Search Results

The INNO SLA Mini Plus® Implant System is divided into two types:

• Cemented Type
  The Cement type is indicated for use in the treatment of missing maxillary lateral incisors or the mandbular central and lateral incisors to serve as temporary support prosthetic devices during stage of permanent endosseous dental implant, such as artificial teeth, in order to restore masticating function in partially edentulous patients.

• Ball Type
  The Ball type is designed for use in dental implant surgery. The Ball type is intended for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae, in support of overdentures. The use of the Ball type implants is not to exeed one hundred and eighty (180) days.

The Cemented Type and Ball Type implant bodies are indicated for immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading.

The INNO SLA Mini Plus® Implant System has two types, cement type and ball type. The INNO SLA Mini Plus® Implant System is a one-piece endosseous dental implant which is a combination of implant and abutment sections. The implant is made of commercially pure titanium and has S.L.A. surface treatment.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the INNO SLA Mini Plus® Implant System, which establishes substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than proving a device meets specific acceptance criteria based on a clinical study for performance. Therefore, much of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study details, and expert involvement is not present in the provided document.

However, I can extract the non-clinical performance data and related information as presented.

Here's a breakdown of the available information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not present a table of acceptance criteria with corresponding device performance metrics from a formal study. Instead, it describes various non-clinical tests conducted or leveraged to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices. These tests primarily focus on material properties, manufacturing processes, and safety aspects.

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

This information is not provided in the document. The document describes non-clinical tests, and for those, the "sample size" would refer to the number of units tested. This detail is not present. Data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is also not applicable or not disclosed for these non-clinical tests.

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

This information is not provided. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing devices through non-clinical testing and comparison of characteristics, not through a clinical study requiring expert-established ground truth.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not provided. Adjudication methods are typically relevant for clinical studies involving multiple readers or assessors, which is not described here.

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

This information is not provided. The device is an endosseous dental implant system, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool. Therefore, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving AI assistance would not be applicable.

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

This information is not applicable. The device is a physical dental implant system, not an algorithm or AI.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

For the non-clinical tests described:

• Biocompatibility/Chemical Analysis: The ground truth would be established by industry standards and regulatory requirements for safe material interaction with biological systems.
• Sterilization Validation: Ground truth is established by meeting the sterility assurance level (SAL) defined by ISO standards.
• Shelf Life: Ground truth is established by assessing material degradation over time under specific conditions.
• Endotoxin Testing: Ground truth is established by meeting specified pyrogen limits.
• MRI Safety: Ground truth is established by referenced scientific literature and adherence to ASTM standards and FDA guidance for MR safety, which define acceptable parameters for magnetic field interaction, heating, and artifact generation.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable/not provided. There is no mention of a "training set" as this is not an AI/machine learning device. The non-clinical tests would have involved a sample size of the physical device components, but these details are not disclosed.

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

This information is not applicable/not provided for the same reason as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device