Search Results

This product is suitable for making invisible orthodontic appliances by additive manufacturing (light curing 3D printing) process. The orthodontic appliance is designed for orthodontic treatment. It uses continuous gentle force to adjust tooth position, correct malocclusion, and maintain the results of completed orthodontic treatment.

It can also be used for printing splints and night guards.

Additively Manufactured Aligner Resin is custom plastic aligner system which are a series of doctor prescribed clear removable aligners that are used as alternative treatment for the alignment of maloccluded or misaligned teeth. This series of aligners gently move the patient's teeth in small increments from their original state to a treated state.

Additively Manufactured Aligner Resin is a light-curing resin used to print orthodontic appliances. The resin is a light yellow transparent liquid. The appliance printed by a 3D printer is de-supported, cleaned and post-cured to obtain an orthodontic appliance that can correct the patient's malocclusion. This product is a light-curing 3D printing resin composed of acrylate resin oligomers and acrylate monomers as well as initiators and additives.

Additive manufacturing (light cured) orthodontic resin is a light cured acrylic resin commonly used in the manufacture of orthodontic appliances. The resin is stored in a black HDPE bottle according to the weight of the resin liquid. The color of the resin is colorless or yellowish liquid, polymerized by UV light at 385 nm or 405 nm.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter details the clearance of an "Additively Manufactured Aligner Resin." This document is for a material, not a diagnostic AI device. Therefore, the information typically requested in a description of an AI device's acceptance criteria and study proving its performance (e.g., sample sizes for test and training sets, number of experts establish ground truth, MRMC studies, standalone performance) is not applicable to this submission.

The acceptance criteria and supporting studies for this material device primarily focus on bench testing (physical and mechanical properties), biocompatibility, sterility, and shelf-life. The purpose of these tests is to demonstrate that the new aligner resin is safe and effective for its intended use, comparable to already marketed predicate devices.

Here's an interpretation of the relevant information provided:

Acceptance Criteria and Performance of "Additively Manufactured Aligner Resin"

As this is a material device, the "acceptance criteria" are based on meeting established international standards for dental materials and demonstrating comparable or superior performance to existing predicate devices. The "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" refers to the non-clinical bench testing, biocompatibility testing, and shelf-life testing performed.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The primary standard referenced for mechanical characteristics is ISO 20795-2:2013 Dentistry – Base polymers – Part 2: Orthodontic base polymers. The acceptance criteria for each property are implicitly defined by the requirements of this standard, and the device's performance is reported as meeting these requirements or being comparable to predicate devices.

*Note: For Flexural Modulus and Ultimate Flexural Strength, the subject device's performance was statistically significantly higher than the predicate, which is considered an improvement and not an adverse difference in terms of safety or effectiveness for the material properties. For Water Solubility and Sorption, slight differences were observed but all conformed to the ISO standard.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

The document does not specify the exact sample sizes for each mechanical property test (e.g., number of specimens tested for flexural strength). This level of detail is typically found in the full testing report, not the 510(k) summary. However, tests were conducted as "bench testing" meaning in a laboratory setting. The data provenance is implied to be from the manufacturer's internal testing facilities, Aidite (Qinhuangdao) Technology Co., Ltd., which is based in China. The testing is retrospective in the sense that it's pre-market validation performed on manufactured material samples.

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

This question is not applicable as this is a material device and not an AI or diagnostic device that requires expert-established ground truth for a test set. Ground truth for material properties is established by objective physical and chemical testing methods adhering to international standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM).

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

This question is not applicable as there is no human interpretation or subjective assessment being performed that would require an adjudication method. The testing results are quantitative measurements.

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

This question is not applicable. An MRMC study is relevant for diagnostic AI devices where human readers (e.g., radiologists) interpret images with and without AI assistance. This submission is for a dental material.

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

This question is not applicable. There is no algorithm or software for standalone performance evaluation in this material device submission.

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

The "ground truth" for this material device is established by objective, standardized laboratory testing methods against pre-defined specifications and international material standards (e.g., ISO 20795-2:2013). This is analogous to a "gold standard" for material properties.

8. The sample size for the training set

This question is not applicable. This is a material device, not an AI/machine learning model, and therefore does not have a "training set" in the computational sense.

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

This question is not applicable for the same reason as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

VEA Align:
This cloud-based software is intended for orthopedic applications in both pediatric and adult populations.

2D X-ray images acquired in EOS imaging's imaging systems is the foundation and resource to display the interactive landmarks overlayed on the frontal and lateral images. These landmarks are available for users to assess patient-specific global alignment.

For additional assessment, alignment parameters compared to published normative values may be available.

This product serves as a tool to aid in the analysis of spinal deformities and degenerative diseases, and lower limb alignment disorders and deformities through precise angle and length measurements. It is suitable for use with adult and pediatric patients aged 7 years and older.

Clinical judgment and experience are required to properly use the software.

spineEOS:
spineEOS is indicated for assisting healthcare professionals with preoperative planning of spine surgeries. The product provides access to EOS images with associated 3D datasets and measurements. spineEOS includes surgical planning tools that enable users to define a patient specific surgical strategy.

VEA Align:
VEA Align is a software indicated for assisting healthcare professionals with global alignment assessment through clinical parameters computation.

The product uses biplanar 2D X-ray images, exclusively generated by EOS imaging's EOS (K152788) and EOSedge (K202394) systems and generates an initial placement of the patient anatomic landmarks on the images using a machine learning-based algorithm. The user may adjust the landmarks to align with the patient's anatomy. Landmark locations require user validation. The clinical parameters communicated to the user are inferred from the landmarks and are recalculated as the user adjusts the landmarks. 3D datasets may be exported for use in spineEOS for surgical planning.

The product is hosted on a cloud infrastructure and relies on EOS Insight for support capabilities, such as user access control and data access. 2D X-ray image transmissions from healthcare institutions to the cloud are managed by EOS Insight. EOS Insight is classified as non-device Clinical Decision Support (CDS) software.

spineEOS:
spineEOS is indicated for assisting healthcare professionals with preoperative planning of spine surgeries. spineEOS provides access to EOS images with associated 3D datasets and measurements. spineEOS includes surgical planning tools that enable users to define a patient specific surgical strategy.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them, based on the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter for VEA Align.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: The document states that "All the studies performed indicate acceptable performances of the algorithm for its intended population," implying that both acceptance criteria (Median error ≤ 3mm and 3rd Quartile ≤ 5mm) were met. Actual reported numerical values for the performance metrics are not explicitly provided in this document, only that the criteria were met.

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• Test Set Sample Size: 361 patients.
• Data Provenance: Images were collected from EOS (K152788) and EOSedge (K202394) systems at a variety of sites from 2007-2023. The subgroups analysis includes "Data site location - Different US states," indicating that at least some of the data originates from the US. The document does not explicitly state whether the data was retrospective or prospective, but given the collection period (2007-2023), it is likely retrospective.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications

• The document states that the ground truth was established by "EOS 3DServices reconstruction (model) from sterEOS (K172346)." This implies that the ground truth is derived from a previously cleared and validated 3D reconstruction system.
• The number and qualifications of experts involved in creating these "EOS 3DServices reconstruction" models are not specified in this document.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• The document does not describe an explicit adjudication method for the test set involving multiple human reviewers. The ground truth for the test set is established by the "EOS 3DServices reconstruction (model) from sterEOS."

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

• A formal MRMC comparative effectiveness study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance is not explicitly mentioned in this document. The performance evaluation is focused on the standalone AI algorithm compared to ground truth.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

• Yes, a standalone (algorithm only) performance study was done.
  • Description: "To assess the standalone performance of the AI algorithm of the VEA Align, the test was performed with:
    • A dedicated test data set containing different data from the training data set...
    • For each patient of this data set, a ground truth EOS 3DServices reconstruction (model) from sterEOS (K172346) that was available for comparison with VEA Align reconstruction generated by the AI algorithm."
  • This confirms that the study focused on the AI algorithm's performance without direct human intervention in the loop for the performance metrics measured.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• The ground truth used for the test set was based on "EOS 3DServices reconstruction (model) from sterEOS (K172346)." This refers to 3D anatomical models and landmark placements generated by a previously cleared medical imaging and reconstruction system (sterEOS). This can be categorized as a type of expert-system-derived ground truth, as sterEOS itself relies on validated methodologies and presumably expert input/validation in its operation.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Training Set Sample Size: 10,376 X-ray images, with a total of 5,188 corresponding 3D reconstructions.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

• The document states, "The AI algorithm was trained using 10,376 X-ray images and a total of 5,188 corresponding 3D reconstructions." It also notes that the images were collected from EOS and EOSedge systems. While it doesn't explicitly detail the method for establishing the ground truth for each training image, the context implies that these 3D reconstructions served as the ground truth. Similar to the test set, it's highly probable these "corresponding 3D reconstructions" were also derived from the established and validated EOS 3DServices/sterEOS pipeline.

Ask a specific question about this device

MEM Clear Aligner System is indicated for the treatment of tooth malocclusion in patients with permanent dentition (i.e. all second molars). The MEM Clear Aligner System repositions teeth by way of continuous gentle force.

The MEM Clear Aligner System is a customized plastic orthodontic system, consisting of a series of transparent, removable aligners prescribed by a doctor to correct misaligned or crooked teeth. These customized, removable transparent plastic aligners gradually reposition teeth with continuous gentle pressure.

The product is a series of transparent, removable orthodontic aligners, custom-made according to the dentist's prescription and designed using the "3Shape A/S (K171634)" software. They are manufactured using thermoforming technology. These aligners are designed to provide a comfortable teeth straightening experience and achieve optimal correction through precise design using advanced technology.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the MEM Clear Aligner System does not contain any information regarding a study that proves the device meets specific acceptance criteria based on diagnostic performance, reader studies, or AI algorithm performance. This document primarily focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to a predicate device (ULab Systems Dental Aligner Kit, K192596) by comparing intended use, technological characteristics, and material properties.

The "Non-Clinical Performance Data" section lists various ISO standard tests related to biocompatibility and material properties, along with transportation, packaging, and shelf-life testing. These are primarily for demonstrating the safety of the material and the product's integrity, not its diagnostic efficacy or performance in a clinical setting related to treatment outcomes or accuracy of tooth movement prediction.

Therefore, based solely on the provided text, I cannot produce a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance related to a diagnostic or AI-driven study, nor can I answer questions about sample sizes, data provenance, expert panels, MRMC studies, or ground truth types for such a study.

The document implicitly suggests the "acceptance criteria" for clearance are met by demonstrating:

• Same Intended Use: Treatment of tooth malocclusion in patients with permanent dentition.
• Similar Technological Characteristics: Mode of action, principles of operation, method of use, OTC/Rx status, duration of use, method of manufacturing, design, application (removable).
• Comparable Material Biocompatibility and Mechanical Properties: Demonstrated through ISO and ASTM standards.

Here's what can be extracted and what cannot:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

Since this is a substantial equivalence submission for a physical medical device (aligners), not an AI/diagnostic device, the "acceptance criteria" are related to equivalence to the predicate, and material/biocompatibility performance rather than diagnostic accuracy.

Note: There are no "acceptance criteria" in the sense of diagnostic performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC) because this is not an AI/diagnostic device.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

• Not Applicable. The document describes tests on the device materials and physical properties, not on a "test set" of patient data for an algorithm. The biocompatibility tests are likely performed on a limited number of animal subjects or cell cultures, and the physical property tests on samples of the material.
• Data Provenance: Not specified for biocompatibility or material tests beyond the standards referenced. The company is based in Taiwan.

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

• Not Applicable. There is no "test set" requiring expert ground truth in the context of this 510(k) submission. The ground truth for material properties is the physical measurement itself according to standard protocols.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not Applicable. No human adjudication panel for a test set of data.

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

• Not Applicable. This is a physical aligner device, not an AI or imaging diagnostic device. No MRMC study would be performed for this product type.

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

• Not Applicable. This is a physical aligner device. There is no AI algorithm being evaluated for standalone performance. The design of the aligners uses "3Shape A/S (K171634) software," but the 510(k) is for the physical aligner product, not the software itself or its AI capabilities for treatment planning.

7. The type of ground truth used

• For Biocompatibility: In vitro (cytotoxicity, gene mutation), in vivo (animal studies for irritation, toxicity, pyrogenicity, sensitization, implantation).
• For Mechanical Properties: Measurements derived from standardized laboratory tests (e.g., ISO 20795-2:2013, ASTM D570).

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not Applicable. There is no training set for an AI algorithm described in this 510(k). Fabrication is custom for each patient based on a doctor's prescription.

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

• Not Applicable. No training set, thus no ground truth establishment for it.

In conclusion: The provided document is a 510(k) clearance for a physical medical device (clear aligners), not a software-as-a-medical-device (SaMD) or an AI/diagnostic imaging device. Therefore, the questions related to AI performance metrics, test sets, training sets, human readers, and expert ground truth are not applicable to the information contained within this specific FDA clearance letter. The study described in the document primarily involves materials testing and biocompatibility assessments to demonstrate the safety and equivalence of the aligner product itself.

Ask a specific question about this device

The LuxCreo Clear Aligner System is indicated for the treatment of tooth malocclusion in patients with permanent dentition (i.e. all second molars). The LuxCreo Clear Aligner System repositions teeth by way of continuous gentle force.

Dental health professionals achieve orthodontic tooth movement through prescription of aligners which apply force to the patient's teeth so that each tooth follows a prescribed, predetermined displacement. LuxCreo Clear Aligner System is custom plastic aligner system which are a series of doctor prescribed clear removable aligners that are used as alternative treatment for the alignment of maloccluded or misaligned teeth. This series of aligners gently move the patient's teeth in small increments from their original state to a treated state.

A 3D printer, based on a 3D stereolithographic drawing, prints the predetermined shape of each aligner. Final polymerization is achieved by placing the printed aligner in a UV-light curing box. 3D printing uses specialty liquid resins, which help the aligners achieve mechanical properties similar to thermoplastics, and increased processability.

The aligners are packaged and labeled according to the sequence in which they are intended for use, determined by the prescribing dental health professional. The finished set of aligners is shipped with twelve-month-shelf-life to the prescribing physician, who is accountable for ensuring the patient uses the device properly and safely.

The LuxCreo Clear Aligner System mechanism of operation, and software usage, are identical to the predicate devices, and support a determination of substantial equality. Both the LuxCreo Clear Aligner System and the predicate devices are manufactured from a biocompatible, non-sterile polyurethane materials that supports a determination of substantial equality.

This FDA 510(k) clearance letter and supporting Special 510(k) Summary for the LuxCreo Clear Aligner System (K250343) does not describe an AI medical device or a study involving AI.

The document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (K212680) by comparing:

• Intended Use/Indications for Use: Identical for both devices.
• Mode of Action: Identical (application of continuous gentle force for teeth alignment).
• Method of Use: Identical (sequential use of preformed plastic trays).
• Manufacturing Process: Identical (light-cured 3D printing).
• Material: Different, but the new material's mechanical and chemical properties were tested against pre-determined acceptance criteria and found to be equivalent or better.
• Biocompatibility: Extensive ISO 10993 testing was performed to demonstrate biocompatibility of the new material, with all results meeting requirements.
• Shelf Life: Increased from 6 months to 12 months, supported by stability and packaging integrity testing.

The document does not mention any software that performs medical functions requiring AI/ML performance evaluation, nor does it refer to terms like "algorithm performance," "diagnostic accuracy," "human-in-the-loop," "ground truth," or "expert readers" in the context of an AI study. The "software usage" mentioned (Section H, page 7) refers to ordering workflow, not a medical function.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information (acceptance criteria, study details for AI performance, sample sizes, expert qualifications, etc.) because the provided text describes a medical device clearance based on material and shelf-life changes, not an AI/ML component.

If the LuxCreo Clear Aligner System had an AI component (e.g., AI-powered treatment planning, AI for predicting tooth movement, or AI for assessing aligner fit from scans), that information would typically be detailed in a separate section addressing the software's performance, validation, and clinical results. This document does not contain such information.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Spark™ Clear Aligner System is indicated for the alignment of teeth during orthodontic treatment of malocclusion.

The Spark™ Clear Aligner System consists of a series of doctor-prescribed, custom manufactured, thin, clear plastic removable orthodontic appliances (aligners) that gently move the participant's teeth in small increments from their original state to a more optimal, treated state. Treatment planning, aligner manufacture are supported by a proprietary software system. The clinician receives the aligners and provides them in sequential "stages" to the patient, confirming fit and monitoring treatment from the placement of the first aligner to the removal of the final aligners are held in place by presure and can be removed by the patient at any time. Several treatment options may be integrated into the Spark Clear Aligners, such as cutouts, hooks, and/or other attachment shapes, bite ramps, etc. to aid the aligners with teeth movement. The integrated occlusion guides on the upper and lower aligners allow the option of incrementally repositioning the mandible (lower jaw) forward to address in patients who have not reached full skeletal maturity.

This document is a 510(k) clearance letter for the Spark™ Clear Aligner System. It describes the device, its intended indications for use, and confirms its substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices. However, it does NOT contain the detailed information necessary to answer your questions about acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets those criteria.

Typically, such information, especially related to the performance of a device against specific acceptance criteria and the methodologies of studies (like sample sizes, expert qualifications, ground truth establishment, etc.), would be found in detailed performance study reports or summaries submitted as part of the 510(k) application, but this clearance letter does not include that level of detail.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information from the provided text. The document focuses on regulatory clearance and substantial equivalence, not the specifics of performance testing or clinical study design.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Evolution® Total Knee Systems can be implanted using the Kinematic Alignment technique. When the Kinematic Alignment approach is utilized, the devices are indicated for the following conditions:

• 1. noninflammatory degenerative joint disease including osteoarthritis, traumatic arthritis, or avascular necrosis;
• 2. inflammatory degenerative joint disease including rheumatoid arthritis;
• 3. correction of functional deformity;

The Evolution® Kinematic Alignment technique may only be used with Evolution® Primary Knee components or the Evolution® Stemmed CS Femur and Evolution® Revision Tibia Base.

The purpose of this submission is to seek clearance for the Evolution® Total Knematic Alignment Instrumentation and Technique. The instruments consist of resection and alignment guides, calipers, spacers, and trays that are used in conjunction with MicroPort's existing 510(k)-cleared knee instrumentation. The Kinematic Alignment technique is to duplicate the pre-arthritic native joint line. Unlike Mechanical Alignment where the focus is placed on making a perpendicular tibial resection, non-anatomic distal and posterior femoral cuts, and ligament releases if needed, Kinematic Alignment prioritizes the femoral cuts to replicate the native joint line. The Kinematic Alignment technique compensates for wear on the prearthritic joint line and strives for natural ligament tension.

The Evolution® Kinematic Alignment surgical technique is used with the following 510(k)-cleared knee components. No changes to the compatible Evolution® implants are being presented in this 510(k). The compatible implants are axactly the same as the previously cleared Evolution® implants.

• · Evolution® MP Total Knee System, K093552
• · Evolution® MP Total Knee System, K102380
• · Evolution® MP CS/CR Porous Femur, K140735
• · Evolution® Biofoam® Tibial Base and Evolution Biofoam Modular Keels, K152298
• · Evolution® Revision Tibia Base System, K162026
• · Evolution® Biofoam Tibial Base with Biofoam® Additive Manufacturing, K170288
• · Evolution® Stemmed CS Femur, K182125
• Evolution® NitrX™ Medial-Pivot Knee, K182251

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the MicroPort Orthopedics Inc. "Evolution® Total Knee Systems - Kinematic Alignment Instrumentation and Technique." It outlines the regulatory clearance process for a new surgical technique and associated instrumentation, not an AI/ML-based medical device. Therefore, the information requested in your prompt regarding acceptance criteria, study design for AI performance, sample sizes for test and training sets, expert ground truth establishment, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and ground truth types is not applicable to this document.

This document describes a medical device (surgical instrumentation for knee replacement) that falls under traditional medical device regulations, where clearance is typically based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to pre-existing, legally marketed predicate devices through non-clinical testing and comparison of technological characteristics. There is no mention of software with AI/ML components requiring performance evaluation against specific metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy, nor is there any data related to how human readers improve with AI assistance.

The document explicitly states: "Not applicable. Clinical data were not necessary for the subject device." and "The nonclinical analyses and validations demonstrate that the device is as safe and effective and performs as well or better than the legally marketed predicate and reference devices." This confirms that the clearance was based on non-clinical engineering and design validation, not clinical performance studies involving outcome data or expert consensus for AI/ML performance.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information based on the provided text. The prompt's questions are tailored for AI/ML medical devices, which this document does not describe.

Ask a specific question about this device

Alignment System Cranial is intended to plan and to achieve a trajectory with surgical instruments during cranial stereotactic procedures.

The indications for use are biopsy of intracranial lesions, placement of stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) electrodes and placement of anchor bolts for laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT).

The subject device Alignment System Cranial is an image guided surgery system intended to support the surgeon to plan and to achieve a trajectory with surgical instruments during cranial stereotactic procedures using optical tracking technology.

For this purpose, the Alignment System Cranial consists of a combination of hardware and software. The Alignment Software Cranial with LITT 2.1 is installed on an Image Guided Surgery (IGS) platform (Curve, Curve Navigation 17700, Kick 2 Navigation Station or Buzz Navigation) consisting of a computer unit, a touch display and an infrared tracking camera. During surgery, the software tracks the position of instruments in relation to the patient anatomy and identifies this position on pre- or intraoperative images. The position of the surgical instruments is continuously updated on these images by optical tracking. This position information is used by the software to align either passive or active positioning devices to a planned trajectory for subsequent surgical steps.

The Alignment System Cranial has different configurations of hardware devices depending on which positioning device is used and which indication is performed. The Alignment Software Cranial with LITT 2.1 supports the active positioning devices Surgical Base System 1.4 and Cirq Arm System 2.0 (+ Cirq Robotic Alignment Module + Cirq Robotic Disposable Kinematic Unit) as well as the passive positioning device VarioGuide. Both types of positioning devices consist of articulated arms with different joints where additional devices and surgical instruments can be attached to for further manual or robotic alignment to a defined trajectory.

In addition, the subject device offers a set of indication specific instruments to support biopsy, sEEG and LITT procedures. This instrumentation consists of instrument holders, tracking arrays, guide tubes, reduction tube, bone anchors, drill bits and depth stops. None of the instruments is delivered sterile. All patient contacting materials consist of different alloys of stainless steel.

The Alignment Software Cranial with LITT has the following accessories:

• Automatic Registration providing an automatic registration for subsequent use.
• Automatic Registration iMRI providing an automatic image registration for intraoperatively . acquired MR images.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the "Alignment System Cranial," which includes "Alignment Software Cranial with LITT." It details the device's indications for use, description, and comparison to predicate devices, along with performance data to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, based on the provided text:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

• Sample Size for Test Set:
  • Number of registrations: 6
  • Total number of samples: 37 (This likely refers to individual measurements taken over the 6 registrations)
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin or whether the data was retrospective or prospective. However, the study was conducted as "System accuracy testing" to evaluate the device in "a realistic clinical setup and representative worst case scenarios," suggesting it was a controlled, prospective study performed by the manufacturer.

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

The document does not provide information on the number of experts or their qualifications used to establish ground truth for this system accuracy testing. This type of testing typically relies on metrology standards and physical measurements rather than clinical expert consensus for ground truth.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

The document does not specify an adjudication method. For system accuracy testing based on physical measurements, an adjudication process involving human experts is generally not applicable in the same way it would be for image-reading or diagnostic AI.

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, and its effect size

No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. The performance data presented is for the system accuracy of the device concerning its ability to align instruments, not for a diagnostic AI algorithm that human readers would interact with. The document explicitly states: "No clinical testing was needed for the Subject Device since optical tracking technology in the scope of image guided surgery for the included indications for use is well established in the market."

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

The performance study was for the system's accuracy (hardware + software components), which is a key aspect of its standalone functionality in terms of guiding instruments. While it's not an "algorithm only" study in the sense of a pure AI diagnostic tool, it measures the precision of the device's output without direct human interpretation in the loop of the measurement itself. The "Automatic Registration" features (including one for iMRI) are mentioned as accessories, implying an algorithmic component, but specific performance criteria for these AI/ML-based features are not detailed beyond the general system accuracy. The document mentions that "There have been no changes to the AI/ML algorithm" for surface matching for patient registration, implying its prior validation.

7. The type of ground truth used

The ground truth for the system accuracy testing ("positional and angular navigation accuracy") would have been established through precise physical measurements using calibrated instruments and metrological standards (e.g., a coordinate measuring machine or similar setup to establish a true target position against which the device's reported position is compared). It is not based on expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data, as this is a measurement of mechanical and software precision.

8. The sample size for the training set

The document does not provide information on the sample size for the training set for any embedded AI/ML components (e.g., the AI/ML based model for landmark delivery in surface matching). The focus of this 510(k) summary is on the system accuracy for the LITT indication, and asserts "no changes to the AI/ML algorithm" for patient registration.

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

The document does not provide information on how the ground truth for any training set was established for embedded AI/ML components. It only mentions that an existing AI/ML algorithm for surface matching landmarks has not changed.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Pearl Clear Aligner is indicated for the alignment of teeth during orthodontic treatment of malocclusions by continuous gentle forces.

Pearl Clear Aligner is comprised of a series of clear, thin, thermoformed removable aligner trays that are designed to align teeth during the orthodontic treatment of malocclusions. They are made of biocompatible thermoplastic polyurethane. They are provided non-sterile and are customized for each patient according to the dental clinician's prescription. The dental health professional (dentist/orthodontist) provides a digital file (scan) of the patient's teeth to Pearl Digital. Based on the dental health professional's treatment plan, Pearl Digital develops a digital plan using commercially available treatment planning software. Upon approval by the dental health professional, molds are created with 3D-printing technology and the clear aligners are vacuum formed on the molds. The finished, customized aligners are provided to the dental health care professional who delivers the aligners to the patients in sequential stages checking for fit and function.

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the Pearl Clear Aligner. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting a standalone study with detailed performance metrics and acceptance criteria for the new device.

Therefore, much of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, specific study design, sample sizes, expert involvement, and ground truth for a performance study is not available within this document. The document mainly discusses the technical characteristics and biocompatibility testing of the Pearl Clear Aligner and compares them to the predicate device.

However, I can extract the available information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

Based on the document, specific quantitative acceptance criteria for the device's performance (e.g., accuracy of tooth movement, treatment success rates) are not detailed. The performance aspects highlighted are related to the manufacturing process validation and the general concept of applying forces for tooth alignment.

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

• The document mentions "Bench testing was performed to validate the manufacturing process to ensure the accuracy of the final aligners compared to the initial digital scans." However, the sample size for this test set is not specified.
• Data provenance is not specified (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective).

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

• This information is not provided in the document. The manufacturing process validation likely involved internal technical experts, but their number and specific qualifications are not detailed.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• This information is not provided in the document.

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:

• An MRMC comparative effectiveness study is not mentioned for this device. The device itself (Pearl Clear Aligner) is an orthodontic appliance, not a diagnostic AI system with human-in-the-loop interaction for interpretation. The "treatment planning software" is mentioned as a reference device, but no MRMC study involving it is described here.

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

• This information is not applicable in the context of an orthodontic aligner device. While an algorithm is used for treatment planning (referencing PlaniMax Orthodontic Software, K201036), this document is for the aligner itself, and no standalone algorithm performance study for the aligner's effectiveness is detailed. The closest would be the "bench testing" to ensure manufacturing accuracy, which is a validation of the physical product, not a standalone algorithm performance.

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

• For the "bench testing" of manufacturing accuracy, the "initial digital scans" (likely of the patient's teeth or desired final positions) served as the reference or ground truth against which the final aligners were compared.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• The document implies that "commercially available treatment planning software is used" (referencing PlaniMax Orthodontic Software, K201036). If this software utilized a training set (as AI/ML software often does), its sample size is not specified in this document, as the document focuses on the aligner device.

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

• As the document references an already cleared "commercially available treatment planning software," how its training set's ground truth was established is not detailed in this 510(k) submission for the Pearl Clear Aligner. That information would typically be part of the 510(k) for the software itself (K201036).

Ask a specific question about this device

Fas Aligner System is intended for the orthodontic treatment of malocclusion.

Fas Aligner System consist of a series of customized removable plastic orthodontic appliances which sequentially reposition teeth by way of continuous gentle force. This removable plastic orthodontic aligners intended as an alternative to conventional wire and bracket technology. Fas Aligner System are designed based on traditional mold impression or digital scans of the patient's dentition submitted by a dental health professional (e.g., a dentist or orthodontist).

Fas Aligner System 's staff in the Prescription and Planning area create the virtual planning including the attachments, as well as the movements they consider necessary to achieve the intended tooth correction. For this process the following previously released software Nemocast (K232549).

The 3D specialists use the planned data to produce the complete product design. The responsible of the Planning/Prescription department reviews the design to verify that it has been done as required and, if necessary, proposes changes.

Once the design has been approved by the clinician, the next phase of printing and preparation of models is carried out. This phase takes place in the Printer Room and is carried out by 3D Printing Technicians. For the entire manufacturing process, the models are identified with the clinical case number.

The thermoforming equipment is used for the manufacturing process of the aligners. The printed model is placed on the platform and the thermoforming sheet is placed, which is made with material previously released by means of the K200125 (Erkodur).

Once the printed thermoforming sheet is obtained, the contour of the thermoforming sheet is cut out, eliminating the edges. The gingival margins are trimmed.

The product is not sent sterile, it is cleaned to remove all residues that may have remained from the manufacturing process.

The product, the splint, is placed in labeled bags. The aligners are sent back to the dentist for distribution to the patient in sequential stages and that the dentist checks the aligners for fit and function and monitors the treatment from the first aligner until treatment is completed.

This document is a 510(k) Pre-Market Notification from the FDA regarding the "Fas Aligner System." It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting a performance study with detailed acceptance criteria and results for the Fas Aligner System itself. Therefore, much of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, sample sizes for test sets, expert ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and training set details for the Fas Aligner System is not explicitly provided in this document.

However, based on the non-clinical testing summary, we can infer some information about general performance and safety criteria, primarily through comparison to the predicate device and relevant standards.

Here's a breakdown of the available information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Since this is a 510(k) for substantial equivalence, the "acceptance criteria" for the Fas Aligner System are primarily that its technological characteristics and performance are comparable to the predicate device, Nuvola® Aligner (K222418), and that it meets relevant safety standards.

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• Test Set Sample Size: Not applicable/Not provided for the Fas Aligner System in this document. The document describes non-clinical testing (durability, manufacturing validation, biocompatibility) but does not refer to a "test set" of patient data for performance evaluation in the way a clinical study would.
• Data Provenance: The durability and manufacturing validation tests were "internal." The biocompatibility testing followed ISO standards. The material characterization references K200125, which would contain its own original data provenance.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications

• This information is not provided as no clinical or comparative performance study using human readers/experts to establish ground truth is described. The "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests would be the established scientific and engineering principles for material properties, manufacturing robustness, and biocompatibility, as verified by technical personnel during the internal tests.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable/Not provided as there is no described test set requiring human adjudication.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

• No, a MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not conducted or presented in this submission. The document explicitly states: "No clinical testing was performed in support of this submission."

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Study

• No, a standalone performance study of the Fas Aligner System (as a whole device) or its underlying planning algorithm was not conducted or presented. The submission focuses on the substantial equivalence of the physical aligners and manufacturing process, and acknowledges the use of FDA-cleared Nemocast software for planning, but does not present a standalone performance evaluation of that software in the context of this submission.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• For the non-clinical tests described:
  • Durability and Manufacturing Validation: The "ground truth" would be established engineering specifications and internal quality standards for mechanical integrity and process robustness as validated through internal testing.
  • Material Characterization: Scientific and engineering standards for material properties.
  • Biocompatibility: International standard ISO 10993-1 and ISO 10993-5, representing accepted biological safety benchmarks.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable/Not provided. This submission does not describe a machine learning algorithm developed by Xplora 3D Europe S.L. for which a training set would be relevant. The planning software mentioned (Nemocast) is a previously cleared device (K232549), and any training data for that software would have been part of its original submission.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

• Not applicable/Not provided. See point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

Cristaline Aligners A FLX are series of clear, lightweight, plastic appliances, indicated for treatment of tooth malocclusions in patients with permanent dentition (i.e. all second molars). Utilizing a series of incremental tooth movements, it sequentially positions teeth by way of continuous force.

Cristaline Aligners Z FLX are comprised of a series of clear, thin, thermoformed removable aligner trays that are designed to correct tooth malocclusions without the use of conventional wire and bracket orthodontic technology. They are manufactured using a biocompatible thermoplastic sheet composed of a composite of co-polyester and polyurethane. They are provided non-sterile and are customized for each patient according to the dental clinician's prescription. The dental health professional (dentist/orthodontist) provides a digital file (scan) of the patient's teeth to Cristaline. Based on the dental health professional's treatment plan, Cristaline develops a digital plan using commercially available treatment planning software. Upon approval by the dental health professional, molds are created with 3D-printing technology and the clear aligners are formed on the molds. The finished, customized aligners are provided to the dental health care professional who provides them to the patient, confirming fit and design.

The provided document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from the FDA for a device called "Cristaline Aligners Z FLX." This type of submission is for demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving safety and efficacy through clinical trials with specific acceptance criteria as might be seen for novel devices.

Therefore, the document does not contain information regarding traditional acceptance criteria or a study that proves the device meets such criteria in the way a clinical trial would. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating that the new device is as safe and effective as a previously cleared predicate device.

Here's an breakdown of the relevant information provided, specifically addressing your numbered points, and highlighting what is not applicable in this context:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:
   As this is a 510(k) submission, there are no specific performance acceptance criteria or reported device performance metrics in the way a clinical study would define them (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy against a gold standard). The "acceptance criteria" here are met by demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

   The table on pages 4 and 6 titled "SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE CONCLUSION" and "Substantial Equivalence Comparison Table" serves to compare the new device to the predicate device across various characteristics.

   Implicit "Acceptance Criteria" and "Reported Performance" (as per 510(k) standards):

   Characteristic	Acceptance Criteria (Demonstrates Substantial Equivalence to Predicate)	Reported Device Performance (as demonstrated by comparison)
   Indications for Use	Same as predicate device (Blue Sky Bio Aligner Z and Blue Sky Bio Z FLX).	"Same for the Z FLX Aligner."
   Mode of Action	No differences from predicate device (removable appliance applies continuous gentle forces on teeth).	"No differences."
   Description of Use	No differences from predicate device (removable preformed plastic tray worn by patient for 1-2 weeks, prior to next sequential aligner tray).	"No differences."
   Material	Same as predicate device (Blue Sky Bio Aligner Z FLX - Thermoplastic co-polyester polyurethane composite).	"No differences."
   Manufacturing Process	Processes used are standard in the field and similar to predicate's (forming plastic sheets on 3D printed dental models designed with treatment planning software). Does not raise new questions of safety/effectiveness.	"Manufacturing processes used are standard in the field and similar to predicate's." Any differences do not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness.
   Software	Same commercially available treatment planning software as predicate.	"Same software is used."
   Prescription Use	Both are prescription use (Rx).	"Both are Rx."
   Biocompatibility	Testing to meet requirements for Category C, relying on the same testing performed by the thermoplastic material manufacturer as the predicate.	"Relied on the same testing performed by thermoplastic material manufacturer." (Passed In vitro Cytotoxicity, Oral Mucosal Irritation, Skin Sensitization per ISO 10993).
   Process Validation	Validation to determine fit and form of manufactured aligners, similar to predicate testing.	"Similar testing performed." (Bench testing performed to validate manufacturing process accuracy against digital scans).

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g., country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective):
   This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through comparison of materials, design, and manufacturing processes, rather than a clinical "test set" in the traditional sense.

   • Test Set Sample Size: Not applicable. The "testing" involved biocompatibility and bench testing.
   • Data Provenance:
     • Biocompatibility testing: Performed by a GLP-certified contract research laboratory. No specific country of origin is mentioned for the data, but the submitter (Cristaline Aligners GmbH) is based in Pforzheim, Germany.
     • Bench testing: Performed by the submitter. No specific country of origin is mentioned for the data.
     • The basis for substantial equivalence is comparison to the predicate device (Blue Sky Plan Software, Blue Sky Bio Aligner Z and Blue Sky Bio Z FLX; Blue Sky Bio, LLC).

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. Ground truth as established by experts for a specific performance metric (like diagnostic accuracy) is not relevant to this 510(k) submission, which relies on engineering and biological safety testing, and comparison to a predicate device.

4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
   Not applicable. There was no clinical "test set" requiring adjudication.

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:
   Not applicable. This device is an orthodontic aligner, not an AI diagnostic or assistive tool for human readers.

6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
   Not applicable. This device is an orthodontic aligner. While its manufacturing involves "commercially available treatment planning software," the filing describes the aligner itself, not the software as a standalone AI algorithm for diagnostic purposes. The software is part of the manufacturing process to create the physical aligners.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):
   Not applicable in the context of clinical performance ground truth. The "ground truth" for this submission revolves around:

   • Biocompatibility standards (ISO 10993).
   • Engineering validation of manufacturing accuracy against digital scans.
   • The established safety and effectiveness of the legally marketed predicate device.

8. The sample size for the training set:
   Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that undergoes a training phase with a specific dataset.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
   Not applicable. As above, this is not an AI/ML device with a training set.

Ask a specific question about this device