Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K070373
    Date Cleared
    2007-03-02

    (22 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    872.6070
    Panel
    Dental
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    N/A
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    APOZA LED CURING LIGHT, MODEL E-MORLIT, D-2000, TOP 3W, TOP 5W

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The APOZA LED Curing Light is a dental curing light that is designed for use in the optical polymerization of dental resins.

    Device Description

    APOZA LED Curing Light (Family: Model# E-Morl.it , D-2000 , TOP 3W, TOP 5W) is non-invasive medical device and is designed for use in the optical polymerization of dental resins. APOZA LED Curiing Light deliver 440-490nm blue light. APOZA LED Curing Light is also called APOZA Dental Curing Light. it includes the following models: . E-MorLit consist of a rechargeable Li-ion Battery (DC3.7V ; 2350mAH) in the handy unit and a switching power adaptor (also used as battery charger) , () D-2000 consist of a rechargeable Li-ion Battery (DC3.7V ; 2350mAH) in the handy unit and a switching power adaptor (also used as battery charger) () TOP 3W consist of a handy unit and a switching power adaptor. () TOP 5W consist of a handy unit and a switching power adaptor. The handy unit contains a programmed control circuit, high intensity dental blue LEI》 light source, a light quide and a optical fiber that conduct light to the treatment area on the patient. The control circuit which governs the output power rate, timing and monitoring the temperature of the LED.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device, specifically a dental curing light. It describes the device, its intended use, and claims substantial equivalence to a predicate device. However, it does not contain the kind of information typically found in a study proving a device meets acceptance criteria, especially for AI/ML devices.

    Here's why and what information is missing:

    • Type of Device: This is a hardware device (LED Curing Light) used for polymerization of dental resins. The acceptance criteria and performance evaluation for such a device focus on electrical safety, light output specifications, and biocompatibility, not on diagnostic performance against a ground truth as would be the case for an AI/powered diagnostic tool.
    • 510(k) Summary Nature: A 510(k) summary primarily aims to demonstrate "substantial equivalence" to a legally marketed predicate device, not necessarily to independently prove specific performance metrics beyond what's relevant for equivalence.

    Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information in the format of acceptance criteria and a study for an AI device. The document states:

    "7. Performance In terms of operating specification, Safety & EMC requirements, Summary: the device conforms to applicable standards included IEC 60601-1 and IEC 6060 -1-2 requirements."

    This is the extent of the performance claim, referring to compliance with general electrical safety and electromagnetic compatibility standards, not clinical performance or diagnostic accuracy.

    Missing Information (for an AI/ML device context, which is not applicable here):

    • Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance: Not provided as it's not a diagnostic AI device. The performance summary refers to compliance with safety and EMC standards.
    • Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable.
    • Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable.
    • Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable.
    • 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.
    • If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done: Not applicable.
    • The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Not applicable.
    • The sample size for the training set: Not applicable.
    • How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

    In summary, this document is for a hardware dental device and does not contain the information requested about acceptance criteria and studies typical for AI/ML diagnostic devices. Its primary purpose is to establish substantial equivalence to a predicate device based on similar intended use and technological characteristics, and compliance with general safety standards.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1