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 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

The Multi-unit Abutment, Multi-unit Angled Abutment is intended to the maxillary or mandbular arches for the purpose providing prosthetic support for dental restorations (Crown, bridges, and overdentures) in partially or fully edentulous individuals.

The Multi-unit Abutment, Multi-unit Angled Abutment of a dental implant system to provide support for prosthetic restorations. It is attached to the implants and intended to be used in the upper or lower jaw and used for supporting tooth replacements to restore patient's chewing function. The Multi-unit Abutment, Multi-unit Angled Abutment consists of straight & angled abutments and prosthetic components in varying sizes for single & multiple unit screw retained restorations.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the dental device:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for MegaGen Implant Co. Ltd.'s Multi-unit Abutment, Multi-unit Angled Abutment (K203808)

This submission is a 510(k) premarket notification for dental implant abutments. The primary method of demonstrating acceptance and substantial equivalence is through comparison to predicate devices and performance testing according to established international standards (ISO 14801) and FDA guidance documents. There is no AI component or related acceptance criteria described in this document.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are not explicitly stated in numerical thresholds within the document, as the submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices. The performance is assessed by confirming that the subject device meets the requirements of relevant standards, implying that its performance is comparable to or better than the predicate devices.

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

The document does not explicitly state the sample sizes used for the non-clinical performance (bench) testing. Similarly, the data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective) for these tests is not specified beyond indicating they were performed in accordance with international standards. Given it's a Korean manufacturer, the testing likely occurred in Korea or at facilities that adhere to these international standards.

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

This section is not applicable as the device is a dental implant abutment, and the document describes a 510(k) submission based on substantial equivalence and non-clinical bench testing. There is no mention of a "ground truth" derived from expert consensus on patient cases for evaluation in the context of diagnostic or interpretive performance.

4. Adjudication Method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the Test Set

This section is not applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are typically used in clinical studies where expert readers independently assess cases and discrepancies are resolved. The submission relies on bench testing and comparison to predicates, not clinical interpretation studies.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was Done

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study involves human readers interpreting cases, often with and without AI assistance, to measure diagnostic performance. The submission pertains to a physical dental device (abutments) and does not involve AI or human-in-the-loop performance evaluation.

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

No, a standalone (algorithm only) performance study was not done. This concept is specific to AI/CADe (Computer-Assisted Detection/Diagnosis) devices. The submitted device is a mechanical component, not an algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

The concept of "ground truth" as typically defined for diagnostic or AI studies (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data) does not apply here. For this device, the "ground truth" for demonstrating acceptance is adherence to engineering specifications, material standards, and performance benchmarks established by international standards (ISO 14801) and FDA guidance documents. The acceptable performance of the predicate devices acts as the benchmark.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. The device is a physical product (dental implant abutment). There is no "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI algorithms for this type of submission.

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

Not applicable. As there is no training set for an AI algorithm, there is no ground truth to be established for it.

Ask a specific question about this device