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