Search Results

Kerr Advanced Adhesive is an all purpose dental adhesive consisting of a visible light curable methacy late resin based mixture of monomers capable of forming both chemical addesive bonds to both natural tooth structures ( enamel and dentin ) and to commonly used restorative inaterials ( composite resins, porcelain and metals ). It is supplied as a one bottle, single step dental adhesive that is simple to use and produces fast, strong adhesion suitable for all commonly used restorative techniques.

Kerr Advanced Adhesive is an all purpose dental adhesive consisting of a visible light curable methacy late resin based mixture of monomers capable of forming both chemical addesive bonds to both natural tooth structures ( enamel and dentin ) and to commonly used restorative inaterials ( composite resins, porcelain and metals ). It is supplied as a one bottle, single step dental adhesive that is simple to use and produces fast, strong adhesion suitable for all commonly used restorative techniques. The organic solvent component allows the application of the adhesive to flow into micro-fissures of the substrate smoothly and when the fast evaporating solvent is removed a thin resin layer remains to form a tight bonding interface between tooth and restorative material.

Here's an analysis of the provided text in the context of the requested information about a medical device and its acceptance criteria and a study proving it:

The provided text, K962515, describes the Kerr Advanced Adhesive, a dental adhesive. It's important to note that this document is a 510(k) summary from 1996, which is typically a premarket notification for a Class II medical device. These summaries focus on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than providing detailed clinical study reports for sophisticated AI/imaging devices.

Therefore, much of the requested information (especially regarding AI, test sets, ground truth, experts, MRMC studies, etc.) is not applicable to this type of device or the information provided. The "acceptance criteria" discussed are primarily related to safety (biocompatibility) and functional equivalence to existing dental adhesives.

Let's break down what can be extracted and what is not applicable:

510 (k) Summary Analysis: Kerr Advanced Adhesive

Device Description: Kerr Advanced Adhesive is an all-purpose dental adhesive, a visible light-curable methacrylate resin-based mixture designed to bond to natural tooth structures and restorative materials. It's a one-bottle, single-step adhesive.

Intended Use: To produce fast, strong adhesion suitable for all commonly used restorative techniques in dentistry.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and the Reported Device Performance

Given the nature of the device and the 510(k) summary, the "acceptance criteria" are interpreted as meeting safety standards and demonstrating equivalent or superior performance to predicate devices in bench testing.

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

• Sample Size:
  • Biocompatibility Tests: Not specified in the summary. The number of samples for each specific test (Ames, Kligman, Cytotoxicity, Implantation) is not provided.
  • Effectiveness/Bench Testing: Not specified for the in-house testing or side-by-side comparisons. Details like the number of teeth tested, number of restorative materials, or number of adhesion measurements are absent.
• Data Provenance:
  • Biocompatibility: Tests conducted by an "independent laboratory" specializing in safety and toxicity evaluation. No country of origin is specified for the lab or the data. These were prospective tests designed for the submission.
  • Effectiveness/Bench Testing: "In-house testing" and "side by side test comparisons" were performed. This suggests a mix of internal company data and comparative studies. Data provenance (country, retrospective/prospective) is not detailed beyond "in-house." These would be prospective bench tests.

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

• Not Applicable. This device is a dental adhesive, not an AI/imaging device requiring expert interpretation for "ground truth" in the way described. Biocompatibility tests rely on laboratory protocols and objective measurements. Effectiveness tests involve material science measurements (e.g., bond strength). No "experts" in the sense of radiologists interpreting images were needed to establish ground truth.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not Applicable. As explained above, there's no "ground truth" established by experts that would require an adjudication method like 2+1 or 3+1. The tests are objective laboratory or bench measurements.

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

• Not Applicable. This is not an AI-assisted device. There was no MRMC study conducted or applicable to this type of product.

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

• Not Applicable. This is not an algorithm or AI device. Performance is inherent to the chemical and physical properties of the adhesive itself.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Biocompatibility: The "ground truth" for safety was based on established ISO 10993 biocompatibility guidance standards and their associated test protocols. The results (e.g., no mutagenicity, no allergenicity, no cytotoxicity, no tissue sensitization) serve as the objective evidence for "ground truth" meeting safety requirements.
• Effectiveness/Functionality: The "ground truth" for effectiveness was established by measurable physical properties and performance metrics (e.g., bond strength, flow characteristics, setting time – though not all are explicitly listed as results here, they would be common in such tests). The comparison against predicate devices also serves as a "ground truth" for equivalence or superiority in functional performance.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not Applicable. This is not a machine learning or AI device that requires a training set.

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

• Not Applicable. As there is no training set, this question is not relevant.

In summary: The provided 510(k) summary for Kerr Advanced Adhesive focuses on demonstrating the device's safety through standardized biocompatibility testing against ISO 10993 and its functional equivalence/superiority to predicate devices through bench testing. The document is not structured to provide the kind of detailed clinical study information relevant to high-tech diagnostic devices, especially those incorporating AI, which are implied by many of the questions asked.

Ask a specific question about this device