Search Results

Fabrication of dental prostheses like: Clasps, provisional bridges, space maintainers, partials orthodontic devices and abutments.

Not Found

This looks like a 510(k) clearance letter for a dental device, "Dental D," not a study report with performance metrics.

Therefore, the provided text does not contain the information requested regarding:

• Acceptance criteria and reported device performance.
• Sample size for test set, data provenance.
• Number and qualifications of experts for ground truth.
• Adjudication method.
• MRMC comparative effectiveness study results.
• Standalone algorithm performance.
• Type of ground truth used.
• Sample size for training set.
• Ground truth establishment for the training set.

The document is a regulatory letter from the FDA stating that the device is "substantially equivalent" to previously marketed devices for the fabrication of dental prostheses. It outlines the regulatory classification and general controls applicable to the device. There is no mention of a performance study or specific acceptance criteria within this document.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Roeko silicone dam is intended for use as a physical barrier around a tooth to allow isolation from fluids in the mouth during dental procedures. The tooth is isolated by insertion through a hole punched in the center of the silicone sheet. The dental dam is inserted into the oral cavity using frame and clamp accessories. These indications are the same as those claimed for the predicate device.

The Roeko Dental Dam Silicone. Its common name is dental dam and the classification name is Rubber dam and accessories. The Roeko dam is a silicone product used in dental procedures. The device consists of a 150 mm x 150 mm green opaque film of less than 1mm in thickness. The device is available with frame, clamp and other accessories for use in dental procedures.

This 510(k) summary (K961472) is for a dental dam, and as such, the information provided is very limited in the context of advanced AI/medical imaging device studies. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to an existing device rather than presenting performance metrics from a detailed study.

Therefore, many of the requested categories are not applicable or cannot be extracted from the provided text. I will address the applicable points and indicate where information is missing.

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

Based on the provided text, the "acceptance criteria" are implicitly tied to the substantial equivalence to the predicate device (Hygienic brand latex dam) in terms of physical properties and biocompatibility.

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

This information is not provided in the 510(k) summary. The document mentions "biocompatibility tests" and "technological characteristics" but does not detail the sample sizes or the specifics of these tests (e.g., in vitro, in vivo, a particular patient population, or the origin of any data).

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 as the device is a physical dental dam. "Ground truth" in the context of expert consensus for diagnostic tasks is not relevant here. The evaluation relies on physical and chemical testing.

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

This information is not applicable. Adjudication methods are typically used in clinical studies involving interpretation of data by multiple experts, which is not the case for a physical device like a dental dam.

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 information is not applicable. The device is a physical dental dam, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool. Therefore, MRMC studies are not relevant.

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

This information is not applicable. This refers to AI algorithm performance, which is not relevant for a physical dental device.

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

For the physical and chemical properties, the "ground truth" would be established by standardized laboratory testing and measurements based on established engineering and materials science principles. For biocompatibility, it would be based on recognized biocompatibility testing standards (e.g., ISO 10993 series) and their respective endpoints.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of AI model development for a physical device like a dental dam. The manufacturing processes and material specifications are developed through engineering and materials science, not machine learning training.

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

This information is not applicable as there is no "training set" in the context of AI. The "ground truth" for the device's characteristics (material properties, biocompatibility) would be established through laboratory testing and adherence to relevant industry standards.

Ask a specific question about this device