Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K980760
    Manufacturer
    Date Cleared
    1999-12-21

    (662 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    872.4880
    Panel
    Dental
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    KLS-MARTIN MMF SCREW

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The KLS-Martin MMF Screw is intended for use in maxillomandibular fixation to provide stabilization of fractures of the maxilla, mandible, or both.

    Device Description

    The KLS-Martin MMF Screws provide temporary occlusal and fracture stabilization which can be achieved within a matter of minutes. These screws may be applied prior to or after exposure of the fracture.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text does not contain information on acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria. The document is a 510(k) summary for the KLS-Martin MMF Screw, which primarily focuses on its substantial equivalence to a predicate device for regulatory approval.

    Specifically, the text includes:

    • 510(k) Summary: This section describes the device, its intended use, and comparison to a predicate device (Leibinger IMF Screw: K963030).
    • FDA Letter: This letter from the FDA confirms the review of the 510(k) notification and a determination of substantial equivalence, allowing the device to be marketed.
    • Indications for Use: This section reiterates the intended use of the device.

    There is no information present regarding:

    1. A table of acceptance criteria or reported device performance.
    2. Sample size used for a test set, data provenance, or retrospective/prospective nature of a study.
    3. Number or qualifications of experts used to establish ground truth.
    4. Adjudication method.
    5. Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study, including a human-AI effect size.
    6. Standalone performance study.
    7. Type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.).
    8. Sample size for the training set.
    9. How ground truth for the training set was established.

    This document is a regulatory submission for substantial equivalence based on comparison to an existing device, not a performance study demonstrating specific acceptance criteria.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1