Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(139 days)
CEREC Cercon 4D Abutment Blocks, CEREC Cercon 4D Abutment System
CEREC Cercon 4D™ Abutment System is intended for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae in support of single cement-retained restorations.
The system comprises three parts:
- CEREC Cercon 4D™ Abutment Block
- TiBase
- CAD/CAM system
The CEREC Cercon 4D™ ceramic structure cemented to the TiBase is recommended for two-piece hybrid abutments for single tooth restorations and hybrid abutment crowns, used in conjunction with endosseous dental implants.
The CEREC Cercon 4D Abutment Blocks, which are used for fabrication of a ceramic structure, two-piece hybrid abutments (meso-structure and crown) and abutment crowns, that are cemented to a TiBase (titanium base) used with dental implant systems. The CEREC Cercon 4D Abutment Blocks are not provided as the finished, fully assembled dental implant medical devices. The abutment blocks are materials supplied to dental professionals that must be further processed/manufactured using CAD/CAM technology and they are not intended to be reused as in the context of direct patient-applied devices and materials.
CEREC Cercon 4D™ Abutment Block are Yttria-doped zirconia blocks suitable for chairside and lab side use in fabrication of single cement-retained restorations. CEREC Ceron 4D™ Abutment Block are designed with a pre-drilled screw access channel and anti-rotation feature. The design allows for fabrication of a ceramic structure, two-piece hybrid abutments (mesostructure and crown) and abutment crowns, that are cemented to theBase (Titanium base) used with dental implant systems.
The provided document describes the substantial equivalence of the CEREC Cercon 4D™ Abutment Blocks and System, primarily focusing on non-clinical performance and material characteristics, rather than an AI/ML-based device. Therefore, many of the requested elements pertaining to AI/ML device studies (e.g., sample size for test set, data provenance, number of experts for ground truth, adjudication method, MRMC studies, standalone performance, training set details) are not applicable or cannot be extracted from this document.
However, I can extract information related to the acceptance criteria and study that proves the device meets those criteria from the perspective of a medical device (specifically, a dental abutment system), even without AI elements.
Here's the information based on the provided text, with Not Applicable (N/A) for fields that relate to AI/ML studies and are not covered in this document.
Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for CEREC Cercon 4D™ Abutment Blocks, CEREC Cercon 4D™ Abutment System
The device under review is primarily a dental abutment system, and its performance is evaluated based on material properties, mechanical strength, and software integration, not on diagnostic accuracy or AI assistance.
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and the Reported Device Performance
| Test Performed | Test Method/Applicable Standards | Acceptance Criteria | Reported Performance (Results) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Flexural Strength | ISO 6872:2015 Amd 1. 2018 Dentistry-Ceramic Materials | >1,100 MPa | Pass |
| Fatigue Testing | ISO 14801:2016 Dentistry-Implants-Dynamic loading test for endosseous dental implants | (Implied: Meets requirements) | Pass |
| Sterilization Validation | ISO 17665-1 Sterilization of health care products - Moist heat - Part 1: Requirements for the development, validation and routine control of a sterilization process for medical devices | Achieve a Sterility Assurance Level (SAL) of 10⁻⁶ | Validated |
| Biocompatibility | ISO 10993 standard series (specifically ISO 10993-5, -10, -23) | Meets ISO 10993 requirements | Meets requirements |
| Software Validation (Angulation) | Internal software integration requirements for the addition of the proposed device | Max angulation of 20° (User cannot proceed if outside) | Meets requirements |
| Software Validation (Wall Thickness) | Internal software integration requirements for the addition of the proposed device | Minimal wall thickness of 0.5 mm (User cannot proceed if outside) | Meets requirements |
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance
- Sample Size for Test Set:
- For Flexural Strength (Table 8.1): Not explicitly stated, but typically involves a certain number of samples to ensure statistical significance as per ISO 6872.
- For Fatigue Testing (Table 8.2): "New fatigue testing was conducted on the worst-case combinations relating to the greatest angulation, the platform size and the gingival height for the proposed Dentsply Sirona TiBase/Dentsply Sirona Implant Systems and Third Party TiBase/Third Party Implant Systems (Camlog) combinations." The exact number of samples per test condition is not specified in the document, but standardized tests like ISO 14801 would stipulate a minimum.
- For Sterilization Validation, Biocompatibility, and Software Validation: Not explicitly specified in terms of sample count in this summary.
- Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin of the data. The tests are described as "non-clinical tests" and "performance bench testing," indicating laboratory-based studies. The document does not mention if the data is retrospective or prospective, as this distinction is more relevant for clinical studies.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
Not applicable. This device is not an AI/ML diagnostic tool requiring expert ground truth for image interpretation or similar. The "ground truth" (or more accurately, established performance standards) for this device is based on mechanical properties and ISO standards, which are objective and do not require expert human interpretation in the way an AI diagnostic system would.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set
Not applicable, as no human expert interpretation or consensus review is involved in the performance testing of this device (e.g., physical strength, material composition).
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 not an AI-assisted diagnostic device; therefore, MRMC studies are irrelevant.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
Not applicable. This is not an algorithm-based device. Its "system" aspect refers to the combination of the abutment block, TiBase, and CAD/CAM system for fabrication, not an AI algorithm. The performance described is of the physical components and the software's ability to constrain design parameters.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)
The "ground truth" for this device's performance is established by international consensus standards (e.g., ISO 6872, ISO 14801, ISO 10993, ISO 17665-1) for dental materials and implants, along with internal software integration requirements. These are objective, quantitative measures rather than subjective human interpretations or clinical outcomes data in the context of diagnostic accuracy.
8. The sample size for the training set
Not applicable. This device does not have a "training set" in the context of machine learning.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
Not applicable. This device does not have a "training set" in the context of machine learning.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1