Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K102703
    Manufacturer
    Date Cleared
    2011-01-05

    (107 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    872.3690
    Panel
    Dental
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    BUILD-IT TOTAL CORE

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

    Build-It Total Core is indicated for use as a core build up material on vital and non-vital teeth, sealing root canal openings, cavity floor liner, post cementation, restorative material and dentin replacement material.

    Device Description

    Build-It Total Core is a dual-cure, self-adhesive composite with a continuous fluoride release. Build-It Total Core utilizes 4-MET technology to adhere to dentin and cut enamel without a separate bonding agent. Ideal flow characteristics, esthetic and contrast shades, and outstanding physical properties make Build-It Total Core an indispensable tool in every clinician's armamentarium.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided document describes a 510(k) submission for a dental composite material called "Build-It Total Core." It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria through a clinical study.

    Here's an analysis based on the information provided, addressing your specific points where applicable:

    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    The document does not present a formal table of quantitative acceptance criteria with corresponding device performance values against those criteria. Instead, it lists characteristics evaluated and states that the performance characteristics were compared to predicate devices (Build-It F.R. and Cement-It All Purpose).

    Characteristic EvaluatedReported Device PerformanceAcceptance Criteria (Implicit)
    Water absorptionCompared to predicate devicesPerformance similar to predicate devices
    SolubilityCompared to predicate devicesPerformance similar to predicate devices
    Flexural strengthCompared to predicate devicesPerformance similar to predicate devices
    Compression strengthCompared to predicate devicesPerformance similar to predicate devices
    Linear expansion in waterCompared to predicate devicesPerformance similar to predicate devices
    Fluoride releaseCompared to predicate devicesPerformance similar to predicate devices
    Bond strengthCompared to predicate devicesPerformance similar to predicate devices
    BiocompatibilityDemonstrated material is safeMaterial is safe for its intended use

    Explanation of "Acceptance Criteria (Implicit)": Since this is a 510(k) submission demonstrating substantial equivalence, the "acceptance criteria" for these performance characteristics are implicitly met if the test results for Build-It Total Core are similar to or equivalent to the legally marketed predicate devices. The document does not provide the specific numerical values for these characteristics for either the new device or the predicates.

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

    • Sample Size: The document mentions "bench testing used to evaluate performance characteristics" but does not specify the sample sizes used for any of the tests (water absorption, solubility, flexural strength, etc.).
    • Data Provenance: The data is from "bench testing," implying in-vitro testing conducted by the manufacturer, Sybron Dental Specialties, Inc. The country of origin of the data is not explicitly stated, but given the submitter's address in California, USA, it's likely U.S.-based. This is retrospective in the sense that the testing was performed to support the 510(k) submission for a finished device.

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

    This question is not applicable to this type of submission. The "ground truth" for the performance characteristics measured (e.g., flexural strength) is established by standardized test methods and calibrated equipment, not by expert consensus on, for example, diagnostic images.

    4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

    This question is not applicable as there's no diagnostic or interpretive element requiring expert 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

    This question is not applicable. This submission is for a dental material, not an AI-powered diagnostic device, and therefore no MRMC study was performed.

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

    This question is not applicable. This submission is for a dental material, not an algorithm, so no standalone algorithm performance study was done.

    7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

    For the biocompatibility study, the ground truth is established through standardized biological evaluations as outlined in relevant standards (e.g., ISO 10993 series), leading to a conclusion of safety for intended use.

    For the bench testing performance characteristics (flexural strength, bond strength, etc.), the "ground truth" is the measured physical properties of the material under controlled laboratory conditions, obtained through validated test methods.

    8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

    This question is not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device, so there is no "training set." The product is a physical dental material.

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

    This question is not applicable as there is no training set for this device.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1