Search Results

Bonding of direct composite restorations (including Polyglas® and Compomer) .
Bonding of indirect restoration in combination with a light-curing luting cement . Porcelain, Polyglas®, and composite restorations (inlays, onlays, veneers, rowns).
Sealing hypersensitive areas of teeth. .

Not Found

I apologize, but the provided text from the FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the HKBond 2006 device does not contain the detailed information necessary to answer your request regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets those criteria.

The 510(k) letter primarily addresses:

• Substantial equivalence determination: It states that the FDA has determined the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices. This implies that the new device performs as well as, or is as safe and effective as, existing devices for the stated indications.
• Regulatory information: It outlines the regulation number, regulation name, and product code.
• Indications for Use: It specifies how the device is intended to be used (bonding direct composite restorations, bonding indirect restorations, and sealing hypersensitive areas of teeth).
• Compliance requirements: It reminds the manufacturer of various regulatory requirements they must adhere to.

Missing Information:

The document does not include:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance: While the equivalence determination implies performance is comparable, specific metrics and targets are not given.
2. Sample size and data provenance for a test set: There's no mention of a specific study or test set details.
3. Number and qualifications of experts for ground truth: No information about expert involvement in a study.
4. Adjudication method: Not discussed.
5. MRMC comparative effectiveness study: No mention of such a study or effect size.
6. Standalone performance study: Not explicitly detailed.
7. Type of ground truth used: Not specified.
8. Sample size for the training set: Not applicable for this type of medical device clearance, as it's not an AI/ML device that undergoes model training in the typical sense.
9. How ground truth for the training set was established: See point 8.

For a medical device like HKBond 2006 (a resin tooth bonding agent), the "study" proving it meets acceptance criteria would typically involve bench testing (e.g., bond strength, fluoride release, cytotoxicity), material characterization, and potentially clinical evaluations (though often not full-scale trials for 510(k) clearance when substantial equivalence to a well-understood predicate is established). The acceptance criteria for these tests would be based on recognized standards and predicate device performance, but these details are not present in this FDA letter.

Ask a specific question about this device