Search Results

The Warantec dental abutment is intended to be used with the root-form endosseous dental implant to aid in prosthetic rehabilitation.

The IU Implant System Abutment is a dental implant superstructure made of titanium alloy. It is an abutment used to support or maintain the restoration after the implantation of the fixture in the oral cavity. The abutments are provided non-sterile and should be sterilized before use.

This document is a 510(k) summary for the IU Implant System Abutment, a dental implant superstructure. It describes the device, its intended use, and a comparison to predicate devices to demonstrate substantial equivalence. However, it does not contain the specific acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria in the context of device performance metrics such as sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, or effect size for AI assistance. The document focuses on showing the device's substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices based on design, materials, and non-clinical testing.

Therefore, many of the requested details cannot be extracted from the provided text.

Here is a breakdown of what can and cannot be provided based on the input:

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

• Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated in terms of performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy). The acceptance criteria are implicitly related to demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through comparisons of material, design, intended use, and non-clinical testing results (fatigue, biocompatibility, sterilization, MRI safety).
• Reported Device Performance: Performance is reported in terms of meeting specific standards and showing substantial equivalence in non-clinical tests, rather than clinical performance metrics.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective):

• Not applicable for performance metrics. The "tests" mentioned are non-clinical (sterilization, biocompatibility, fatigue, MRI review). These typically involve a specific number of samples for mechanical or material testing, but not a "test set" from patients or images.
• Data Provenance: The submission is from Warantec Co., Ltd. in the Republic of Korea. The testing itself (e.g., ISO standards) does not specify "data provenance" in the way clinical studies would.

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):

• Not applicable. This information is relevant for clinical studies or studies using expert readers for image interpretation, which were not conducted for this submission ("No clinical data were included in this submission.").

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

• Not applicable. This relates to clinical or expert-read studies, which were not performed.

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, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This is a dental implant abutment, not an AI-powered diagnostic device. The submission explicitly states, "No clinical data were included in this submission."

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

• Not applicable. This is not an AI algorithm; it's a physical medical device.

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

• For the non-clinical tests:
  • Sterilization: Ground truth is defined by the objective measurement of sterility (SAL) and adherence to ISO standards.
  • Biocompatibility: Ground truth is established by chemical composition and biological response testing, adhering to material standards (ASTM F136) and prior submissions.
  • Fatigue: Ground truth is based on physical endurance under simulated physiological loads according to ISO standards.
  • MRI Safety: Ground truth is based on existing scientific literature and physics principles related to magnetic forces and materials.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This is not an AI device that requires a training set.

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

• Not applicable. No training set was used.

Ask a specific question about this device

The IU Implant System is intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw arches to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, and to restore the patient's chewing function.

The IU Implant System is an integrated system of endosseous dental implants with corresponding various abutments (cover screw, two piece abutment, solid abutment, abutment screw, ball abutment, retained abutment, temporary abutment, and multi abutment). The IU Implant System is a dental implant made of titanium metal intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw arches. There are two types of Fixtures, triangular screw threads design and square screw threads design. The IU Implant System includes the each fixtures is available in various diameters (lengths) 3.6 mm (8.5 mm, 10.0 mm, 11.5 mm, 13.0 mm) & 4.1 mm, 4.6 mm, 5.1 mm, 5.6 mm, 6.1 mm (7.5 mm, 8.5 mm, 10.0 mm, 11.5 mm, 13.0 mm) of triangular screw threads design and 4.3 mm, 4.8 mm, 5.3 mm (7.0 mm, 8.5 mm, 10.0 mm, 11.5 mm, 13.0 mm) & 6.3 mm (7.0 mm, 8.5 mm, 10.0 mm, 11.5 mm) of square screw threads design according to the anatomical situation. Fixture is made of pure titanium metal and supplied sterile. The surface is SA, Sandblasting and Acid etching, treated. Abutment is device made of titanium alloy and it is intended for use to make permanent prostheses and/or temporary prosthesis. The abutments are provided non-sterile and should be sterilized before use.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the IU Implant System, extracted from the 510(k) summary:

The provided document (K172345) is a 510(k) Summary for a new medical device, the IU Implant System. In 510(k) submissions, the primary goal is to demonstrate "substantial equivalence" to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than to establish new safety and effectiveness through extensive clinical trials. Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" and "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" are framed within the context of demonstrating equivalence to established standards and predicate devices, largely through non-clinical testing.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for the IU Implant System are implicitly set by the standards and characteristics of the identified predicate and reference devices, as well as relevant ISO standards. The "performance" being demonstrated is that the subject device meets these established benchmarks, thereby showing substantial equivalence.

Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Study Details

Given this is a 510(k) submission, the "study" that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria is primarily a non-clinical comparative testing and documentation of material/design equivalence to predicate devices and recognized standards.

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

• Test Set Sample Size: Not explicitly stated in terms of a "test set" as one might refer to it in a clinical study. The non-clinical tests (biocompatibility, sterilization, shelf-life) would typically involve a sample of the manufactured device components. The exact number of samples for each specific test (e.g., cytotoxicity, sensitization, mechanical flexural strength) is not detailed in this summary.
• Data Provenance: The biocompatibility testing was conducted according to International Standard ISO 7405:2008 and ISO 10993-1:2009/AC:2010. Sterilization testing followed ISO 11137-1/2/3 and ISO 17665-1/2. Shelf-life testing followed ASTM F1980. Risk analysis followed ISO 14971. This indicates testing against internationally recognized standards. The country of origin of the data generation isn't specified beyond the device manufacturer being WARANTEC Co., Ltd. from Korea. This is a retrospective analysis of non-clinical design and safety data against known standards and predicate devices.

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

• This is not applicable in the context of this 510(k) submission. "Ground truth" in this scenario is established by adherence to recognized international standards (ISO, ASTM) and demonstrative equivalence to predicate devices, rather than expert consensus on a test set (e.g., interpretation of medical images). The experts involved would be those who conducted the laboratory tests and certified compliance with the standards (e.g., microbiologists, material scientists, toxicologists), but their number and specific qualifications are not detailed in this summary.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:

• Not applicable. There is no "adjudication method" in the sense of reconciling divergent expert opinions on test data. Compliance with each standard (e.g., passing a cytotoxicity test, achieving a certain SAL) is a binary outcome based on pre-defined criteria within the standard itself.

4. 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, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is an endosseous dental implant system, not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool for human readers. This type of study is irrelevant for this device.

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

• No, this is not an AI algorithm. This question is not applicable.

6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc):

• The "ground truth" for this P(re-market) N(otification) is
  • Compliance with recognized international standards for biocompatibility (ISO 10993, ISO 7405), sterilization (ISO 11137, ISO 17665), shelf-life (ASTM F1980), and risk management (ISO 14971).
  • Substantial equivalence to predicate devices in terms of intended use, materials, design, and manufacturing processes, which implicitly means the predicate devices' established safety and effectiveness serve as the benchmark.

7. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of a 510(k) submission for this type of device. The information refers to the manufacturing and testing of physical medical devices and their components, not machine learning models.

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

• Not applicable. As stated, there is no training set for this type of device.

Summary of the "Study" (Non-Clinical Evidence):

The "study" presented is a collection of non-clinical tests and comparisons to establish substantial equivalence. It confirms:

• The IU Implant System has the same intended use as the primary predicate device (Luna Dental Implant System / SHINHUNG MST Co., Ltd. / K123155).
• Its technological characteristics (design, dimensions, material, surface treatment, connection, sterilization method) are similar to or identical to the predicate and reference devices.
• It meets all relevant biocompatibility standards (ISO 7405, ISO 10993-1) through specific lab tests (Cytotoxicity, Sensitization, Oral irritation, Systemic Toxicity, Genotoxicity, Implantation, Endotoxin).
• Its sterilization process achieves the required sterility assurance level (SAL 10^-6) validated by ISO standards.
• It has demonstrated shelf-life stability through accelerated aging testing (ASTM F1980).
• A risk analysis was conducted according to ISO 14971, finding all risks acceptable.

Key Point from the Submission: "No clinical data were included in this submission." This explicitly states that the substantial equivalence determination relies entirely on non-clinical data and comparison to legally marketed predicate devices, as is common for many Class II medical devices in the 510(k) process.

Ask a specific question about this device