Healing Abutments (K172100)
• Multi-Unit Straight Abutment (K200817)
• Multi-Unit Angled Abutment (K200817)
• Multi-Unit Healing Cap (K200817)
• Multi-Unit Ti Cylinder (K200817)
• Multi-Unit Temporary Cylinder (K200817)
• Multi-Unit Base (K200817)
• Multi-Unit Cylinder Screw (K200817)
• AOT Base (K231874)
• AOT Temporary (K231874)
• AOT Straight Abutment (K243255)
• AOT Angled Abutment (K243255)
• Multi-Unit Base (K243255)
• Multi-Unit Base Screw (K243255)
• Multi-Unit Temporary Abutment (K243255)
• AOT Direct Screw (K243255)
• AOT Plus Direct Screw (K243255)
• Multi-Unit Direct Screw (K243255)

The abutments are provided non-sterile. All non-sterile products must be sterilized by the end user prior to use.

The AOT Angled Abutment, Multi-Unit Base, and Multi-Unit Temporary Abutment are packaged with their corresponding screw(s).

For convenience, the Multi-Unit Base and Multi-Unit Temporary Abutment are each supplied with two screws included in the package.

The abutments are designed for use with the two implant types submitted in this application. They are also compatible with the implants included in the K172100 URIS OMNI Implant system (Narrow: Ø3.5 mm, lengths 8.5–14.5 mm / Regular: Ø4.0–Ø6.5 mm, lengths 7.0–14.5 mm).

The AOT Straight and AOT Angled Abutments are compatible with the Base and Temporary Abutments included in this submission, as well as those previously cleared under K231874.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter for URIS Long Implant & Abutments does not contain information about acceptance criteria and study proving device performance as typically expected for AI/ML-driven medical devices. This submission is for a traditional dental implant system, and the clearance is based on substantial equivalence to predicate devices through non-clinical testing, primarily focusing on mechanical, material, and biocompatibility properties.

Therefore, many of the requested elements regarding acceptance criteria for device performance (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC), study design (sample size, data provenance, ground truth establishment, expert adjudication), and AI/ML-specific study types (MRMC, standalone performance) are not applicable to this submission.

However, I can extract the information relevant to the type of device and submission, specifically the non-clinical acceptance criteria and the tests performed to meet them.

Acceptance Criteria and Supporting Study for URIS Long Implant & Abutments

As this FDA 510(k) pertains to a traditional dental implant and abutment system (URIS Long Implant & Abutments, K243255), and not an AI/ML device, the acceptance criteria and study details are focused on non-clinical performance, primarily demonstrating mechanical integrity, material compatibility, and safety through established engineering and biological standards, rather than diagnostic accuracy metrics.

The clearance is largely based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices through a series of non-clinical tests.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Given the nature of this device (dental implants), the "performance" is demonstrated through engineering and biocompatibility testing rather than diagnostic accuracy. The acceptance criteria are implicitly meeting the requirements of the cited ISO and USP standards. The document doesn't provide specific quantitative "pass/fail" values for each test, but rather states that the device "met the criteria of the standards."

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated in terms of a "test set" as one would expect for an AI/ML device. The "sample size" would refer to the number of physical dental implants/abutments subjected to each non-clinical test (e.g., number of units for fatigue testing, number of samples for biocompatibility). These numbers are not detailed in the summary but would be standard for regulatory testing required by the ISO/ASTM standards cited (e.g., minimum of 5-10 samples for fatigue per condition).
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of patient data for diagnostic accuracy. The "data" originated from laboratory testing of the manufactured dental implants and abutments.

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

• Not Applicable: This clearance is based on non-clinical engineering and biological safety tests (e.g., fatigue strength, sterility, biocompatibility), not on the interpretation of medical images or patient data requiring expert consensus or ground truth establishment by clinical experts like radiologists.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not Applicable: As there is no human interpretation of data for diagnostic purposes, there's no need for an adjudication process. Test results are objective measurements (e.g., force at failure, sterility present/absent).

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

• Not Performed / Not Applicable: MRMC studies are specific to evaluating diagnostic devices, particularly those involving human readers and AI assistance. This device is a physical dental implant, not a diagnostic AI tool.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

• Not Performed / Not Applicable: This is a physical medical device, not a software algorithm.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Engineering/Material Standards and Biological Safety Standards: The "ground truth" for this device's performance is established by the specified ISO and ASTM standards (e.g., ISO 14801 for fatigue testing, ISO 10993-1 for biocompatibility). These standards define acceptable performance limits for mechanical properties and biological responses.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not Applicable: This device is not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set. Its design and manufacturing are based on established engineering principles and materials science.

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

• Not Applicable: As there is no training set for an AI/ML algorithm, this question is not relevant.

Ask a specific question about this device

TruAbutment DS is a patient-specific CAD/CAM abutment, which is directly connected to endosseous dental implants and is intended to be used as an aid in prosthetic rehabilitation. It is compatible with the following systems: Astra OsseoSpeed EV (K130999, K120414), Biomet 3i Full OSSEOTITE Tapered Certain (K130949), DIO UF (II) Internal Submerged (K161987, K170608, K173975), Neoss ProActive® (K083561), Osstem TS (K161604), Camlog Screw-Line (K083496), Conelog Screw-Line (K113779), Implant Direct Legacy2 (K192221), BioHorizons Internal Implant System (K093321, K143022, K071638), MegaGen AnyRidge Internal Implant (K140091). All digitally designed abutments and/or copings for use with the TruAbutments are intended to be sent to a TruAbutment-validated milling center for manufacture.

TruBase is a titanium component that is directly connected to endosseous dental implants to provide support for patient-specific prosthetic restorations, such as copings or crowns. It is indicated for a screw-retained single tooth or cement-retained single tooth and bridge restorations. It is compatible with the following systems: Astra OsseoSpeed EV (K130999), Biomet 3i Full OSSEOTITE Tapered Certain (K130949), DIO UF(II) Internal Submerged (K161987, K170608, K173975), Neoss ProActive® (K083561), Camlog Screw-Line (K083496), Conelog Screw-Line (K113779), Implant Direct Legacy2 (K192221). All digitally designed abutments and/or copings for use with the TruAbutment are intended to be sent to a TruAbutment-validated milling center for manufacture.

TruAbutment DS, TruBase and abutment screw are made of Titanium grade Ti-6A1-4V ELI (meets ASTM Standard F136). TruAbutment DS, TruBase are supplied with two identical screws which are used: (1) For fixing the abutment into the endosseous implant. (2) For dental laboratory use during construction of related restoration. TruAbutment DS, TruBase are provided non-sterile. Therefore, it must be sterilized before use. TruAbutment DS, TruBase are devices that can only be sold, distributed, or used upon the order of an authorized healthcare provider, generally referred to as prescription (Rx) devices.

TruAbutment DS system includes patient-specific abutments that are placed into the dental implant to provide support for the prosthetic restoration. The subject abutments are indicated for serew-retained restorations. The design and manufacturing of the patient-specific abutments take into consideration the shape of the final prosthesis based on the patient's intra-oral indications using CAD/CAM system during the manufacturing. All manufacturing processes of TruAbutment DS are conducted at the TruAbutment milling center.

TruBase is a two-piece abutment. The base component is premanufactured and is used to support a cemented CAD/CAM zirconia superstructure. The base and the zirconia superstructure together form the final abutment. CAD/CAM customized superstructure that composes the final abutment is intended to be sent to a TruAbutment-validated milling center to be designed and milled, according to the prosthetic planning and patient clinical situation. The superstructure is cemented to the TruBase in the lab. Use "RelyX Unicem 2Automix" as an adhesive extra orally to connect.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the TruAbutment DS and TruBase devices. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (TruAbutment DS, K203649) and does not detail an acceptance criteria table with reported device performance in the manner of a clinical study. The text describes non-clinical testing performed, but not a study designed to prove the device meets acceptance criteria related to a specific clinical outcome or diagnostic accuracy.

Therefore, many of the requested items (acceptance criteria table, sample size for test/training sets, data provenance, expert ground truth, adjudication, MRMC studies, standalone performance, type of ground truth) are not applicable based on the content of this 510(k) summary, which is a premarket notification for a medical device primarily based on demonstrating substantial equivalence through engineering and mechanical testing, not clinical performance or AI algorithm validation studies.

However, I can extract the information provided regarding non-clinical testing for the devices.

Acceptance Criteria and Study for TruAbutment DS & TruBase

Based on the provided 510(k) summary, the "acceptance criteria" and "study" described are focused on non-clinical mechanical performance testing and demonstration of substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than a clinical study proving performance against specific clinical or diagnostic accuracy metrics with human or AI components.

Here's the relevant information extracted and presented based on the document:

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

The document does not provide a table with specific quantitative acceptance criteria alongside actual reported numerical performance results for the new devices in the context of a comparative study proving their performance against such criteria. Instead, it states that "The results of the above tests have met the criteria of the standard and demonstrated substantial equivalence with the reference devices." This implies a qualitative "met standard" outcome rather than specific numerical performance data.

The tables provided describe the design limits of the devices and compare them to the predicate device, not performance data from a test:

TruAbutment DS Design Parameters (Acceptance Criteria are implied by meeting these limits)

TruBase Design Parameters (Acceptance Criteria are implied by meeting these limits)

For mechanical performance, the document states:
"Mechanical performance testing was performed according to ISO 14801. For compatible OEM implant line, worst-case constructs were subjected to static compression and compression fatigue testing. The fatigue limit data for all other implant lines demonstrated the construct strengths to be sufficient for their intended use."

This confirms that the acceptance criteria for mechanical performance were "sufficient for their intended use" as defined by ISO 14801 and worst-case testing, but quantitative results are not provided.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

• Sample Size for Test Set: The document mentions "worst-case constructs" were tested for mechanical performance, and "the entire system including all variations (all compatible implant bodies, dental abutments, and fixation screws)" was evaluated for MRI environment conditions. However, specific numerical sample sizes for these tests are not provided.
• Data Provenance: The data comes from non-clinical laboratory testing following international standards (ISO 14801, ISO 17665-1/2, ISO 10993 series). The country of origin and retrospective/prospective nature are not applicable as it's not a clinical data study.

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 is not applicable. The "ground truth" for this type of device (dental abutments) is established through adherence to engineering design specifications, material standards (ASTM F136), and performance under mechanical stress tests (ISO 14801), as well as compliance with sterilization and biocompatibility standards. It does not involve expert interpretation of images or clinical outcomes in the same way an AI diagnostic device would.

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

• This is not applicable as there is no human interpretation or subjective assessment of data requiring adjudication. Testing is based on objective measurements against engineering 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

• This is not applicable. The device is an endosseous dental implant abutment, not an AI diagnostic tool.

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

• This is not applicable. The device is a physical dental component, not an algorithm.

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

• The "ground truth" for validating these devices is adherence to engineering specifications, material properties, and performance standards (e.g., passing specific load-bearing and fatigue tests per ISO 14801, meeting biocompatibility requirements, maintaining dimensional accuracy). "Dimensional analysis and reverse engineering" were used to confirm compatibility.

8. The sample size for the training set

• This is not applicable. There is no "training set" as this is a physical medical device, not an AI/machine learning algorithm.

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

• This is not applicable for the reason above.

Summary of the Study Proving Device Meets Criteria (Based on Provided Text):

The "study" conducted was primarily non-clinical laboratory testing to demonstrate the mechanical performance, sterilization efficacy, and biocompatibility of the TruAbutment DS and TruBase devices. The objective was to show substantial equivalence to an existing legally marketed device (TruAbutment DS, K203649) by proving that the new devices meet established design limits and performance standards relevant to dental implant abutments.

• Mechanical Testing: Performed on "worst-case constructs" according to ISO 14801 for static compression and compression fatigue. The outcome was that "construct strengths [were] sufficient for their intended use."
• Sterilization Testing: Performed per ISO 17665-1:2006, 17665-2:2009 and ANSI/AAMI ST79:2010.
• Biocompatibility Testing: Performed per ISO 10993-1:2009, ISO 10993-5:2009, and ISO 10993-10:2010.
• MRI Environment Evaluation: A non-clinical worst-case MRI review was done using scientific rationale and published literature to assess magnetically induced displacement force and torque.
• Dimensional Analysis and Reverse Engineering: Conducted on the implant-to-abutment connection platform to assess critical design aspects and tolerances, confirming compatibility.

The overall conclusion was that the devices "met the criteria of the standard and demonstrated substantial equivalence with the reference devices," thus indicating they met their implied acceptance criteria for safety and performance as medical devices. Clinical testing was explicitly stated as "not necessary."

Ask a specific question about this device

URIS Smart Path Implant System & Prosthetic is indicated for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae, in support of single or multiple-unit restorations including; cemented retained, or overdenture restorations, and final or temporary abutment support for fixed bridgework. It is intended for delayed loading.

All digitally designed abutments and/or coping for use with URIS Smart Path Prosthetic abutments are intended to be sent to a TruAbutment-validated milling center for manufacture.

URIS Smart Path Implant System fixtures are dental implants made of Unalloyed Titanium, grade 4 (ASTM F67) intended for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae, in support of single or multipleunit restorations. The surface treated is SLA (Sandblasted, Large grit and Acid etched) and is provided sterile. It consists of two implant lines, the Smart Path OMNI Thread and the Smart Path extra aggressive Thread, with corresponding cover screws, healing abutments. The Smart Path implant has a tapered wall with a single thread design. The Smart Path extra aggressive Thread is straight walled with smaller threading at the coronal end, and bigger threading at the apical end.

URIS SP Prosthetic System is made of titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V ELI) intended for use as an aid in prosthetic restoration. It consists of SP Healing Abutment, SP Temporary Abutment, SP Multi-Unit Straight Abutment, SP Multi-Unit Angled Abutment, SP T-L Straight Abutment, URIS SP Base, URIS SP DS, SP Abutment Screw.

Cover screw and healing abutment are anodized in yellow or green or purple.

Fixtures and cover screw are provided sterile and other prosthetics are provided non-sterile. All non-sterile products must be sterilized by end users before use.

URIS SP Base consists of a two-piece abutment, where the titanium base is a pre-manufactured abutment that will be used to support a CAD/CAM designed superstructure (the second part of the two-piece abutment) that composes the final abutment. URIS Base is made of titanium alloy conforming to ASTM F136 Standard Specification for Wrought Titanium-6Aluminum-4Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) Alloy for Surgical Implant Applications.

The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for the URIS Smart Path Implant System & Prosthetic. It describes the device, its intended use, and argues for its substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on technological characteristics and non-clinical testing.

However, the document does not contain any information about acceptance criteria or a study that specifically proves the device meets acceptance criteria in the context of clinical performance or diagnostic accuracy, which are typically associated with the questions asked.

The document focuses on non-clinical tests to demonstrate substantial equivalence, as is common for dental implants and prosthetics. These tests are primarily related to material properties, sterilization, packaging, and mechanical fatigue.

Therefore, most of the requested information cannot be extracted from this document, as it pertains to clinical performance/accuracy studies which were explicitly stated as not included: "No clinical data were included in this submission."

Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted and what information is missing:

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

Missing Information (Not present in the provided document):

2. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g., country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective): Not applicable, as no clinical studies with test sets were performed. Non-clinical tests typically report sample sizes per test standard, but these are not detailed here beyond stating "worst-case scenario" for fatigue testing.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable, as no clinical studies requiring ground truth establishment were performed.
4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable, as no clinical studies requiring adjudication were performed.
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 device is a dental implant system, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool, and no clinical studies were performed.
6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This is not an algorithm-only device.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Not applicable, as no clinical studies requiring ground truth were performed.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable, as no AI/machine learning component requiring a training set is described.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable, as no AI/machine learning component requiring a training set is described.

Ask a specific question about this device

AOT & T-L Abutment is intended for use in conjunction with the fixture in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae, in support of multiple-unit restorations.

It is compatible with the following systems:

• · Astra OsseoSpeed EV(K130999) 3.0
• · Astra OsseoSpeed EV(K120414) 3.6, 4.2, 4.8, 5.4 mm
• · Dentium Company Limited Implantium (K041368): 3.6, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0 (Regular)
• · Implant Direct Legacy2(K192221) 3.0
• · Megagen AnyRidge Internal Implant System (K140091) 3.5, 4.0, 4.4, 4.9, 5.4 (3.1)
• Neodent Implant System GM Helix (K163194, K180536) 3.5, 3.75, 4.0, 4.3, 5.0 (3.0) 6.0 (3.0)
• · Nobel Active 3.0 (K102436) 3.0
• · Nobel Active Internal Connection Implant (K071370) NP RP 3.5, 4.3, 5.0
• · Nobelactive Wide Platform (Wp) (K133731) WP 5.5
• · TS Fixture System (K121995) 3.5 (3.75), 4.0 (4.2), 4.5 (4.6) , 5.0 (5.1) mm (Mini, Regular)
• Straumann BLX Implant (K173961, K181703, K191256) 3.5, 3.75, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, 5.5, 6.5 (RB, WB)
• · Straumann 02.9 mm Bone Level Tapered Implants, SC CARES Abutments (K162890) 2.9 (SC)
• · Straumann® Bone Level Tapered Implants (K140878) 3.3, 4.1, 4.8 (NC, RC)
• · Zimmer 3.1mmD Dental Implant System (K142082) 3.1 (2.9)
• · Screw Vent® and Tapered Screw Vent® (K013227) 3.7(3.5), 4.1(3.5), 4.7(4.5), 6.0(5.7)

AOT & T-L Abutment which are placed into the dental implant to provide support for the prosthetic restoration. The abutments are made of Titanium grade Ti-6A1-4V ELI (meets ASTM Standard F-136). AOT abutment is a straight multi-unit abutment that connect implant fixtures to a restoration, such as a dental bridge or a denture. AOT products includes abutments and components (AOT Base, AOT Temporary, AOT Base Screw, AOT Plus Screw). T-L abutment is for partial and full arch restorations on endosseous dental implants. AOT & T-L abutments are provided in various gingival cuff height ranging from 1 to 3 mm for AOT , 1 to 6 mm for T-L.

The provided document describes the TruAbutment Inc. AOT & T-L Abutment and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device. This document focuses on the non-clinical testing for dental implant abutments, primarily mechanical and sterilization performance, rather than clinical efficacy involving human readers or AI.

Therefore, many of the requested categories related to human-in-the-loop performance, statistical measures like effect size, and large-scale clinical study methodologies are not applicable to this 510(k) submission.

Here's a breakdown of the available information based on your request:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are implicitly defined by compliance with specified ISO standards and FDA guidance documents. The reported device performance is that it met these criteria.

Study Details

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g., country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective):

   • Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for specific tests. For mechanical fatigue testing (ISO 14801), it mentions "worst-case constructs" were subjected to testing, implying a representative selection rather than a large clinical sample. Industry standards typically specify minimum sample sizes for such tests (e.g., 5-10 samples per test group for fatigue).
   • Data Provenance: Not specified, but likely from laboratory testing conducted by the manufacturer or a contracted third-party lab. It's a non-clinical, bench-top study.
   • Retrospective or Prospective: Non-clinical laboratory testing is neither retrospective nor prospective in the clinical sense. It's a controlled experimental study.

2. 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. This is a non-clinical, bench-top engineering and materials performance study, not a diagnostic or clinical efficacy study requiring expert human interpretation of data for ground truth. Compliance with engineering standards and material specifications forms the basis of "ground truth."

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

   • Not applicable. Adjudication methods are typically used in clinical trials or studies involving subjective human interpretation (e.g., image reading) to resolve discrepancies. This study involves objective measurements from laboratory tests.

4. 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 a non-clinical technical performance study for dental implant abutments, not a study evaluating human reader performance or AI assistance.

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

   • Not applicable. This device is a physical dental abutment, not a software algorithm. The "standalone" performance here refers to the device's inherent mechanical properties and material characteristics as tested against engineering standards.

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

   • Ground Truth: Engineering standards (ISO 14801, ISO 17665, ISO 10993), material specifications (ASTM F136), and dimensional compatibility with OEM implant systems. Performance is measured objectively against these established criteria.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of this non-clinical performance evaluation. This is not a machine learning or AI device.

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

   • Not applicable for the same reason as above.

Ask a specific question about this device

TruAbutment DS is a patient-specific CAD/CAM abutment, directly connected to endosseous dental implants and is intended for use as an aid in prosthetic rehabilitation. It is compatible with the following systems:
• Straumann Tissue Level Implant (K122855, K202942): 4.1(RN), 4.8(RN), 6.5(WN) mm
All digitally designed abutments and/or coping for use with the TruAbutments are intended to be sent to a TruAbutment-validated milling center for manufacture.

TruBase is a titanium component that is directly connected to endosseous dental implants to patientspecific prosthetic restorations, such as copings or crowns. It is indicated for a screw-retained single tooth or cementretained single tooth and bridge restorations. It is compatible with the following systems:

• · Osstem TSIII SA (K121995) 3.5 (3.7) , 4.0 (4.2) , 4.5 (4.6) , 5.0 (5.1) , 6.0 (6.0) , 7.0 (6.8) mm (Mini, Regular)
• · Astra OsseoSpeed EV (K120414) 3.6, 4.2, 4.8, 5.4 mm
• · BioHorizon Tapered Internal(K093321, K143022, K071638) 3.0. 3.4, 3.8 mm
• · Straumann Tissue Level Implant (K122855, K202942): 4.1(RN), 4.8(RN), 6.5(WN) mm
  All digitally designed zirconia superstructure for use with the TruBase are intended to be sent to a TruAbutment-validated milling center for manufacture.

TruAbutment DS system includes patient-specific abutments which are placed into the dental implant to provide support for the prosthetic restoration. The subject abutments are indicated for cemented or screw-retained restorations. The patient-specific abutment screw are made of Titanium grade Ti-6A1-4V ELI (meets ASTM Standard F-136). Each patient-specific abutment is supplied with two identical screws which are used for:
(1) For fixing into the endosseous implant
(2) For dental laboratory use during construction of related restoration.
The abutment is placed over the implant shoulder and mounted into the implant with the provided screw. The design and manufacturing of the patient-specific abutments take into consideration the shape of the final prosthesis based on the patient's intra-oral indications using CAD/CAM system during the manufacturing. All manufacturing processes of TruAbutment DS are conducted at the TruAbutment milling center and provided to the authorized end-user as a final patient-specific abutment.

TruBase consists of a two-piece abutment, where the titanium base is a pre-manufactured abutment that will be used to support a CAD/CAM designed superstructure (the second part of the two-piece abutment) that composes the final abutment. The system also includes a TruBase Screw for fixation to the implant body.
TruBase abutments are made of titanium alloy conforming to ASTM F136 Standard Specification for Wrought Titanium-6Aluminum-4Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) Alloy for Surgical Implant Applications and are provided in a various prosthetic platform diameters (OSSTEM TSIII SA 3.5 (3.7), 4.0 (4.2), 4.5 (4.6), 5.0 (5.1), 6.0 (6.0), 7.0 (6.8) (Mini, Regular) and Astra EV 3.6, 4.2, 4.8, 5.4mm and BioHorizons Internal 3.0. 3.5. 4.5. 5.7mm and Straumann Tissue Level: 4.1(RN), 4.8(RN), 6.5(WN). The TruBase Screws are composed of titanium alloy per ASTM F136.
CAD/CAM customized superstructure that composes the final abutment intended to be sent to a TruAbutment-validated milling center to be designed and milled, according to the prosthetic planning and patient clinical situation. The superstructure is cemented to the TruBase in the lab. Use "RelyX Unicem 2Automix" as an adhesive extra orally to connect. TruBase is provided non-sterile therefore must be sterilized after the cementation of the customized superstructure on the TruBase.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for two dental devices, TruAbutment DS and TruBase. The submission asserts substantial equivalence to a predicate device based on material, intended use, and mechanical testing. The document focuses on regulatory compliance and mechanical performance, rather than clinical efficacy measured by expert assessments or comparative effectiveness studies with human readers.

Here's an analysis of the provided information concerning acceptance criteria and supporting studies:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are primarily based on established international standards for dental implants and abutments and ensuring mechanical integrity. The reported performance indicates that the devices met these criteria.

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

• Test Set Sample Size: The document does not explicitly state a sample size for the mechanical fatigue testing beyond "worst-case constructs." For other tests (sterilization, biocompatibility, MRI review), specific sample sizes are not provided, though these are typically laboratory-based tests rather than patient-data-based studies.
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin for any data or whether the data is retrospective or prospective. The studies mentioned (e.g., fatigue testing, sterilization) are engineering and laboratory tests, not clinical studies involving patient data.

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

This information is not applicable to the provided document. The studies described are non-clinical (mechanical, sterilization, biocompatibility, MRI safety) and rely on testing against established engineering and safety standards, rather than expert interpretation of a 'ground truth' in a clinical context.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable as the described studies are non-clinical laboratory tests and material/design assessments, not studies involving human judgment or adjudication.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and Effect Size of How Much Human Readers Improve with AI vs. Without AI Assistance

This information is not applicable. The submission relates to dental abutments, which are physical medical devices, and does not involve AI or image-based diagnostics requiring human reader performance studies.

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

This information is not applicable. The device is not an algorithm or AI system.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (Expert Consensus, Pathology, Outcomes Data, etc.)

The "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests is based on:

• Established international and national standards (e.g., ISO 14801, ISO 17665, ISO 10993, ASTM F-136, ANSI/AAMI ST79).
• Engineering specifications and design limits (e.g., minimum thickness, maximum angle for abutments).
• Physical measurements and compatibility assessments (e.g., dimensional analysis and reverse engineering of implant-to-abutment connections).
• Scientific rationale and published literature for MRI safety.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable. The devices are physical dental abutments, not AI models that require training data.

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

This information is not applicable as there is no training set for an AI model.

In summary, the provided document focuses on demonstrating the substantial equivalence of physical medical devices through adherence to established engineering and safety standards, rather than clinical performance based on human reader assessments or AI model evaluations.

Ask a specific question about this device

TruAbutment DS is a patient-specific CAD/CAM abutment, directly connected to endosseous dental implants and is intended for use as an aid in prosthetic rehabilitation. It is compatible with the following systems:

• · MIS C1 Conical Connection Implant (K172505, K112162)
• : 3.3 (NP) 3.75, 4.2, 5.0 (SP, WP)
• · Neodent Implant System GM Helix (K163194, K180536)
• : 3.5, 3.75, 4.0, 4.3, 5.0 (3.0) 6.0 (3.0)
• · Nobel Biocare Groovy Implants (K050258)
• : 3.5. 4.3, 5.0, 6.0 (NP, RP, WP, 6.0)
• · Straumann BLX Implant (K173961, K181703, K191256)
• : 3.5, 3.75, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, 5.5, 6.5 (RB, WB)
• · Straumann Tissue Level Implant (K111357)
• : 3.3(NNC)

All digitally designed abutments and/or coping for use with the TruAbutments are intended to be sent to a TruAbutment-validated milling center for manufacture.

TruBase is a titanium component that is directly connected to endosseous dental implants to provide support for patient-specific prosthetic restorations, such as copings or crowns. It is indicated for screw-retained single tooth or cement-retained single tooth and bridge restorations. It is compatible with the following systems:

• · MIS C1 Conical Connection Implant (K172505, K112162)
• : 3.3 (NP) 3.75, 4.2, 5.0 (SP, WP)
• · Neodent Implant System GM Helix (K163194, K180536)
• : 3.5, 3.75, 4.0, 4.3, 5.0 (3.0) 6.0 (3.0)
• · Nobel Biocare Groovy Implants (K050258)
• : 3.5. 4.3, 5.0, 6.0 (NP, RP, WP, 6.0)
• · Straumann BLX Implant (K173961, K181703, K191256)
• : 3.5, 3.75, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, 5.5, 6.5 (RB, WB)
• · Straumann Tissue Level Implant (K111357)
• : 3.3(NNC)

All digitally designed zirconia superstructure for use with the TruBase are intended to be sent to a TruAbutment-validated milling center for manufacture.

TruAbutment DS system includes patient-specific abutments which are placed into the dental implant to provide support for the prosthetic restoration. The subject abutments are indicated for cemented or screw-retained restorations. The patient-specific abutment and abutment screw are made of Titanium grade Ti-6A1-4V ELI (meets ASTM Standard F-136). Each patientspecific abutment is supplied with two identical screws which are used for:

(1) For fixing into the endosseous implant

(2) For dental laboratory use during construction of related restoration.

The abutment is placed over the implant shoulder and mounted into the implant with the provided screw. The design and manufacturing of the patient-specific abutments take into consideration the shape of the final prosthesis based on the patient's intra-oral indications using CAD/CAM system during the manufacturing. All manufacturing processes of TruAbutment DS are conducted at the TruAbutment milling center and provided to the authorized end-user as a final patient-specific abutment.

TruBase consists of a two-piece abutment, where the titanium base is a pre-manufactured abutment that will be used to support a CAD/CAM designed superstructure (the second part of the two-piece abutment) that composes the final abutment. The system also includes a TruBase screw for fixation to the implant body.

TruBase abutments are made of titanium alloy conforming to ASTM F136 Standard Specification for Wrought Titanium-6Aluminum-4Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) Alloy for Surgical Implant Applications and are provided in various prosthetic platform diameters. The TruBase screws are composed of titanium alloy per ASTM F136.

CAD/CAM customized superstructure that composes the final abutment is intended to be sent to a TruAbutment-validated milling center to be designed and milled, according to the prosthetic planning and patient clinical situation. The superstructure is cemented to the TruBase in the lab.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the TruAbutment DS and TruBase devices, which are endosseous dental implant abutments. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting detailed "acceptance criteria" and results from a study proving the device meets those specific criteria in the way one might find for a novel AI/software medical device.

The document discusses performance in terms of mechanical resistance and dimensional compatibility to ensure long-term functional performance with dental implants. However, it does not outline distinct "acceptance criteria" that are then verified by a specific study with a defined sample size, ground truth, or expert adjudication as typically seen in AI/ML validation. Instead, it relies on demonstrating compliance with recognized standards and comparability to a predicate device.

Given the information provided, here's an attempt to answer the questions based on the context of this 510(k) summary, interpreting "acceptance criteria" as the performance expectations set by the applicable standards and "study" as the non-clinical testing performed:

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

The document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in a tabular format with corresponding reported performance for a comparative AI study. Instead, it refers to compliance with established standards for dental implant abutments. The closest equivalent to "acceptance criteria" for the mechanical performance is meeting the requirements of ISO 14801.

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

The document does not specify a "test set" sample size in the context of an AI/ML model for image analysis or diagnostics. The testing described is primarily non-clinical mechanical testing, dimensional analysis, and biocompatibility testing of physical devices.

• Sample Size: Not specified in terms of "number of cases" or "patients" for a diagnostic study. For mechanical testing, samples would be physical devices/constructs. The number of samples for ISO 14801 fatigue testing is typically defined by the standard itself (e.g., typically 3 samples for static and 15 samples for fatigue for each configuration).
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the sense of patient data or images. The "data" comes from physical testing of manufactured devices.

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 type of device and testing described. The "ground truth" for mechanical properties is established by physical measurement against engineering specifications and performance under defined load conditions, not by expert human interpretation.

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

Not applicable. There is no human interpretation or subjective assessment involved that would require an adjudication 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

Not applicable. The device is a physical dental implant abutment, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

Not applicable. The device is a physical dental implant abutment, not an AI algorithm.

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

The "ground truth" for this medical device is based on engineering specifications, material science standards (e.g., ASTM F136), and mechanical testing standards (e.g., ISO 14801). For example, mechanical strength and fatigue life are measured directly, and dimensional compatibility is assessed against design tolerances.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that requires a training set. The "design" of the abutments is based on CAD/CAM systems informed by engineering principles, not machine learning from large datasets.

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

Not applicable. As this is not an AI/ML device, there is no "training set" or "ground truth for the training set" in the context of machine learning. The knowledge base for the CAD/CAM design and manufacturing is derived from established dental and engineering principles, material science, and regulatory standards.

Ask a specific question about this device

TruAbutment DS is a patient-specific CAD/CAM abutment, directly connected to endosseous dental implants and is intended for use as an aid in prosthetic rehabilitation.
TruBase is a titanium component that is directly connected to endosseous dental implants to provide support for patient-specific prosthetic restorations, such as copings or crowns. It is indicated for screw-retained single tooth or cement-retained single tooth and bridge restorations.

TruAbutment DS system includes patient-specific abutments which are placed into the dental implant to provide support for prosthetic restoration. The subject abutments are indicated for cemented or screw-retained restorations. The patient-specific abutment screw are made of Titanium grade Ti-6A1-4V ELI (meets ASTM Standard F-136). Each patient-specific abutment is supplied with two identical screws which are used for: (1) For fixing into the endosseous implant (2) For dental laboratory use during construction of related restoration. The abutment is placed over the implant shoulder and mounted into the implant with the provided screw. The design and manufacturing of the patient-specific abutments take into consideration the shape of the final prosthesis based on the patient's intra-oral indications using CAD/CAM system during the manufacturing. All manufacturing processes of TruAbutment DS are conducted at the TruAbutment milling center and provided to the authorized end-user as a final patient-specific abutment.
TruBase consists of a two-piece abutment, where the titanium base is a pre-manufactured abutment that will be used to support a CAD/CAM designed superstructure (the second part of the two-piece abutment) that composes the final abutment. TruBase abutments are made of titanium alloy conforming to ASTM F136 Standard Specification for Wrought Titanium-6Aluminum-4Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) Alloy for Surgical Implant Applications and are provided in various prosthetic platform diameters. CAD/CAM customized superstructure that composes the final abutment must be designed and milled through the 3Shape Abutment Designer Software, according to the prosthetic planning and patient clinical situation. The superstructure is cemented to the TruBase in the lab. Use "RelyX Unicem 2Automix" as an adhesive extra orally to connect. TruBase is provided non-sterile therefore must be sterilized after the cementation of the customized superstructure on the TruBase.

The provided text describes the regulatory clearance for the TruAbutment DS and TruBase devices, citing substantial equivalence to predicate devices, and includes details about non-clinical testing. However, it does not contain information about a study proving device performance against specific acceptance criteria for AI or algorithmic performance. The studies mentioned are focused on mechanical and biocompatibility testing of the physical dental implant abutments.

Therefore, for aspects related to AI/algorithmic performance, sample sizes, expert ground truth, adjudication, and MRMC studies, the information is not present in the provided document.

Here's a breakdown of the available information:

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document describes "Design Limitations" for both TruAbutment DS and TruBase, which can be interpreted as design acceptance criteria. It also references compatibility and mechanical performance tests.

TruAbutment DS Design Limitations / Reported Performance:

TruBase / Zirconia Superstructure Design Limitations / Reported Performance:

Mechanical Performance:

• Acceptance Criteria: Met the criteria of ISO 14801:2016 and FDA Guidance "Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Rootform Endosseous Dental Implants and Endosseous Dental Implant Abutments."
• Reported Device Performance: "The fatigue limit data for all other implant lines demonstrated the construct strengths to be sufficient for their intended use."

Sterilization Validation:

• Acceptance Criteria: Met the criteria of ISO 17665-1:2006, 17665-2:2009, and ANSI/AAMI ST79:2010.
• Reported Device Performance: Achieved through end-user moist steam sterilization.

Biocompatibility:

• Acceptance Criteria: Met the criteria of ISO 10993-1:2009, ISO 10993-5:2009, and ISO 10993-10:2010.
• Reported Device Performance: Not explicitly stated as "passed" for the subject device, but mentioned it was leveraged from predicate device testing and supports substantial equivalence.

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

• Test Set Sample Size: For mechanical testing (ISO 14801), "worst-case constructs" were subjected to static compression and compression fatigue testing for each compatible OEM implant line. The exact number of samples is not specified.
• Data Provenance: Not specified; the context implies laboratory testing. The document does not refer to real-world patient data for performance evaluation in the context of AI.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

Not applicable. The tests performed are non-clinical (mechanical, sterilization, biocompatibility) of physical devices, not assessments requiring expert interpretation of data or images.

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

Not applicable for non-clinical, physical device testing.

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. No AI component is described in the performance evaluation section for either TruAbutment DS or TruBase. The software mentioned (3Shape Abutment Designer Software) is for CAD/CAM design, which is a tool for designing the physical device, not an AI for diagnosis or interpretation that would involve human readers.

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

Not applicable. As noted above, the device itself is a physical dental abutment, and its design process involves CAD/CAM software, not a standalone AI algorithm for medical decision-making or image analysis.

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

• Mechanical Testing: Ground truth is established by the specified ISO standards (ISO 14801) and FDA guidance, defining acceptable force and fatigue limits for dental implant systems.
• Dimensional Analysis: Ground truth is against design specifications and reverse engineering of OEM implant-to-abutment connections.
• Sterilization: Ground truth is against ISO 17665-1:2006, 17665-2:2009, and ANSI/AAMI ST79:2010 standards for sterilization efficacy.
• Biocompatibility: Ground truth is against ISO 10993 standards for biological safety.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. The document describes a physical medical device and its manufacturing process, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set. The CAD/CAM software aids in design, but the document does not detail its internal development or any associated training sets.

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

Not applicable, as no training set for an AI/ML algorithm is described.

Ask a specific question about this device

TruBase S is a titanium component that is directly connected to endosseous dental implants to provide support for custom prosthetic restorations, such as copings or crowns. It is indicated for a screw-retained single tooth or cement-retained single tooth and bridge restorations. It is compatible with the following systems:

• NobelActive (K102436, K071370, K133731): 3.0, 3.5, 4.3, 5.0, 5.5 (3.0, NP, RP, WP)

All digitally designed abutments and/or copings for use with TruBase S are intended to be sent to a TruAbutmentvalidated milling center for manufacture.

TruBase S consists of a two-piece abutment, where the titanium base is a pre-manufactured abutment that will be used to support a CAD/CAM designed superstructure (the second part of the two-piece abutment) that composes the final abutment. The system also includes a TruBase S Screw for fixation to the implant body.

TruBase S abutments are made of titanium alloy conforming to ASTM F 136 Standard Specification for Wrought Titanium-6Aluminum-4Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) Alloy for Surgical Implant Applications and are provided in various prosthetic platform diameters (NobelActive 3.0, NP, RP, WP). The TruBase S Screws are composed of titanium alloy per ASTM F136.

They also feature:

• . cylindrical shape
• hexagonal indexing at the apical end of the connection ●
• indexing guide in the cementable portion for coping fitting ●

CAD/CAM customized superstructure that composes the final abutmentis intended to be sent to a TruAbutment-validated milling center to be designed and milled, according to the prosthetic planning and patient clinical situation. The superstructure is cemented to the TruBase S in the lab. Use "RelyX Unicem 2Automix" as an adhesive extra orally to connect.

TruBase S is provided non-sterile therefore must be sterilized after the cementation of the customized superstructure on the TruBase S.

The provided document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a dental implant abutment, TruBase S. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than proving novel clinical effectiveness. As such, the information you're looking for regarding AI-specific criteria, clinical study designs, human reader performance, or training set details associated with an AI-driven device is largely not present in this document.

However, I can extract the acceptance criteria and study details relevant to the mechanical performance and substantial equivalence of this medical device.

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

The acceptance criteria for mechanical performance are implicitly set by compliance with ISO 14801:2016 for fatigue testing. The document states that the test results "met the criteria of the standard." For design parameters, the acceptance criteria are substantial equivalence to the predicate device, K201197.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

The document does not specify a distinct "test set" in the context of an AI-driven device or clinical study. The testing performed was non-clinical mechanical performance testing on physical devices and based on technical specifications and design parameters.

• Sample Size: For the fatigue testing, the document mentions "worst-case constructs" were subjected to testing, and "the fatigue limit data for all other implant lines demonstrated the construct strengths to be sufficient." However, specific numerical sample sizes for these tests are not provided.
• Data Provenance: The data originates from internal non-clinical testing conducted by the manufacturer or accredited labs for mechanical and material properties. No country of origin is specified for these tests. The nature of these tests is prospective in the sense that they are conducted specifically for the submission, but they are not clinical 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. The device is a physical dental implant abutment, not an AI device that requires expert ground truth labeling for image analysis or diagnostic purposes. The "ground truth" for its performance is established through adherence to engineering standards (ISO 14801) and material specifications (ASTM F 136).

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

This information is not applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are typically used in clinical trials or studies where human interpretation of data (e.g., medical images) is compared with an AI's output, often involving multiple experts to resolve discrepancies. This device's evaluation relies on objective mechanical and material testing, not human interpretation or adjudication.

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. This device is a physical dental implant abutment and is not an AI-driven diagnostic or assistive device that would participate in an MRMC study.

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

This information is not applicable. This device is a physical dental implant component, not an algorithm.

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

The "ground truth" for this medical device is based on:

• Material Specifications: Adherence to ASTM F 136 for titanium alloy.
• Engineering Standards: Compliance with ISO 14801:2016 for fatigue testing, and ISO 17665-1/2 and ANSI/AAMI ST79 for sterilization.
• Biocompatibility Standards: Compliance with ISO 10993 series.
• Dimensional and Design Parameters: Matching the design limits established by the predicate device and compatible OEM implant lines.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable. There is no concept of a "training set" for this physical medical device. Manufacturing processes are based on established engineering principles and quality control, not machine learning training.

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

This information is not applicable, as there is no training set for this physical medical device.

Ask a specific question about this device

TruAbutment DS is a patient-specific CAD/CAM abutment, directly connected to endosseous dental implants and is intended for use as an aid in prosthetic rehabilitation. It is compatible with the following systems:
· Zimmer 3.1mmD Dental Implant System (K142082)

• · Screw Vent® and Tapered Screw Vent® (K013227)
• · Nobel Active 3.0 (K102436)
• · Nobel Active Internal Connection Implant (K071370)
  All digitally designed abutments and/or coping for use with the TruAbutments are intended to be sent to a TruAbutment-validated milling center for manufacture.

TruBase S is a titanium component that is directly connected to endosseous dental implants to provide support for custom prosthetic restorations, such as copings or crowns. It is indicated for screw-retained single tooth or cement-retained single tooth and bridge restorations. It is compatible with the following systems:
· Zimmer 3.1mmD Dental Implant System (K142082)

• · Screw Vent® and Tapered Screw Vent® (K013227)
  TruBase S is intended to be sent to a TruAbutment-validated milling center for manufacture.

TruAbutment DS system includes patient-specific abutments that are placed into the dental implant to provide support for prosthetic restoration. The subject abutments are indicated for cemented or screwretained restorations. The patient-specific abutment screws are made of Titanium grade Ti-6A1-4V ELI (meets ASTM Standard F-136). Each patient-specific abutment is supplied with two identical screws which are used for:

• (1) For fixing into the endosseous implant
• (2) For dental laboratory use during construction of related restoration.
  The abutment is placed over the implant shoulder and mounted into the implant with the provided screw. The design and manufacturing of the patient-specific abutments take into consideration the shape of the final prosthesis based on the patient's intra-oral indications using the CAD/CAM system during the manufacturing. All manufacturing processes of TruAbutment DS are conducted at the TruAbutment milling center and provided to the authorized end-user as a final patient-specific abutment.

TruBase S consists of a two-piece abutment, where the titanium base is a pre-manufactured abutment that will be used to support a CAD/CAM designed superstructure (the second part of the two-piece abutment) that composes the final abutment. TruBase S abutments are made of titanium alloy conforming to ASTM F136 Standard Specification for Wrought Titanium-6Aluminum-4Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) Alloy for Surgical Implant Applications and are provided in various prosthetic platform diameters (Zimmer 3.1mmD Dental Implant System: 2.9mm and Screw Vent® and Tapered Screw Vent®: 3.5, 4.5, 5.7mm). They also feature:

• . cylindrical shape
• . hexagonal indexing at the apical end of the connection
• . indexing guide in the cementable portion for coping fitting
  CAD/CAM customized superstructure that composes the final abutment is intended to be sent to a TruAbutment-validated milling center to be designed and milled, according to the prosthetic planning and patient clinical situation. The superstructure is cemented to the TruBase S in the lab. Use "RelyX Unicem 2Automix" as an adhesive extra orally to connect.
  TruBase S is provided non-sterile therefore must be sterilized after the cementation of the customized superstructure on the TruBase S.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a dental device, TruAbutment DS and TruBase S. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on design specifications, materials, and non-clinical testing (mechanical and biocompatibility).

This document does not contain information about studies involving human-in-the-loop performance, expert ground truth establishment, or clinical effectiveness studies in the context of AI/ML device performance. The "acceptance criteria" discussed are related to the mechanical properties and biocompatibility of the physical dental abutment and base, rather than the performance of an AI/ML algorithm.

Therefore, many of the requested points, such as sample size for test/training sets, experts for ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, or standalone algorithm performance, cannot be extracted from this document as they are not relevant to the type of device and testing described.

However, I can provide information based on the mechanical and material testing criteria that are present.

Here's an analysis of the provided text in relation to your request, with a clear indication of what information is not available:

Information Pertaining to Device Acceptance (Mechanical/Biocompatibility):

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

   The document describes design limitations and states that non-clinical testing (fatigue and biocompatibility) met the criteria of the standard, demonstrating substantial equivalence. It does not provide specific numerical performance results for the acceptance criteria, but rather states whether the device "met the criteria of the standard" (ISO 14801:2016 for fatigue, ISO 17665-1:2006, 17665-2:2009 and ANSI/AAMI ST79:2010 for sterilization, and ISO 10993 series for biocompatibility).

   For TruAbutment DS:

   Design Parameter	Design Limit (Acceptance Criteria)	Reported Performance (Qualitative)
   Abutment Angle	0~25°	Met design limit
   Cuff Height	0.5~6.0mm	Met design limit
   Diameter at abutment/implant interface	Ø3.5mm~Ø8.0mm	Met design limit
   Minimum Thickness	0.4 mm	Met design limit
   Length of abutment post	4~7 mm	Met design limit

   For TruBase S (Zirconia Superstructure):

   Design Parameter	Design Limit (Acceptance Criteria)	Reported Performance (Qualitative)
   Abutment Angle	0~15°	Met design limit
   Cuff Height	0.5~5 mm	Met design limit
   Diameter at abutment/implant interface	Ø5.0mm~Ø8.0mm	Met design limit
   Minimum Thickness	0.4 mm	Met design limit
   Length of abutment post	4~6 mm	Met design limit

   Non-Clinical Testing:

   Acceptance Criteria (Standard)	Reported Performance
   Fatigue Test (ISO 14801:2016)	"The fatigue limit data for all other implant lines demonstrated the construct strengths to be sufficient for their intended use."
   End User Steam Sterilization Test (ISO 17665-1:2006, 17665-2:2009, ANSI/AAMI ST79:2010)	"The results of the above tests have met the criteria of the standard, and demonstrated the substantial equivalence with the predicate device."
   Biocompatibility (ISO 10993-5:2009, ISO 10993-10:2010)	"The results of the above tests have met the criteria of the standard, and demonstrated the substantial equivalence with the predicate device."

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

   • Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for specific tests (e.g., how many abutments were fatigued). The document mentions "worst-case constructs" were subjected to testing.
   • Data Provenance: Not specified (e.g., country of origin). The studies appear to be non-clinical (laboratory testing) rather than human subject data. The studies are retrospective as they leverage data from previous 510(k) clearances (K152559).

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

   • Not applicable. The "ground truth" here is based on engineering standards (e.g., ISO 14801 for mechanical properties, ISO 10993 for biocompatibility) and direct physical measurements, not expert human interpretation of medical images or clinical outcomes.

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

   • Not applicable. This relates to human expert review and consensus, which is not part of the physical and mechanical testing described.

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 device is a physical dental implant component, not an AI/ML diagnostic or assistive imaging device.

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

   • Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML algorithm. It's a medical device that is CAD/CAM manufactured.

7. The type of ground truth used:

   • For mechanical performance: Compliance with ISO 14801:2016 standard. This involves objective physical measurements and material science.
   • For sterilization: Compliance with ISO 17665-1:2006, 17665-2:2009 and ANSI/AAMI ST79:2010 standards.
   • For biocompatibility: Compliance with ISO 10993-5:2009, ISO 10993-10:2010 standards.

8. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a "training set" in the computational sense. The "training" for manufacturing is implied through the "TruAbutment-validated milling center."

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

   • Not applicable. As above, no computational "training set" is described. The manufacturing process relies on validated design parameters and material specifications.

In summary, this 510(k) submission successfully demonstrates substantial equivalence based on engineering design parameters, material properties, and adherence to established mechanical and biological safety standards for a physical dental implant component. It does not involve AI/ML technology or associated human-in-the-loop performance studies.

Ask a specific question about this device

URIS OMNI Narrow System is indicated for use in the treatment of missing maxillary lateral incisors or the mandbular central and lateral incisors, in support of single or multiple-unit restorations including: cemented retained, or overdenture restorations, and final or temporary abutment support for fixed bridgework. It is intended for delayed loading.

The URIS OMNI Prosthetic abutments are intended for use with URIS OMNI dental implants to provide support for prosthetic restorations such as crowns, bridges, or over-dentures.

All digitally designed abutments and/or coping for use with URIS OMNI Prosthetic abutments are intended to be sent to a TruAbutment-validated milling center for manufacture.

URIS OMNI Narrow System fixtures are dental implants made of Unalloyed Titanium, grade 4 (ASTM F67) intended for use in the treatment of missing maxillary lateral incisors or the mandibular central and lateral incisors. The surface is SLA (Sandblasted, Large grit and Acid etched) treated and is provided sterile. It consists of two implant lines, the OMNI Straight and the OMNI Tapered, with corresponding cover screws, healing abutments and prosthetic abutments. The OMNI Tapered implant has a tapered wall with a single thread design. The OMNI Straight implant has straight wall with smaller threading at the coronal end, and bigger threading at the apical end. Both implant lines have Narrow (Ø 3.15 mm) platform sizes. Both implant lines share the following diameters and lengths.

Ø 3.15 x 10, 11.5, 13, 14.5mm (L)

URIS Prosthetic System is made of titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V ELI) intended for use as an aid in prosthetic restoration. It consists of Ball Abutment, Retainer, T LOC Straight Abutment, T Loc Titanium Cap, Multi-Unit Straight Abutment, Multi-Unit Angled Abutment, Multi-Unit Healing Cap, Multi-Unit Ti Cylinder, Multi-unit temporary cylinder, Multi-Unit Cylinder screw, URIS DS, URIS Base. No additional angulation is to be included in the when using a coping or cylinder (i.e., Multi-unit Ti Cylinder, Multi-unit Temporary Cylinder, Multi-unit Base) with any of the Multi-unit Abutments.

URIS Base consists of a two-piece abutment, where the titanium base is a pre-manufactured abutment that will be used to support a CAD/CAM designed superstructure (the second part of the two-piece abutment) that composes the final abutment. URIS Base is made of titanium alloy conforming to ASTM F136 Standard Specification for Wrought Titanium-4Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) Alloy for Surgical Implant Applications.

URIS DS abutment as a patient matched titanium abutment compatible with both URIS OMNI System (K172100) and URIS OMNI Narrow System (subject).

The provided document is a 510(k) Summary for a dental implant system. It discusses the substantial equivalence of the "URIS OMNI Narrow System & Prosthetic" to predicate devices based on non-clinical testing. The document does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria in the context of human reader performance or a standalone algorithm performance for AI/ML-driven devices.

The document states: "No clinical data were included in this submission." and focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through comparisons of technological characteristics and non-clinical test data.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information for an AI/ML device related to acceptance criteria, detailed study design, sample sizes, expert ground truth, adjudication methods, or MRMC comparative effectiveness studies, as these types of studies are not discussed in this 510(k) summary for this device.

The "acceptance criteria" presented in this document are primarily related to the successful completion and results of non-clinical tests to demonstrate equivalence to predicate devices. These are not performance metrics for an AI/ML algorithm.

Here's an analysis of what is provided regarding acceptance criteria in the context of this traditional medical device:

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

The document implicitly defines acceptance criteria by listing the standards to which tests were performed and stating that "the results have met the criteria of the standards." The "reported device performance" is that it successfully met these standards, thereby demonstrating substantial equivalence.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:
Not applicable for this type of non-clinical, non-AI device study. The document refers to testing on the device itself (e.g., fatigue testing, sterilization testing, biocompatibility).

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 as typically understood for AI/ML performance is not relevant here. The "ground truth" for these tests would be the accepted parameters and methods defined by the referenced ISO/ASTM standards and FDA guidance.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
Not applicable. This is not a human reader or AI performance study.

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. This is not an AI/ML device.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
No. This is not an AI/ML device.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert concensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc):
Not applicable in the context of AI/ML device performance. For the described non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" is defined by the specific parameters and requirements of the referenced ISO/ASTM standards. For example, for biocompatibility, the ground truth is whether the materials meet the criteria specified in ISO 10993-1.

8. The sample size for the training set:
Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.

Ask a specific question about this device