Search Results

An addition-cure vinyl polysiloxane dental impression material that is used for all crown and bridge, edentulous, orthodontic and implant impression techniques.

The product is a kind of addition-cure silicon rubber impression material composed of vinyl polysiloxane and various fillers with neutral smell and applicable to impression in dentistry. This product is mainly composed of a matrix and a catalyst. The matrix is mainly composed of polydimethylsiloxane, vinyl silicone oil, methyl hydrogen polysiloxane, silica dioxide, ,calcium carbonate, and colorants. The catalyst is mainly composed of polydimethylsiloxane, silica dioxide, calcium carbonate, platinum catalyst, and colorants.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device called "Elastic Impression Material." It details the comparison with a predicate device and includes information on testing performed.

Here's an analysis to extract the requested information:

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

The document references ISO 4823:2021 for device effectiveness. Without the full standard or more specific details from the submission, the exact acceptance criteria for each parameter as defined by ISO 4823 cannot be fully detailed here. However, the document states: "The product submitted for inspection adopts Type 0 type product. which is based on the requirements of the ISO4823 standard, which divides this product into 0, 1, 2 and 3 type products, and the difference between these 4 types is mainly in the difference of 'consistency' index, and its chemical properties and biological evaluation requirements are consistent, and the Type 0 silicone rubber with the largest consistency is fully representative."

This implies that the device was evaluated against the requirements for a "Type 0" elastic impression material as per ISO 4823. The performance is reported as meeting these requirements, which leads to the conclusion of substantial equivalence.

For Biocompatibility, the device was tested according to ISO 10993 standards. The acceptance criteria for these would be specific to each test (e.g., absence of irritation, cytotoxicity, sensitization). The reported performance is that the device "has been verified in accordance with the above FDA recognized standards."

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 explicitly state the sample sizes used for the non-clinical tests (ISO 4823 or ISO 10993). It only mentions that the device "was tested." The data provenance is not specified beyond the fact that the tests were conducted for Beijing OKVD Biological Technology Ltd. in China. Given these are physical/chemical and biocompatibility tests, they are typically conducted in a laboratory setting, not on patient data. No clinical tests were performed, so concepts like retrospective/prospective clinical data do not apply.

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. The evaluations performed are non-clinical (device effectiveness and biocompatibility) and rely on objective measurements against ISO standards. There is no "ground truth" established by experts in the context of clinical interpretation for this type of device.

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

This question is not applicable as there is no clinical data or expert review process described for the test set.

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 MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done. This device is an impression material, not an AI software or a device that requires human interpretation of outputs.

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

This question is not applicable. The device is a physical impression material, not an algorithm.

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

For device effectiveness (ISO 4823) and biocompatibility (ISO 10993): The "ground truth" is established by the specified requirements and test methodologies within the internationally recognized ISO standards themselves. These standards prescribe objective measurements and criteria, rather than subjective expert consensus or pathology.

8. The sample size for the training set

This question is not applicable. The device is a physical impression material, not an algorithm that requires a training set.

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

This question is not applicable. The device is a physical impression material, not an algorithm that requires a training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

A Silicone Dentistry-Elastic Impression Material, with the trade name of PERFIT, is an addition-cure vinyl polysiloxane dental inyression material that is used for all crown und bridge, edentulous, orthodonic and impliant impression techniques.

A Silicone Dentistry-Elastic Impression Material, with the trade name of PERFIT, is an addition-cure vinyl polysiloxane dental inyression material

This document is concerned with the 510(k) premarket notification for a dental impression material, specifically "A Silicone Dentistry-Elastic Impression Material" with the trade name PERFIT (K133071). It is not a medical device that relies on AI or algorithms, and therefore, the requested information (acceptance criteria, study details relating to AI performance, ground truth, expert consensus, etc.) is not applicable to this submission.

The FDA 510(k) clearance process for devices like impression materials typically involves demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device through performance testing (e.g., physical and chemical properties as per ISO standards) and biocompatibility testing, rather than clinical studies with human readers or AI performance metrics.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested table and details because they are not part of the information typically submitted or reviewed for a conventional dental impression material like the one described.

Ask a specific question about this device