Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K182929
    Date Cleared
    2019-11-06

    (380 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    872.3640
    Panel
    Dental
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    BIO-RAY A-1 Anchor Screw System

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

    The BIO-RAY A-1 Anchor Screw System is intended to provide fixed anchorage for attachment of orthodontic appliances intended to facilitate the orthodontic movement of teeth. It's used temporarily and intended after orthodontic treatment has been completed. The screw is intended for single use only.

    Device Description

    The BIO-RAY A-1 Anchor Screw System is made of stainless steel 316L (ASTM F138) and titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V (ASTM F136). Electrolytic polishing is for surface treatment of stainless steel screws and anodizing is for surface treatment of Ti-6Al-4V screws. There is a self-drilling and self-tapping feature in the screw tip for insertion and removal . The screw head designs include a mushroom, hook, or none head feature for attachment to orthodontic appliances. The screws are available in various configurations, shapes and sizes.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided document describes the BIO-RAY A-1 Anchor Screw System, an orthodontic mini-screw, and its substantial equivalence to predicate devices. The document explicitly states that clinical studies were determined to be not required to support substantial equivalence. Therefore, the information regarding acceptance criteria and study design elements related to clinical performance (such as sample size for test set, data provenance, expert ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, effect size, and standalone algorithm performance) is not available or applicable in this context.

    The acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them are based on non-clinical performance (bench testing, biocompatibility, and sterilization validation).

    Here's the breakdown of the available information:

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

    Acceptance Criteria CategorySpecific Tests ConductedReported Device Performance and Acceptance
    Bench PerformanceSelf-tapping per ASTM F543Met (Substantially equivalent to predicate)
    Torsional per ASTM F543Met (Substantially equivalent to predicate)
    Axial pullout per ASTM F543Met (Substantially equivalent to predicate)
    Driving torque per ASTM F543Met (Substantially equivalent to predicate)
    Shear loading per ASTM F543Met (Substantially equivalent to predicate)
    BiocompatibilityCytotoxicity per ISO 10933-5Met (Mitigated risks)
    Sensitization per ISO 10933-10Met (Mitigated risks)
    Intracutaneous Reactivity per ISO 10933-10Met (Mitigated risks)
    Acute Systemic Toxicity per ISO 10933-11Met (Mitigated risks)
    Material-Mediated Pyrogenicity per USP39/NF34(151)Met (Mitigated risks)
    Implantation per ISO 10993-6Met (Mitigated risks)
    Sterilization ValidationSterilization validation per ISO 17665-1Met

    2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:
    Not applicable as no clinical test set was used. The non-clinical tests were conducted on device samples. The provenance of these samples is the manufacturer, Microware Precision Co., Ltd. in Taiwan. The tests are prospective in nature, as they are conducted for regulatory clearance.

    3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
    Not applicable as no clinical test set requiring expert ground truth was used. Ground truth for non-clinical tests is established by adhering to the standards (e.g., ASTM, ISO, USP) and the results obtained from standardized testing methods.

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

    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 a medical implant, not an AI-assisted diagnostic or imaging system.

    6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
    Not applicable as this is a medical implant, not an AI algorithm.

    7. The type of ground truth used:
    For non-clinical performance, the "ground truth" is defined by the established industry standards (e.g., ASTM F543 for mechanical properties, ISO 10993 series for biocompatibility, ISO 17665-1 for sterilization) and the expected performance thresholds specified within those standards or internal specifications derived from predicate device performance.

    8. The sample size for the training set:
    Not applicable as this is a physical device, not an AI algorithm that requires a training set.

    9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
    Not applicable as this is a physical device, not an AI algorithm that requires a training set.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1