Search Results

CMP's Flex-Star V is used for the fabrication of partial or full removable dentures, as well as occusal splints and night guards. It is to be used only by professional dental practitioners who make or repair dentures for patients

Flex-Star V is used for the fabrication of partial or full removable dentures, as well as occusal splints and night guards.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding acceptance criteria and study information:

Based on the provided document, which is a 510(k) premarket notification letter from the FDA, the device in question is a "Denture Relining, Repairing, or Rebasing Resin" called "Flex-Star V."

This type of FDA correspondence, specifically a 510(k) clearance, does not typically contain detailed information about specific acceptance criteria or the study data that "proves" the device meets those criteria in the way a clinical trial report would. Instead, a 510(k) submission generally relies on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to a legally marketed predicate device. This means showing that the new device has the same intended use and technological characteristics as a predicate device, or different technological characteristics that do not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness.

Therefore, the requested information elements related to detailed study design, sample sizes, expert qualifications, and specific performance metrics cannot be found within this FDA clearance letter.

However, I can extract what limited information is available and explain why other requested details are absent:

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

Explanation: In a 510(k), specific numerical performance criteria and their corresponding results are generally not published in the clearance letter itself. Instead, the FDA reviews the manufacturer's submission which would have contained this data, demonstrating that the Flex-Star V performs as safely and effectively as a legally marketed predicate device. The letter states the device is "substantially equivalent (for the indications for use stated in the enclosure) to legally marketed predicate devices."

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified in this document.
• Data Provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective): Not specified in this document.

Explanation: The letter does not detail the specific studies performed for the 510(k) submission, let alone the sample sizes or provenance of the data used in those studies.

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

• Number of Experts: Not specified.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not specified.

Explanation: This information would be specific to clinical or performance testing, which is not detailed in this FDA clearance letter.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• Adjudication Method: Not specified.

Explanation: Similar to the above, this pertains to study design not present in this document.

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:

• MRMC Study: No, this device is a dental resin, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool. Therefore, an MRMC study related to human readers improving with AI is irrelevant and was not conducted.

Explanation: This category doesn't apply to a denture repair/rebase resin.

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

• Standalone Performance Study: No, this device is a material, not an algorithm.

Explanation: This category doesn't apply to a denture repair/rebase resin.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• Type of Ground Truth: For a dental material, "ground truth" would typically relate to established physical, chemical, and biological performance standards (e.g., strength, water absorption, biocompatibility, bond strength to other materials, wear resistance) rather than expert consensus on images or pathology. This would be established through laboratory testing (e.g., ISO standards for dental materials) and potentially non-clinical in vitro/in vivo studies.

Explanation: The relevant "ground truth" for a dental resin would be its adherence to material science specifications and biocompatibility, not clinical outcomes in the same way a diagnostic device would. These would be assessed through lab tests.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Sample Size for Training Set: Not applicable in the context of this type of device and 510(k) submission.

Explanation: "Training set" implies machine learning or AI, which is not relevant for a dental resin.

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

• How Ground Truth for Training Set was Established: Not applicable.

Explanation: This question is not applicable to the device described.

In summary: The provided document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for a medical device (a dental resin). It confirms that the device is "substantially equivalent" to predicate devices, allowing it to be marketed. However, it does not contain the detailed study protocols, acceptance criteria, or performance data that would be found in a comprehensive study report for a diagnostic AI or imaging device. The questions posed are largely designed for diagnostic/AI devices, not for a material such as a dental resin.

Ask a specific question about this device