Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K973679
    Device Name
    AEROETCHER
    Manufacturer
    Date Cleared
    1998-03-10

    (165 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    872.6080
    Panel
    Dental
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    N/A
    Predicate For
    N/A
    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    An air-driven device that permits the user to abrade surfaces of dental materials, either intra- or extra-orally, in order to enhance the bond strength of resinous materials applied to the air-abraded surfaces and polymerized thereon.

    Device Description

    AEROETCHER may be described as an air-driven device that delivers an abrasive material (50um-grit aluminum oxide) to a substrate in order to enhance the bond strength of polymerizable resinous material to that substrate. It is substantially equivalent to the cited predicate devices in its mode of operation, but differs from them in cosmetic design and triggering mechanism.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for the AEROETCHER device, an air-driven sandblaster used to abrade dental surfaces. It states that the AEROETCHER is "substantially equivalent" to predicate devices, differing only in cosmetic design and triggering mechanism, and it explains the device's intended use.

    However, the document does not contain information about acceptance criteria, device performance studies, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, or MRMC studies. The 510(k) summary is a regulatory filing asserting substantial equivalence to existing devices, not a detailed report of clinical or performance studies.

    Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance or information about the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria based on the provided text. The document indicates that the device was cleared based on its substantial equivalence to previously marketed devices, meaning it likely did not undergo new, extensive performance studies with specific acceptance criteria as would be required for a novel device.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1