Search Results

The Atlantis Abutment is intended for use with an endosseous implant to support a prosthetic device in a partially or completely edentulous patient. It is intended for use to support single and multiple tooth prosthesis, in the mandible or maxilla. The prosthesis can be cement retained to the abutment. The abutment screw is intended to secure the abutment to the endosseous implant. This device is compatible with the following manufacturers' implant systems: Astra Tech Systems OsseoSpeed™ Implants 3.5 mm, 4.0mm, 4.5 mm and 5.0 mm diameters. Please note: This device may be used in an early load situation, but is dependent on the specific implant system and protocol used by the dental professional. Also, highly angled abutments (i.e. 30 degrees) on implants with diameters less than 4 mm are intended for the anterior region of the mouth and are not intended for the posterior region due to limited strength of the implant.

The devices covered in this submission are abutments which are placed into the dental implant to provide support for a prosthetic restoration. The subject abutments are indicated for cemented restorations. The Atlantis™ Abutments in Zirconia for Astra Implants is made of biocompatible material, yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystals (Y-TZP) and meets ISO Standards 6972 & 13356). The abutment screws are made from titanium grade Ti-6A1-V ELI and meets ASTM Standard F-136. The abutment is placed over the implant shoulder and is mounted into the implant with a screw. The abutments are compatible with the Astra Tech OsseoSpeed™ implants 3.5 mm, 4.0 mm, 4.5 mm and 5.0 mm diameters.

This 510(k) premarket notification for the Atlantis™ Abutment in Zirconia for Astra Implants does not include a study proving device performance against acceptance criteria in the way typically seen for diagnostic or AI-driven devices.

Instead, this submission is a claim of substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices based on material, design, and intended use. The "acceptance criteria" here relate more to meeting established standards for biocompatibility and mechanical properties rather than performance in a clinical or diagnostic setting.

Here's an breakdown based on the provided text, highlighting what is (and isn't) present:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (Based on provided text)

Further Information Based on the Document:

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • N/A. No "test set" in the context of performance data (e.g., clinical outcomes, diagnostic accuracy) is described. The submission relies on a comparison to predicate devices, material standards, and intended use.

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

   • N/A. No ground truth establishment by experts for a test set is described.

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

   • N/A. No adjudication method for a test set is described.

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:

   • No. This device is a dental implant abutment, not a diagnostic imaging device or an AI-driven tool for human readers. Therefore, an MRMC study is not applicable.

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

   • N/A. This is a physical medical device (dental abutment), not an algorithm or AI system.

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

   • N/A. For this type of 510(k) submission, the "ground truth" is largely established by adherence to recognized material standards (ISO, ASTM) and the established performance/safety profile of the predicate devices. There is no "ground truth" in the sense of clinical outcomes or pathology data specifically collected for this submission to prove its performance.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • N/A. This is a physical medical device, not a machine learning model. There is no training set mentioned or implied.

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

   • N/A. As above, no training set is relevant here.

Summary of the Study/Evaluation described in the document:

The document describes a substantial equivalence claim rather than a "study" in the traditional sense of a clinical trial or performance evaluation against specific metrics. The "study" implicitly performed by the manufacturer, and reviewed by the FDA, involved:

• Comparison to Predicate Devices: The Atlantis™ Abutment in Zirconia for Astra Implants was compared to three predicate devices (K070833, K053384, K024111) to demonstrate equivalence in intended use, material, design, and performance. This is the primary method of evaluation for this 510(k)
• Material Characterization: The biocompatibility and composition of the materials (Y-TZP and Ti-6A1-V ELI) were likely verified against established international standards (ISO 6972, ISO 13356, ASTM F-136).
• Design Specifications: The design would have been reviewed to ensure it met specifications compatible with the Astra Tech OsseoSpeed™ implants and to verify that any design changes from predicate devices did not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness. This would include considerations for angled abutments and implant diameters.

The FDA's review and clearance signify their agreement that the provided information supports the claim of substantial equivalence, meaning the device is as safe and effective as the legally marketed predicate devices.

Ask a specific question about this device