Search Results

The Dental Electrical Motor iRoot Pro is a cordless endodontic treatment motorized handpiece with root canal measurement capability. It can be used to enlarge canals while monitoring the file tip inside the canal. It can be used as a low-speed motorized handpiece and device for measuring canal length.

The Dental Electrical Motor iRoot Pro is a low-speed rotating oral equipment mainly used for root canal preparation and root canal measurement. The product is a portable device powered by built-in lithium batteries and charged by USB interface. LCD displays parameters such as speed, torque, working mode, apex position, etc. Users can also set and modify by keys, and provide design of factory initialization and calibration. The product also provides a complete rotation mode and root canal measurement mode, which can be stored in memory, and provides a key functional mode for users to use quickly.

The Dental Electrical Motor iRoot Pro is a cordless endodontic treatment motorized handpiece with root canal measurement capability. It can be used to enlarge canals while monitoring the position of the file tip inside the canal. It can be used as a low-speed motorized handpiece and device for measuring canal length.

The Dental Electrical Motor iRoot Pro is intended to be sterilized prior to use.

There are four working modes as:

Mode: Only endo motor function enabled;

Mode: Endo motor and apex locator work independently, when the file reaching theapical, the apex locator only plays the role of warning and display, will not interfere with the rotation of endo motor, the motor will not stop and reverse when the file reach the apical.

Mode: In this mode, the motor will automatically rotate, stop, reverse depends on the length of the root canal measured by the apex locator.

The provided document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the "Dental Electrical Motor iRoot Pro." This type of document is for market clearance based on substantial equivalence to a predicate device, and it does not typically contain detailed information about acceptance criteria and specific study results in the same way a clinical trial report or a performance study for a novel device would.

However, it does mention non-clinical tests performed and some performance claims. Based on the provided text, here's an attempt to extract and infer information about acceptance criteria and proofs, acknowledging the limitations of a 510(k) summary for this level of detail:

General Conclusion from the Document:

The device "Dental Electrical Motor iRoot Pro" was found to be Substantially Equivalent (SE) to its predicate device, Tri Auto ZX2 (K170275), based on non-clinical testing and comparison of technical specifications. No clinical studies were included in this submission (Section 7).

Specific Information Regarding Acceptance Criteria and Proof:

Since this is a 510(k) summary, the "acceptance criteria" are primarily framed around demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than meeting novel performance thresholds established through extensive clinical trials. The "proof" relies heavily on non-clinical testing and comparison.

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

The document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in a quantitative, test-result-oriented table. Instead, it compares the proposed device's specifications to those of the predicate device, implying that equivalence in these specifications serves as the "acceptance." The key performance metric mentioned is the accuracy of the root apex locator function.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for specific tests. "Non clinical tests were conducted to verify that the proposed device met all design specifications." The document mentions "apex locator measuring accuracy performance" testing but does not provide details on the sample size (e.g., number of measurements, number of simulated canals).
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin for the non-clinical test data. It's likely from the manufacturer's testing facilities in China (ChangZhou BoMedent Medical Technology Co., Ltd., China). The data is retrospective as it was conducted prior to the 510(k) submission.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

• Not Applicable / Not Provided: For non-clinical performance tests (like apex locator accuracy on a test setup or engineering standards compliance), human expert consensus in the traditional sense (e.g., for image interpretation) is not typically used to establish ground truth. The ground truth for such tests is based on established metrology and engineering principles. The document does not mention any expert involvement in establishing ground truth for these non-clinical tests.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not Applicable / Not Provided: As no human expert readers or reviewers are mentioned for assessing performance, no adjudication method would be relevant or provided.

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: The document explicitly states: "No clinical study is included in this submission" (Section 7). Therefore, no MRMC study or AI assistance evaluation was performed or submitted.

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

• Yes (for the Apex Locator Function): The "Apex Locator Performance Testing to verify the apex locator measuring accuracy performance" (Section 6.i) is a standalone performance test of the device's accuracy in measuring root canal length. While not an "algorithm" in the sense of AI, it represents the device's intrinsic function without human interpretation. The reported performance is -1.5mm to +0.5mm for Apex position.

7. The type of ground truth used

• Engineering/Metrological Ground Truth: For the "Apex Locator Performance Testing," the ground truth would have been established through precise measurements on a phantom or cadaveric teeth model using established methods, often involving micrometers, radiovisiography, or direct visualization after sectioning, to determine the actual apical foramen position. For other non-clinical tests (e.g., electrical safety, EMC), the ground truth is defined by compliance with the referenced international standards (e.g., IEC 60601-1, IEC 60601-1-2).

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not Applicable / Not Provided: This device is a traditional electro-mechanical dental instrument, not an AI/ML-based device. Therefore, there is no "training set" in the context of machine learning.

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

• Not Applicable / No Training Set: As it's not an AI/ML device, there is no training set and therefore no ground truth established for it.

Ask a specific question about this device