Search Results

MegaGen Dental Implant Abutment is intended to be surgically placed in the maxillary or mandibular areas for the purpose providing prosthetic support for dental restorations (Crown, bridges, and overdentures) in partially or fully edentulous individuals. It is used to restore a patient's chewing function.

All digitally designed abutments for use with TiGEN Abutment and ZrGEN Abutment are intended to be sent to a MegaGen validated milling center for manufacture

The MegaGen Dental Implant Abutment includes several components: Healing Abutment, Temporary Cylinder, EZ Post Abutment, EZ Post Cylinder, CCM Abutment, Gold Abutment, Octa Abutment, ZrGEN Abutment, TiGEN Abutment, AXA Abutment (Straight and Angled Types), and Abutment Screw. These components are made of materials such as Ti-6Al-4V-ELI, POM, Co-Cr-Mo alloy, and gold alloy, and are offered with machined or anodized surfaces. Some components are supplied sterile, while others are non-sterile and require sterilization by the user. They are intended for single use. The device provides prosthetic support for dental restorations on endosseous dental implants.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the MegaGen Dental Implant Abutment, seeking clearance based on substantial equivalence to predicate devices. It does not contain information about a study that proves the device meets specific acceptance criteria in terms of clinical performance, diagnostic accuracy, or effectiveness with human readers.

Instead, the document details a comparison of the subject device (MegaGen Dental Implant Abutment) with various predicate and reference devices, focusing on technical characteristics, materials, and design. The "acceptance criteria" referred to in the document are primarily related to meeting the characteristics of the predicate devices and demonstrating that any differences do not affect the fundamental function or safety of the device. The "study" that "proves" the device meets these criteria is a non-clinical testing summary, including biocompatibility, sterilization validation, accelerated shelf-life, pyrogen/endotoxin testing, performance testing (ISO 14801), and MR compatibility.

Therefore, many of the requested fields cannot be answered directly from the provided text as they pertain to clinical or diagnostic performance studies involving human subjects or AI algorithms, which are not described here.

Here's a breakdown of the information that can be extracted, and where the requested information is not available:

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

The document does not explicitly present a table of acceptance criteria with corresponding device performance for each component in a consolidated manner. Instead, it discusses "similarities" and "differences" compared to predicate/reference devices, and states that "test results met the pre-set criteria" for performance testing (ISO 14801) and that biocompatibility and sterilization have been validated.

Below is a summarized representation of the comparison for one component (Healing Abutment) as an example, to illustrate the type of comparison presented in the document. The "acceptance criteria" are implied by the characteristics of the predicate/reference devices, and "reported device performance" refers to the subject device's characteristics or the outcome of non-clinical tests.

Example for Healing Abutment:

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

• Test Set Sample Size: Not specified for any clinical or diagnostic evaluation. The evaluations are primarily non-clinical. For performance testing (ISO 14801), the sample size for individual tests like fatigue is not mentioned within this summary, only that tests were performed.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of clinical/diagnostic data. For non-clinical tests like biocompatibility and sterilization, previous 510(k) submissions (e.g., K110955, K123988, K210161, K220562, E220672, K230618) from MegaGen Implant Co., Ltd. are leveraged. The tests were performed according to international standards (ISO, ASTM, USP).

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

Not applicable. The ground truth for this type of medical device (dental implant abutment) is established by engineering specifications, material properties, and performance under rigorous bench testing conditions, compared to predicate devices. There is no mention of expert consensus for diagnostic ground truth.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not applicable. No expert adjudication process for diagnostic imaging or clinical outcomes is described.

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 device is a dental implant abutment, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

Not applicable. This device is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used

The "ground truth" for demonstrating substantial equivalence is based on:

• Comparison to legally marketed predicate devices (their established safety and effectiveness).
• Compliance with recognized international standards (e.g., ISO 10993-1 for biocompatibility, ISO 11137 for sterilization, ASTM F1980 for shelf-life, ISO 14801 for performance/fatigue testing, and FDA guidance documents for MR compatibility).
• Confirmation through non-clinical bench testing that the device's physical and mechanical properties meet predefined criteria, demonstrating that any differences from predicate devices do not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This document describes a physical medical device, not an AI algorithm requiring a training set.

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

Not applicable. This pertains to AI algorithms.

Ask a specific question about this device

MegaGen Dental Implant Abutment is intended to be surgically placed in the maxillary or mandibular areas for the purpose providing prosthetic support for dental restorations (Crown, bridges, and overdentures) in partially or fully edentulous individuals. It is used to restore a patients chewing function. All digitally designed abutments for use with ZrGEN Abutment are intended to be sent to a MegaGen validated milling center for manufacture.

The submission includes descriptions for the following devices: Scan Healing Abutment, Temporary Abutment, Temporary Cylinder, Comfort Cap, Healing Cap, Healing Cap Screw, Milling Abutment, EZ Post Abutment/Extra EZ Post Abutment, EZ Post Cylinder, ZrGEN Abutment, Multi-unit Abutment, Multi-unit Angled Abutment, AXA Abutment (Straight), AXA Abutment (Angled), Abutment Screw, Cylinder Screw, and Crown Screw. Each description details the intended use, material, surface treatment, sterilization, single use status, dimensions, and compatible implant systems.

The provided document, a 510(k) premarket notification from MegaGen Implant Co., Ltd. for their "MegaGen Dental Implant Abutment" device, focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices rather than proving that the device meets specific acceptance criteria through a standalone study.

For medical devices, especially those going through the 510(k) pathway, acceptance criteria are typically based on showing that the new device performs as safely and effectively as a legally marketed predicate device. The "study" proving this is primarily a non-clinical performance testing (bench testing) and a comparison to predicate devices. Clinical studies are often not required for 510(k) submissions, as explicitly stated in this document ("No clinical studies are submitted.").

Therefore, the acceptance criteria are implicitly defined by the performance characteristics of the predicate devices and general standards (like ISO 14801 for dental implants) as outlined in the "Summary of Non-Clinical Testing" section. The device performance is demonstrated through a comparative analysis to these predicates and the results of the bench testing.

Here's a breakdown of the information requested, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Given that this is a 510(k) submission, the "acceptance criteria" for the subject device are fundamentally its demonstration of substantial equivalence to predicate devices, meaning it performs as safely and effectively. The "reported device performance" is a direct comparison to the predicate devices and adherence to relevant standards.

The document provides extensive comparison tables for each component of the MegaGen Dental Implant Abutment system against its predicate and reference devices. Below is a representative excerpt from these tables, focusing on a few key components to illustrate the comparison:

Example: Scan Healing Abutment

Summary of Device Performance (Based on "Substantial Equivalence Discussion" sections for all components):

The subject device is deemed substantially equivalent to its predicate/reference devices across all listed components (Scan Healing Abutment, Temporary Abutment, Temporary Cylinder, Comfort Cap, Healing Cap, Healing Cap Screw, Milling Abutment, EZ Post Abutment/Extra EZ Post Abutment, EZ Post Cylinder, ZrGEN Abutment, Multi-unit Abutment, Multi-unit Angled Abutment, AXA Abutment (Straight), AXA Abutment (Angled), Abutment Screw, Cylinder Screw, Crown Screw).

Any identified differences in characteristics (e.g., specific dimensions like diameter, gingival height, post height, total length, or surface treatment for some components) are explicitly discussed and concluded not to affect substantial equivalence. This is often supported by arguing that the differences are minor, fall within the range of cleared devices, allow for more precise treatment, or are supported by bench testing (e.g., fatigue tests for worst-case scenarios).

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

The document does not detail specific sample sizes for test sets in the context of clinical data, as no clinical studies were submitted.

For non-clinical testing (bench tests), the document states:

• "The bench tests have been performed in accordance with 'ISO 14801' and the recommendations of 'Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Root-form Endosseous Dental Implants and Endosseous Dental Implant Abutment' to evaluate the performance of the subject devices and the test results met the pre-set criteria."
• For ZrGEN Abutment, AXA Abutment (Angled type), and other potentially "worst-case" scenarios, fatigue tests were conducted to demonstrate performance and stability.

The data provenance is pre-market non-clinical testing data generated by the manufacturer. The country of origin for the manufacturing and testing is Republic of Korea (MegaGen Implant Co., Ltd. is based in Daegu, Republic of Korea). The data is prospective in the sense that it was specifically generated for this 510(k) submission to demonstrate equivalence.

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

This information is not applicable (N/A) as no clinical studies were conducted or submitted. For non-clinical bench testing, "ground truth" is established by adherence to recognized standards (like ISO 14801) and established testing methodologies, not typically by expert consensus of medical professionals on a test set.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is N/A as no clinical studies with human readers or image interpretation were conducted.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and Effect Size of Human Readers Improvement

This information is N/A as no clinical studies were conducted, and certainly no MRMC studies involving human readers, as this is a physical dental implant component, not an AI or imaging device that would typically involve human-in-the-loop performance evaluation.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

This information is N/A as the device is a physical dental implant abutment, not a software algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

For the purpose of this 510(k) submission, the "ground truth" for demonstrating substantial equivalence is:

• Performance specifications derived from legally marketed predicate devices.
• Adherence to recognized international standards (e.g., ISO 14801 for mechanical properties, ISO 10993-1 for biocompatibility, ISO 11137 for sterilization) for manufacturing and material properties.
• Results of non-clinical bench testing to confirm physical and mechanical performance characteristics.

There is no "expert consensus," "pathology," or "outcomes data" in the typical sense of a clinical study since none were performed.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is N/A. The device is a physical product, not an AI/ML model that requires a "training set."

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

This information is N/A as there is no training set for a physical device.

Ask a specific question about this device