LogoFDA 510(k) Search
Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K981325
    Device Name
    3M M.G. MATERIAL
    Manufacturer
    3M COMPANY
    Date Cleared
    1998-06-11

    (59 days)

    Product Code
    ELW
    Regulation Number
    872.3660
    Type
    Traditional
    Panel
    Dental
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    K981325
    Predicate For
    N/A
    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    3MTM M.G. Material is designed for making impressions that record the occlusal relationship of the upper and lower dental arches. It is also intended to be used as a matrix when fabricating temporary crowns and bridges.

    Device Description

    3MTM M.G. Material is designed to make fast, accurate, and rigid interocclusal records. The material has a consistency which resists slumping and offers minimal resistance to closure to ensure proper occlusion. 3M™ M.G. Material may also be used as a matrix material when fabricating custom temporary crowns and bridges. It is a two-part vinyl polysiloxane paste with an addition-cure reaction. The base and catalyst pastes are extruded from dual-barrel cartridges through a mixing tip onto the occlusal surfaces of the teeth. The material quickly cures into a rigid impression.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided documentation (K981325) is a 510(k) summary for a dental product, 3M™ M.G. Material. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on technological characteristics and bench test results.

    Crucially, this document does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria in the context of an AI/ML-based device with performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or AUC.

    The product described is a physical dental material (bite registration material), not a software or AI/ML device that would typically involve a test set, ground truth, experts, or MRMC studies. The "performance" discussed relates to material properties through bench tests.

    Therefore, many of the requested categories are not applicable to the provided document. I will fill in what information is available and indicate when requested information is not present.

    Acceptance Criteria and Study to Prove Device Meets Acceptance Criteria

    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    Acceptance Criteria CategoryAcceptance Criteria (from document)Reported Device Performance (from document)
    Bench Test: Strain in CompressionNot explicitly stated as numerical criteria, but implied to be comparable to or better than predicates.Compared to predicate devices.
    Bench Test: Detail ReproductionNot explicitly stated as numerical criteria, but implied to be comparable to or better than predicates.Compared to predicate devices.
    Bench Test: Mixed ConsistencyNot explicitly stated as numerical criteria, but implied to be comparable to or better than predicates.Compared to predicate devices.
    Bench Test: Linear Dimensional ChangeNot explicitly stated as numerical criteria, but implied to be comparable to or better than predicates.Compared to predicate devices.
    Overall Safety & Effectiveness"safe, effective, and performs as well or better than the predicate devices.""Based on the safety analysis and the bench tests, 3M™ M.G. Material is safe, effective, and performs as well or better than the predicate devices."

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

    • Not Applicable. This document describes the testing of a physical dental material, not an AI/ML device. Bench tests were performed, but no "test set" in the context of data for an algorithm is mentioned.

    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. No ground truth established by experts is mentioned, as this is a physical material tested via bench methods.

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

    • Not Applicable. No adjudication method for a "test set" (in the context of AI/ML data) is 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

    • No. An MRMC study was not done. This product is a dental impression material, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

    • Not Applicable. This product is a physical dental material, not an algorithm.

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

    • Not Applicable / Bench Test Standards. The "ground truth" for the bench tests would be the established scientific and engineering standards and methods used to measure material properties. There's no clinical "ground truth" (like pathology or expert consensus) relevant here.

    8. The sample size for the training set

    • Not Applicable. There is no "training set" as this is not an AI/ML device.

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

    • Not Applicable. There is no "training set" or "ground truth" in this context.
    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1