Search Results

Dentis s-Clean Regular Abutment is indicated for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae, in support of single or multiple unit restorations including; cemented retained, screw retained, or overdenture restorations, and terminal or intermediate abutment support for fixed bridgework. This system is dedicated for one and two stage surgical procedures. This system is intended for delayed loading.

Dentis s-Clean Regular Abutment is intended for use as an aid in prosthetic restoration. It consists of Abutments, components, and Abutment screws.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding acceptance criteria and supporting studies. It's important to note that this document is a 510(k) summary for a dental implant abutment, and as such, it focuses on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to existing cleared devices rather than establishing novel safety and effectiveness criteria from scratch. Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" here are largely implied by the equivalence to predicate devices and adherence to relevant standards.

General Observation: The document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence (SE) based on comparing the subject device's (Dentis s-Clean Regular Abutment) technical characteristics, materials, and intended use to various predicate and reference devices. The "performance" being evaluated is largely through compliance with international standards and leveraging prior testing on similar devices. There isn't a direct "device performance" in terms of clinical outcomes with AI assistance or human reader improvement, as this is a physical medical device (dental abutment).

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

Given the nature of the device (dental abutment) and the submission type (510(k) for substantial equivalence), the "acceptance criteria" are predominantly about meeting material specifications, standardized mechanical testing, and demonstrating equivalence in design and intended use to legally marketed predicate devices. The "reported device performance" is largely the successful completion of these tests or the justification for leveraging prior testing.

• Resistance to fatigue under worst-case scenario. (ISO 14801:2016) | - "Fatigue Testing under the worst-case scenario according to ISO 14801:2016" was performed on the subject device and "results of the above tests have met the criteria of the standards." |
  | Sterilization Efficacy (for SAVE Wide Cap):
• Validation of sterilization process. (ISO 11137-1,2,3) | - "Sterilization Validation Test for SAVE Wide Cap according to ISO 11137-1.2,3" was "performed for predicate devices and leveraged for the subject device." Implied to have met criteria. |
  | Shelf Life (for SAVE Wide Cap):
• Confirmation of product stability over time. (ASTM F1980) | - "Shelf Life Test for SAVE Wide Cap according to ASTM F1980 referenced in K171027" was "performed for predicate devices and leveraged for the subject device." Implied to have met criteria. |
  | End User Sterilization Efficacy (for Abutments):
• Validation of end-user sterilization methods for various materials. (ANSI/AAMI ST79, ISO 17665-1,-2, ISO 11737-1,-2, ISO 11138-1) | - "End User Sterilization Validation Test Report for Abutments made with Ti-6Al-4V ELI according to [standards] referenced in K111364" was "performed for predicate devices and leveraged for the subject device."
• "End User Sterilization Validation Test Report for Abutments made with PEEK, POM and CP Titanium Grade 4 according to [standards]" was performed.
• All implied to have met criteria. |
  | Biocompatibility:
• Safety concerning biological interaction with human tissue. (ISO 10993-1:2009) | - "Biocompatibility testing for subject Abutments according to ISO 10993-1:2009 referenced in K171027, K171694, and K222913" was performed on the "predicate device and leveraged for the subject device because both products are manufactured with same materials and manufacturing process."
• "Demonstrates that the subject device is biocompatible and substantial equivalence with the predicate." |
  | Design and Material Equivalence:
• Comparison of dimensions, materials, and general design to predicate devices. | - Detailed comparison tables are provided for each component of the Dentis s-Clean Regular Abutment against specific predicate/reference devices, showing "same indications for use," similar or same dimensions (with differences justified as not impacting performance), and identical materials where applicable.
• Example for s-Clean Couple Abutment: "Subject Device and Primary Predicate(K171027) have same indications for use, similar sizes...material, and sterilization method. Both devices are substantial equivalent." |
  | Intended Use Equivalence:
• The subject device's intended use matches that of predicate devices. | - "This system has the same intended use and fundamental scientific technology as its predicate devices." The Indications for Use statement is provided and implicitly compared to predicate devices. |
  | Manufacturing Process / Facility Equivalence:
• For leveraged testing, assurance that processes are similar/identical. | - For leveraged end-user sterilization tests: "because the product category, material, manufacturing process, facility, and packaging of the both products are exactly same." |

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

The document specifies "Fatigue Testing under the worst-case scenario according to ISO 14801:2016" was performed on the subject device. However, it does not specify the sample size used for this specific test item.

For the other tests (Sterilization Validation, Shelf Life, End User Sterilization Validation, Biocompatibility), the data provenance is that they were "performed for predicate devices and leveraged for the subject device" or "conducted on the predicate device and leveraged."

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for any of the tests.
• Data Provenance: Retrospective (leveraged from previously cleared predicate/reference devices) and some prospective (Fatigue Testing on the subject device). The country of origin of the data is not specified, but the manufacturer is Dentis Co., Ltd. (Korea) and the US correspondent is Withus Group Inc. (USA). The tests were presumably conducted in facilities capable of meeting the cited international standards.

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

This question is not applicable to this type of device submission. This is a physical dental implant component, not an AI/software device that requires expert adjudication for ground truth establishment. The "ground truth" here is compliance with engineering standards and material specifications, verified through laboratory testing.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

This question is not applicable. There is no human adjudication process described for the engineering tests performed on a physical dental abutment. The outcome of the tests (e.g., fatigue strength, material composition) is objectively measured against a standard.

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 device is a physical dental abutment, not an imaging or diagnostic AI device that would involve human readers or AI assistance.

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

This question is not applicable. This device is a physical dental abutment, not an algorithm or software.

7. The type of ground truth used

The "ground truth" for the performance of this dental abutment is based on:

• Engineering Standards and Specifications: Adherence to international standards like ISO 14801 (fatigue), ISO 11137 (sterilization), ASTM F1980 (shelf life), ISO 10993-1 (biocompatibility), and material specifications (e.g., ASTM F136 for Ti-6Al-4V ELI).
• Material Composition Analysis: Ensuring materials match specified standards (e.g., Ti-6Al-4V ELI, Pure Titanium Gr4, PEEK, POM).
• Dimensional Accuracy: Ensuring dimensions are within acceptable tolerances.
• Demonstrated Performance of Predicate Devices: Relying on the established safety and effectiveness of legally marketed predicate devices through showing substantial equivalence in design, materials, and intended use.

8. The sample size for the training set

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

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

This question is not applicable. Since there is no training set, there is no ground truth established for it.

Ask a specific question about this device