Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K030448
    Manufacturer
    Date Cleared
    2003-05-09

    (87 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    872.4760
    Panel
    Dental
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    OSTEOMED 2.0 LOCKING PLATES AND SCREWS

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

    Indicated for oral, maxillofacial surgery; trauma; reconstructive surgery; and orthognathic surgery (surgical correction of dentofacial deformities). 2.0 Locking plates and screws are intended for single patient use only.

    Device Description

    The OsteoMed 2.0 Locking Plate System is comprised of plates, 1.0mm through 2.25mm thick, provided in various shapes and sizes, and screws provided in 2.0mm diameter in lengths ranging from 6.0mm. System instruments include screwdrivers, drills, plate cutters, bending pliers, taps and drill guides.

    AI/ML Overview

    I am sorry, but based on the provided document, I cannot answer your request. The document is a 510(k) summary for the OsteoMed 2.0 Locking Plate System, which is a medical device. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, primarily through comparison of materials, design, and intended use.

    The document does not contain any information about acceptance criteria for device performance, nor does it describe any study related to proving such criteria for the OsteoMed 2.0 Locking Plate System. This is typical for 510(k) submissions where clinical studies or performance testing against specific acceptance criteria for aspects like diagnostic accuracy (which would involve AI, human readers, ground truth, etc.) are generally not required unless new safety or effectiveness issues are raised.

    Therefore, I cannot provide:

    1. A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance.
    2. Sample sizes or data provenance for test sets.
    3. Number or qualifications of experts for ground truth.
    4. Adjudication methods.
    5. MRMC comparative effectiveness study details (effect size, human readers with/without AI).
    6. Standalone algorithm performance.
    7. Type of ground truth used.
    8. Sample size for the training set.
    9. How ground truth for the training set was established.
    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1