Search Results

Astra Tech Implant System abutments are intended to be used in conjunction with the Astra Tech Implant System in fully edentulous or partially edentulous maxillary and/or mandibular arches to provide support for crowns, bridges or overdentures. Highly angled abutments on small diameter implants are not recommended for use in the molar region. ZirDesign is not recommended for use in the molar regions.

The Astra Tech Implant System has been modified to increase treatment options by adding new abutment shapes in titanium and zirconia. Both abutment designs are provided in multiple sizes with straight and angled versions. The hex interlocking anti-rotation mechanism for indexing with the implant remains unchanged from the predicate devices. As with the predicate devices, Astra Tech's Conical Seal Design™ is used for the internal connection with the implant to achieve a tight and stable interface.

The provided text describes modifications to the Astra Tech Implant System, specifically the addition of new abutment shapes, and asserts their substantial equivalence to predicate devices, but it does not contain acceptance criteria for device performance or a study proving that the device meets such criteria.

The document is a 510(k) summary, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device rather than detailing performance against specific acceptance criteria for a novel device.

Here's why the requested information cannot be extracted from the provided text:

• No Acceptance Criteria: The document does not define any specific numerical or categorical acceptance criteria for performance metrics (e.g., strength, durability, fit).
• No Performance Study Details: While it states "Performance testing was provided to demonstrate substantial equivalence and included methods described in ISO 14801," it does not provide any results from this testing, nor does it detail the study design elements requested (sample size, data provenance, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, etc.).
• Focus on Substantial Equivalence: The entire submission hinges on the argument that the modified device is "substantially equivalent" to existing predicate devices, implying that its performance is expected to be similar, rather than proving it meets new, pre-defined acceptance criteria.

Therefore, I cannot populate the table or provide the requested details because the input text does not contain this information.

Ask a specific question about this device

Astra Tech Implant System abutments are intended to be used in conjunction with Astra Tech Implant System implants in fully edentulous or partially edentulous maxillary and/or mandibular arches to provide support for crowns, bridges or overdentures.

The Astra Tech Implant System has been modified to increase treatment options by adding a new component, an additional abutment for provisional restorations.

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for a medical device modification, specifically the "Astra Tech Implant System, New Component." However, it does not contain information about acceptance criteria, the study that proves device meets acceptance criteria, detailed performance data, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, or expert involvement.

The document is a regulatory submission discussing the device's administrative information, intended use, description, and equivalence to a predicate device. It explicitly states that the modification "has the same intended use, uses the same operating principle, incorporates the same basic design, and is packaged using the same materials and processes" as the unmodified predicate device. This implies that the modification is considered substantially equivalent based on these similarities, rather than requiring a new, comprehensive performance study against specific acceptance criteria.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance.
• Sample sizes for test sets or data provenance.
• Number of experts or their qualifications for ground truth.
• Adjudication method for the test set.
• MRMC comparative effectiveness study details.
• Standalone performance data.
• Type of ground truth used.
• Sample size for the training set.
• How ground truth for the training set was established.

This type of information is typically found in a clinical study report or a more detailed performance evaluation, which is not present in the provided 510(k) summary. The 510(k) process for device modifications often focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than requiring new, extensive performance studies with detailed acceptance criteria if the changes are minor and do not alter the fundamental safety or effectiveness of the device.

Ask a specific question about this device