Search Results

Dentis s-Clean s-Line Mini 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 s-Line Mini is composed of Fixture and Abutments. s-Clean SO-SL Fixture Mini is a thread type implant made of Pure titanium according to ASTM F67 which will be placed in the alveolar bone to replace the function of the missing tooth. This device has connection between the upper prosthesis and the internal Hex. The subject implant body has a two screw-joint (structured with Upper and Lower screw joints) and a hex anti-rotation design connection. The two-screw-joint feature is for diverse screw connection with other abutment that has 1.6M screw or 2.0M Screw. The surface of fixture is treated with SLA (Sandblasted with Large-grit and Acid-etching). It is only part to be implanted into bone, and to provide connection of prosthetic devices or other components of a dental implant set with human body (mandibular or maxillary bone). The system includes various abutments (Cover Screw, Healing Abutment, Sole Abutment, TiN Half Coating Sole Abutment, Couple Abutment, TiN Half Coating Couple Abutment, Angled Abutment, TiN Half Coating Angled Abutment, Abutment Screw, Temporary Abutment, MU Straight Abutment, MU Angled Abutment, MU Angled Abutment Screw) made from Pure titanium (ASTM F67), Ti-6Al-4V (ASTM F136), or PEEK material. Some abutments have Anodizing (Gold Color) or TiN-Coating surface treatments.

This document (K210080) describes the Dentis s-Clean s-Line Mini, an endosseous dental implant system, and its substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than an AI/ML-driven device requiring a study to prove meeting acceptance criteria in the context of diagnostic performance (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC).

The acceptance criteria described in this document are related to the physical, chemical, and mechanical properties, as well as the sterility and biocompatibility of the dental implant components, and their substantial equivalence to already marketed devices. The "study" proving acceptance is a series of non-clinical tests and comparisons to predicate devices.

Therefore, I cannot provide a table with "acceptance criteria and reported device performance" as typically found for AI/ML diagnostic devices (e.g., sensitivity, specificity). Instead, I will describe the non-clinical tests and their outcomes as presented in the document to demonstrate the device meets its acceptance criteria for safety and effectiveness as a physical medical device.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria (for a physical dental implant) and Reported Device Performance

Since this is a physical dental implant, the "acceptance criteria" are based on meeting established standards and demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices in terms of material, design, performance, and biocompatibility.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: The document doesn't specify a "test set" in the context of an AI/ML diagnostic algorithm. For the physical device, fatigue testing per ISO 14801 would involve a specific number of samples, but the exact count is not provided. Other tests like biocompatibility, sterilization, and shelf-life are typically performed on a limited number of samples representative of the product. The document states a comparative fatigue test was conducted.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of AI/ML. The "data" here refers to the results of non-clinical bench testing and material characterization. The manufacturer is Dentis Co., Ltd. from South Korea. The testing was performed according to international standards (ISO, ASTM, USP) and FDA-recognized guidance. It's a "prospective" assessment in that the tests were done on the manufactured devices to demonstrate their properties.

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

• This is not applicable for a physical medical device submission like this one. "Ground truth" in this context refers to established standards (e.g., ISO for fatigue, ASTM for materials, ISO/AAMI for sterilization), which are derived from broad expert consensus in relevant fields (engineering, microbiology, toxicology, dentistry).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Not applicable as this is not an AI/ML diagnostic study with human readers. Test results are compared against defined standard criteria.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done:

• No, this type of study is not relevant for a physical dental implant. MRMC studies are typically for evaluating the diagnostic performance of AI/ML systems, often with human readers.

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

• Not applicable. There is no algorithm or AI component in this dental implant.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

• The "ground truth" for proving the device's acceptance is based on:
  • International Standards: Conformance to recognized standards such as ISO 14801 (fatigue), ISO 10993 series (biocompatibility), ISO 11137 series (sterilization), ASTM F67, F136, F1980 (materials, shelf-life), and AAMI/USP guidelines for bacterial endotoxins.
  • Predicate Device Comparison: Substantial equivalence is established by demonstrating that the subject device has the "same intended use and fundamental scientific technology" as legally marketed predicate devices, and any differences "do not raise different questions of safety and effectiveness."

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Not applicable. There is no AI/ML training set for this physical device.

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

• Not applicable. There is no AI/ML training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

Dentis s-Clean s-Line 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 s-Line is composed of Fixture and Abutments. s-Clean SQ-SL Fixture is a thread type implant made of Pure titanium according to ASTM F67 which will be placed in the alveolar bone to replace the function of the missing tooth. This device has connection between the upper prosthesis and the internal Hex. The surface of fixture is treated with SLA (Sandblasted with Large-grit and Acidetching). The device includes various abutments made from Ti-6A1-4V (ASTM F136) and Chrome-cobalt-molybdenum (CCM) alloy material (ASTM F1537). Some abutments have a TiN coating. Some components are provided sterile, while others are non-sterilized.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a dental implant system (Dentis s-Clean s-Line). This document primarily focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices. Therefore, it does not present a typical device performance study with specific acceptance criteria and reported numerical performance metrics.

Instead, the "acceptance criteria" can be inferred as demonstration of substantial equivalence to predicate devices through various tests and comparisons, particularly in terms of:

• Indications for Use
• Design and dimensions
• Materials
• Surface treatments
• Sterilization methods
• Biocompatibility
• Dynamic fatigue and static strength

The "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" is fundamentally the comparative analysis against the predicate and reference devices, along with performance testing (dynamic fatigue, static strength) and biological assessment (biocompatibility).

Here's an attempt to structure the information based on your request, acknowledging that the format of a 510(k) summary is different from a clinical study report.

Implied Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Since this is a 510(k) submission, the primary "acceptance criterion" is demonstrating substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices. The performance data presented is in comparison to these predicates rather than against pre-defined numerical thresholds for novel performance.

• Dynamic Fatigue Strength
• Static Strength | Tests conducted according to FDA guidance and ISO 14801:2016 for worst-case scenario. Results are implied to be equivalent to predicate (as no significant differences were cited to impact performance). |
  | Material Characteristics:
• Adherence to ASTM standards (F67, F136, F1537)
• Surface characteristics (SLA, TiN coating) | Fixtures made of CP Titanium Gr4 (ASTM F67). Abutments from Ti-6Al-4V (ASTM F136) and Chrome-cobalt-molybdenum (ASTM F1537).
  SLA surface identical to K153639. TiN coating identical to K171694. EDX, SEM, surface roughness, coating thickness, porosity, adhesion leveraged from predicates. |
  | Biocompatibility:
• Non-cytotoxic, non-sensitizing, non-irritating | Biological assessment performed according to ISO 10993-1:2009 and FDA Guidance. Device has equivalent nature of body contact, duration, material formulation, and sterilization methods compared to predicates, thus no new issues raised. |
  | Sterilization:
• Sterility Assurance Level (SAL) of 10^-6
• Shelf Life Validation
• Pyrogenicity | Validated in accordance with ISO 11137-1:2006.
  Shelf life of 8 years for sterile devices, validated per ASTM F1980.
  LAL Endotoxin Analysis (testing limit 20 EU/device) meets pyrogen limit specifications. |
  | Dimensional Tolerance:
• Fixtures and Abutments | Stated tolerance of ± 1% range for dimensions. The dimensions of the subject device are stated to be "in range" or "similar" to the predicate devices and not to impact device performance. |

Detailed Information as Requested:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: (See table above).

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

   • The document does not specify a "test set" in the context of a clinical study or human subject data. The samples for mechanical testing (dynamic fatigue, static strength) and biocompatibility are laboratory samples/implants, not patient data.
   • The document does not provide details on the number of samples used for these specific tests.
   • Data Provenance: The mechanical and surface characteristic data were leveraged from previous clearances (K153639, K171694, K082843, K150344, K171027), indicating prior existing test results. It is prospective testing for the elements that are different or new, but retrospective use of data for elements deemed identical to predicates. Country of origin for testing is not specified.

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 question is not applicable to a 510(k) submission based on mechanical and biocompatibility testing. There is no "ground truth" established by experts in the clinical sense for this type of submission. The "ground truth" for material properties and mechanical performance would be the universally accepted standards (ASTM, ISO) and the empirical results of the tests themselves, interpreted by qualified engineers/scientists.

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

   • Not applicable. This type of adjudication method is used in clinical trials or diagnostic accuracy studies involving expert panel reviews, which are not part of this 510(k) submission for mechanical equivalence.

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 pertains to AI/CAD devices, not dental implants. No MRMC study was conducted or relevant to this submission.

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

   • Not applicable. This pertains to AI/CAD devices, not dental implants.

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

   • For the mechanical and material aspects, the "ground truth" is defined by international standards (ISO, ASTM) and regulatory guidance (FDA Guidance Documents) for dental implants. The device components are compared against these established specifications and the validated characteristics of the predicate devices.
   • For biocompatibility, the ground truth is established by recognized biological evaluation standards (ISO 10993-1).

8. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. This device is not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set.

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

   • Not applicable. This device is not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set.

Ask a specific question about this device