Search Results
Found 2 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(180 days)
LW Implant System Abutment
The LW Implant System - Abutment is intended for use with a dental implant to provide support for prosthetic restorations such as crowns, bridges, or overdentures.
The LW Implant System - Abutment consists of the LW Solid, LW Angled, and LW Vis Abutment. The abutments have s-Line type and cuff type. The abutments are made of Ti-6AI-4V-ELI (ASTM F136), and they are provided non-sterile, which are required to be sterilized by the end-user before use.
The LW Implant System – Abutment is compatible with the LW Fixture and LW Abutment Screw in the LW Implant System, K223924.
The provided text is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for a dental implant abutment system. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices, rather than presenting a performance study with acceptance criteria for a new, AI-driven or novel device.
Therefore, the document does not contain the information requested regarding acceptance criteria for a device's performance, a study proving it meets those criteria, sample sizes for test sets, data provenance, expert involvement, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone algorithm performance, or ground truth establishment.
The "Non-Clinical Test Data" section lists various engineering and material tests (surface modification, sterilization, biocompatibility, fatigue, MRI safety) that were performed to demonstrate the device's safety and effectiveness in comparison to the predicate devices, but these are not performance metrics that would be evaluated against specific acceptance criteria for a new and complex medical device with an AI component or a diagnostic function.
In summary, none of the requested information to describe acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets those criteria is present in this FDA 510(k) document because it's for a dental implant abutment, not a device with the type of performance metrics implied by your query.
Ask a specific question about this device
(221 days)
LW Implant System
The LW Implant System is indicated for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae, in support of single or multiple-unit restorations including; cemented retained, screw retained, or overdenture restorations, and terminal or intermediate abutment support for fixed bridgework. The LW Implant System is dedicated for two stage surgical procedures and is intended for delayed loading. Also, implants with diameters larger than 5mm are indicated for molar regions.
The LW Implant System consists of a fixture, cover screw, healing abutments, and abutment screw. The Fixture is made of CP Ti Grade 4(ASTM F67) with the surface treated by the SLA method. It has several design characteristics: internal hex connection, submerged type, tapered body, sided cutting edge. The Cover Screw and Healing Abutment are made of CP Ti Grade 4(ASTM F67) without any surface treatment. The Abutments consist of the LW Solid, LW Angled, LW Vis and LW Temporary Abutment, and LW Abutment Screw. The abutments have s-Line type and cuff type. The abutments are made of Ti-6AI-4V-ELI (ASTM F136).
The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for the LW Implant System. It outlines substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than providing a detailed study report with specific acceptance criteria and performance data for this device. Therefore, a table of acceptance criteria and direct device performance is not explicitly available in the provided text in the way one would typically find for a new, de novo device or a clinical study.
The document focuses on demonstrating that the LW Implant System is "substantially equivalent" to already legally marketed predicate devices. This means that the device meets the same safety and effectiveness standards, often by showing it performs as well as, or better than, a known predicate device.
Based on the provided text, here's a breakdown of the requested information:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
As noted, the document doesn't present specific acceptance criteria and performance data in a dedicated table for the LW Implant System, as it's a 510(k) submission focused on substantial equivalence. Instead, it describes various non-clinical tests performed to demonstrate that the device meets established standards and performs comparably to predicate devices. The "acceptance criteria" are implied by adherence to relevant ISO and ASTM standards and FDA guidance documents, and the "reported device performance" is essentially that the device "met the acceptance criteria" or "demonstrated substantial equivalence."
Here's an interpretation of the implied acceptance criteria and the summary of reported performance:
| Test Performed | Acceptance Criteria (Implied) | Reported Device Performance |
|---|---|---|
| Gamma Sterilization Validation | Compliance with ISO 11137-1, -2, -3 to achieve a Sterility Assurance Level (SAL) of 10-6. | Validated to achieve SAL of 10-6. Results prove equivalence to predicate device. |
| End-User Sterilization Validation | Compliance with ISO 17665-1, -2 and FDA guidance "Reprocessing Medical Devices in Health Care Settings". | Validated. Results showed equivalence to predicate device. |
| Shelf-life Test | Compliance with ASTM F1980; no degradation of device functionality over specified shelf-life. | Devices function adequately for 5 years without degradation. Demonstrated equivalence to predicate devices. |
| Biocompatibility Tests (Cytotoxicity) | Compliance with ISO 10993-1, -5 and FDA Guidance. | Demonstrated biocompatibility of the material used. |
| Fatigue Test (Dynamic Fatigue & Static Compression) | Compliance with ISO 14801:2016 and FDA guidance "Class II Special Controls Guidance Document". | Expected to function properly for intended use. |
| Bacterial Endotoxin Testing (LAL) | Compliance with USP , USP , and FDA guidance for pyrogen limit specifications. | Met acceptance criteria. Demonstrated substantial equivalence with the predicate device. |
| Surface Treatment Evaluation (SLA) | Compliance with 'Section 11 of Class II Special Controls Guidance Document'; comparable surface roughness, composition, and SEM imaging to predicate. | Demonstrated substantial equivalence through surface roughness, composition analysis, SEM imaging, and ICP analysis. |
| MRI Safety Review | Compliance with FDA guidance "Testing and Labeling Medical Devices for Safety in the Magnetic Resonance (MR) Environment" for magnetically induced displacement force and torque. | Performed using scientific rationale and published literature; rationale addressed parameters. |
2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and the Data Provenance
The document does not explicitly state the specific sample sizes for each non-clinical test performed (e.g., how many devices were subjected to fatigue testing, or how many samples for biocompatibility). It references standards like ISO and ASTM, which inherently define sample size requirements, but the exact numbers are not reported in this summary.
Data Provenance: The tests are non-clinical (laboratory-based) and were conducted to support the safety and performance of the device against established standards and predicate device comparisons. The "country of origin of the data" is not explicitly stated for each test, but the applicant, Ossvis Co., Ltd., is based in the Republic of Korea. The data is retrospective in the sense that the tests were completed before this submission.
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and the Qualifications of Those Experts
This information is not applicable to the provided document. The "ground truth" in this context is established through adherence to recognized international standards (ISO, ASTM) and national regulations (FDA guidance documents). These standards typically involve scientific and engineering principles, and the "experts" are the scientific and engineering professionals who developed these standards and those who conducted the tests in accordance with them. There is no mention of a ground truth established by a panel of clinical experts for a test set in a diagnostic or clinical performance study for this device.
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set
This information is not applicable. Adjudication methods (like 2+1, 3+1) are typically used in clinical studies involving interpretation of results by multiple readers (e.g., radiologists, pathologists) to establish a consensus ground truth. Since the reported studies are non-clinical performance and safety tests, a human adjudication method is not used. The "adjudication" is essentially the determination of whether the device passed the specified test according to the defined acceptance criteria in the relevant standards.
5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was Done
No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The document focuses on non-clinical performance and safety to demonstrate substantial equivalence, not on the comparative effectiveness of human readers with or without AI assistance. This device is a physical dental implant system, not an AI/software as a medical device.
6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was Done
No, this is not applicable. This device is a physical medical device (dental implant system), not an algorithm or software. The concept of "standalone performance" without human-in-the-loop is relevant to AI/software applications, not to this type of medical device.
7. The Type of Ground Truth Used
The "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests is based on established scientific and engineering standards and regulatory guidance limits. For example:
- Sterility: Defined by ISO 11137 with an SAL of 10-6.
- Biocompatibility: Defined by ISO 10993 standards.
- Fatigue: Defined by ISO 14801.
- Bacterial Endotoxin: Defined by USP and .
- Surface Characteristics: Defined by FDA special controls guidance for dental implants.
The comparison is also made against the performance and characteristics of legally marketed predicate devices, implying that their established safety and effectiveness serve as a practical "ground truth" for substantial equivalence.
8. The Sample Size for the Training Set
This information is not applicable. The LW Implant System is a physical medical device. The concept of a "training set" typically applies to machine learning algorithms where data is used to train a model.
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established
This information is not applicable, as there is no "training set" for this physical medical device.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1