Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(119 days)
- Blue Sky Bio 3mm Double Hex implants are primarily intended for restoration of mandibular incisors and maxillary lateral incisors
- Blue Sky Bio 3mm Double Hex Dental Implant System is intended for implantation into the fully and partially edentulous ridge for the support of a dental prosthesis, and for single tooth replacement in the anterior area of the jaws
- Implants can be placed in immediate function on single-tooth and/or multiple tooth applications when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading, to restore chewing function.
- Multi-unit abutments for fixed restorations are to be used only for multiple splinted restorations.
- In cases of fully edentulous patients, 4 or more implants must be used in immediately loaded cases.
- Blue Sky Bio 3mm Double Hex Dental Implant System is compatible with Astra Osseospeed Narrow Dental Implant System.
- Blue Sky Bio 3mm Double Hex Dental Implants are compatible with Astra Osseospeed Narrow abutments.
- Blue Sky Bio 3mm Double Hex Abutments are compatible with Astra Osseospeed Narrow Implants.
The modification of the Blue Sky Bio Dental Implant System consists of root form dental implants of various lengths and associated abutment systems, which provide the clinician with cement retained, screw retained and overdenture-type restorative options. Modifications to the existing system do not introduce new issues of safety or efficacy. The implants and components are supplied sterile or not sterile and are labeled accordingly.
The provided document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the Blue Sky Bio Dental Implant System. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device rather than providing extensive clinical studies or performance against specific acceptance criteria for novel devices.
Therefore, the document does not contain a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance in the way typically found for new AI/diagnostic devices. Instead, the "acceptance criteria" are implied by the demonstration of substantial equivalence to predicate devices through technical comparisons and performance tests designed to show compatibility and equivalence.
Here's a breakdown of the information available based on the request:
1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
As mentioned above, the document does not present a formal table of acceptance criteria and reported performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) like for a standalone diagnostic device. The "acceptance criteria" for this 510(k) submission are met by demonstrating:
| Acceptance Criterion (Implied by Substantial Equivalence Goal) | Reported Device Performance (Summary from Document) |
|---|---|
| Material Equivalence | The device uses CP Titanium Grade 4 and Ti-6Al-4V, which is compared to the predicate device's CP Titanium Grade 4. The document states, "The material, technology and facilities used to produce the modified Blue Sky Bio Dental Implant Systems are the same." |
| Functional Equivalence (Design & Features) | The "Technological Characteristic Comparison" table (provided in the prompt's input) directly compares features such as 2-stage implantation, surface treatment (blasted with resorbable medium/aluminum oxide and acid etched vs. blasted with titanium oxide and acid etched), body/platform diameter (both 3mm), lengths, external screw threads, anti-rotational feature (internal double hex with taper), sterilization method (gamma), and abutment types. |
| Compatibility with Predicate Devices | "Compatibility tests with other systems according to Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff - Class II Special Controls Guidance Document; Root-form Endosseous Dental Implants and Endosseous Dental Abutments: These tests were performed to assess compatibility with predicate devices. The tests showed that the new devices are compatible with predicate devices and the fit is adequate." |
| Mechanical Strength/Fatigue Equivalence | "Fatigue testing for angled abutments and narrow diameter implants: This test has been conducted according to ISO 14801 for predicate devices. The new devices have the same wall thickness and equal or smaller angulation than the predicate devices and are therefore equivalent or stronger than the predicate devices." |
| Safety and Efficacy (Overall) | "The 3mm Blue Sky Bio dental implant system is as safe and effective as the predicate devices." "The device constitutes a safe, reliable and effective medical device... and does not introduce new risks and does not present any adverse health effects or safety risks to patients when used as intended." |
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)
The document does not specify sample sizes for specific 'test sets' in the context of clinical studies.
- The "compatibility tests" and "fatigue testing" are engineering/bench tests, not clinical trials with human subjects. The document refers to "systems" for compatibility tests and "new devices" for fatigue tests, but does not provide specific sample numbers of implants tested.
- Data provenance is not mentioned as these are largely in-vitro/bench tests.
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)
This information is not applicable to this submission. The tests performed are engineering/bench tests (compatibility, fatigue), not studies requiring expert interpretation of clinical data or images to establish ground truth.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set
This information is not applicable as there were no clinical studies described that would require an adjudication method for a test set.
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
No MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done. This is a dental implant system, not a diagnostic AI device requiring human reader interaction.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
Not applicable. This device is a physical dental implant, not an algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)
For the technical performance tests mentioned:
- Compatibility Tests: The "ground truth" would be established by physical fit measurements and functional assessment with predicate device components, guided by engineering specifications and relevant ISO standards.
- Fatigue Testing: The "ground truth" is established by adherence to the ISO 14801 standard and the mechanical properties (e.g., fracture resistance, cycles to failure) observed, compared to the predicate device or a defined strength threshold.
There is no mention of clinical ground truth (e.g., pathology, patient outcomes data) in the context of a dedicated study for this submission. The substantial equivalence argument relies on the predicate device's established safety and efficacy.
8. The sample size for the training set
Not applicable. This device is a physical dental implant, not a machine learning model, so there is no training set mentioned or used.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
Not applicable. (See point 8).
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1