Search Results

The LOCATOR Angled Abutment is indicated for the attachment of full or partial, fixed and removable restorations retained by endosseous implants to restore masticatory function for the patient.

The purpose of this submission is to expand the Indications for Use of the LOCATOR® Angled Abutment product line (K243272 & K233587) by adding compatibility of existing abutments with various new dental implant systems from Implant Direct and Biohorizons. Additionally, the submission expands the Indications for Use of the product line with a modified version of the predicate device shown to be compatible with the Implant Logistics Implant-One Series 300 and Series 400 Implant Systems. The LOCATOR Angled Abutment is designed and intended for the attachment of full or partial, fixed and removable, restorations retained by endosseous implants in the mandible or maxilla, as cleared to be used with LOCATOR FIXED (K213391) and LOCATOR Attachment Systems (K072878).

The LOCATOR Angled Abutments are manufactured from titanium (Ti-6Al-4V) and are titanium nitride (TiN) coated in various abutment heights, identical to the predicate device. The LOCATOR Angled Abutment interfacing features are provided at a 15 degree angle to allow for angle correction, substantially equivalent to the predicate device of K233587 and K243272. The abutments will be used with the accessories of the LOCATOR Implant Attachment System (retention inserts, denture attachment housing, and ancillary processing parts) and LOCATOR FIXED Attachment System (fixed inserts, denture attachment housing) for the attachment of a restoration, identical to the predicate device.

The provided document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the LOCATOR® Angled Abutment, K250721. This document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device and expanding indications for use, rather than detailing a study that proves the device meets specific performance acceptance criteria for a new clinical application.

Therefore, much of the requested information regarding study design, sample sizes, expert involvement, and ground truth establishment (which are typical for AI/ML device clearances or those requiring extensive clinical performance data) is not present in this type of regulatory submission for a dental implant abutment.

However, based on the information provided, I can construct a table for the acceptance criteria and reported "performance" in the context of this 510(k) submission, which is primarily a demonstration of mechanical compatibility and safety rather than a clinical efficacy study.

Here's an interpretation based on the provided text:

Overview of Device Performance and Acceptance Criteria (as per the 510(k) Submission)

The LOCATOR® Angled Abutment (K250721) is a dental implant abutment. The "study" proving it meets acceptance criteria in this context is a series of non-clinical tests and engineering analyses demonstrating its compatibility with various dental implant systems and confirming its mechanical properties and biocompatibility are substantially equivalent to previously cleared devices. The acceptance criteria are implicitly met by showing conformance to established standards and similarity to predicate devices.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated as "sample size" in the conventional sense for a clinical trial. For physical testing (fatigue, packaging), standard engineering test specimen numbers would have been used, but these are not detailed. For material and biocompatibility, existing data was leveraged. Functional compatibility was primarily through engineering analysis.
• Data Provenance: The data comes from in-vitro non-clinical testing and engineering analyses conducted by the manufacturer, Zest Anchors, LLC, or leveraged from previous submissions (K243272, K233587, K213391, K072878, K173701, K102822). The origin is the manufacturer's internal testing and regulatory submissions. The nature of these tests is "retrospective" in the sense that results from previous validated tests (e.g., K233587 for TiN coating, K072878 for biocompatibility) are being applied ("leveraged") to demonstrate equivalence for the current device, implying these tests were performed in the past.

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

• Number of Experts: Not applicable. For this type of device (dental abutment) and submission (510(k) for expanded compatibility), "ground truth" is established through engineering specifications, material standards, and validated physical/mechanical testing protocols (e.g., ISO, ASTM). It does not involve human expert consensus on clinical images or patient outcomes.
• Qualifications of Experts: N/A, as the "ground truth" is based on objective, standardized physical and material properties, confirmed by engineering analysis.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Adjudication Method: Not applicable. This is not a study requiring human adjudication of results. Engineering and laboratory tests have objective pass/fail criteria or conformance to standards.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

• MRMC Study Done? No. MRMC studies are typically for AI/ML devices where human readers interpret diagnostic images. This device is a physical dental implant component.
• Effect Size of Human Readers Improvement: Not applicable.

6. Standalone Performance Study (Algorithm Only)

• Standalone Performance Study Done? No. This device is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Type of Ground Truth: The "ground truth" for this device's "performance" and "acceptance" is based on:
  • Engineering specifications and drawings: Ensuring physical compatibility (e.g., fit with implants).
  • International Standards: Conformance to mechanical testing standards (ISO 14801:2016 for fatigue), material standards (ASTM F136), and biocompatibility standards (ISO 10993 series).
  • Predicate device performance: Demonstrating that the subject device's design, materials, and performance characteristics are "identical" or "substantially equivalent" to previously cleared devices.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Sample Size for Training Set: Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that requires a training set.

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

• How Ground Truth Established: Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device