Search Results

Pro-V Coat is indicated for use as a separating agent when placed between any resin based material and to the substrate to which permanent bonding is not desired, such as:

1. any resin based material to the adhesive layer.
2. any resin based material to the remaining tooth structure.

Pro-V Coat is a water soluble separating agent that effectively prohibits bonding of the resin-based material used for temporary restorations to the adhesive interface or to the remaining tooth structure. Pro-V Coat along with the temporary restoration will remain in place for a certain period of time. The temporary restorative material is easily removed with hand instruments and the Pro-V Coat is rinsed off with copious amounts of water. Pro-V Coat is designed to clean up effortlessly without any residue. Pro-V Coat will not compromise subsequent adhesion of the final restoration.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a dental separating agent, Pro-V Coat. It describes the device, its indications for use, and a comparison to a predicate device to demonstrate substantial equivalence. However, it does not include the detailed information requested in the prompt regarding acceptance criteria, a specific study proving it meets those criteria, sample sizes for test and training sets, expert qualifications, or ground truth establishment relevant to AI/ML device evaluation.

The document's performance data section focuses on physical/mechanical properties and biocompatibility as a comparison to the predicate device, not on specific acceptance criteria for an AI/ML diagnostic or predictive tool.

Therefore, the following information cannot be extracted from the provided text:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: No specific acceptance criteria are defined for performance metrics in a table format. The performance data section vaguely states that "Pro-V Coat was an effective separating agent and that it inhibited bonding between the adhesive / tooth structure and the restorative material," but no quantitative metrics or targets are given.
2. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance: No test set is mentioned, as this is not an AI/ML device evaluation.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable.
4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable.
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, as this is not an AI-assisted device.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): Not applicable, as there's no diagnostic or predictive ground truth involved.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

The document describes material properties and chemical composition comparisons, along with biocompatibility testing (ISO 10993-1) to demonstrate safety. The "performance data" refers to general R&D testing protocols to show effectiveness in separating materials, not a specific study with defined acceptance criteria typical for an AI/ML medical device.

Ask a specific question about this device

PRO-V is line of provisional restorative materials designed to address the differing requirements for creating or placing any provisional restoration. The PRO-V System consists of PRO-V FLO, PRO-V FILL, and PRO-V COAT which offers a complete solution to create an effective inlay or onlay provisional.

Indications for Use:

• Temporary fillings
• Provisional Inlays
• Provisional Onlays

PRO-V is line of provisional restorative materials designed to address the differing requirements for creating or placing any provisional restoration. The PMO-V System consists of PRO-V FLO, PRO-V FII.1, and PRO-V COAT. PRO-V FLO™ is a flowable composite for use as a provisional for inlay restorations. PRO-V FILL™ is a packable composit: for use as a provisional for onlay restorations. PRO-V COATTM is a separating agent.

The provided text describes the PRO-V Temporary/Provisional Filling Material, a dental cement, and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device (E-Z Temp). However, the document does not contain a study that proves the device meets specific acceptance criteria in terms of performance metrics.

Instead, the document details a 510(k) premarket notification for the PRO-V device, indicating that it has been deemed "substantially equivalent" to a legally marketed predicate device (E-Z Temp). This substantial equivalence is based on comparisons of intended use, chemical composition, and mechanical/physical properties, along with biocompatibility testing.

Therefore, many of the requested details about acceptance criteria, study methodologies, and performance metrics are not present in this submission.

Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted and what is missing:

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

The document does not explicitly state quantitative "acceptance criteria" or provide "reported device performance" against specific thresholds. Instead, it presents a comparative table between the applicant device (PRO-V) and the predicate device (E-Z Temp) to establish substantial equivalence.

"Acceptance Criteria" for Substantial Equivalence: The implicit acceptance criterion here is that PRO-V's characteristics (intended use, chemical composition, and physical/mechanical properties) are sufficiently similar to those of E-Z Temp, and that PRO-V is found to be non-toxic, such that it poses no new or different questions of safety and effectiveness.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified. The document only mentions that "PRO-V was tested for biocompatibility." No details on the sample size for this testing are provided. The broader comparison is conceptual and based on product descriptions, not a specific clinical or performance test set.
• Data Provenance: Not specified. It's implied the biocompatibility testing was conducted by or for Bisco, Inc. (USA), but no country of origin for the data is explicitly stated. The nature of the comparison is based on product specifications rather than observational data.
• Retrospective or Prospective: Not applicable as no specific study involving a test set is detailed. The substantial equivalence argument is based on product descriptions and documented biocompatibility.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

Not applicable. No "ground truth" establishment by experts for a test set is described. The comparison is based on technical specifications and biocompatibility testing report reviewed by the FDA.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

Not applicable. No adjudication method described as no specific test set requiring such expert review is mentioned.

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 material, 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 dental material, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert concensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)

Not applicable in the conventional sense of establishing ground truth for diagnostic performance. The "truth" for substantial equivalence is based on the characteristics of the predicate device and the new device's compliance with these characteristics (e.g., chemical composition, physical properties, non-toxicity).

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The arterial blood sampling syringe is intended for sampling of arterial blood for the measurement of p02, pCO2, pH, CO-oximetry, electrolytes (Ca++, Na++, K+, Cl+, and Mg++), Total Magnesium, and the metabolites (Glucose and Lactate).

A commercially available hypodermic needle is modified by dispensing sodium heparin into the hub and cannula and then drying the heparin. The total recoverable volume of the heparin is approximately 5 U.S.P. units. The needle is then attached to a Pro-Vent® or Pulsator® Arterial Blood Sampling Syringe, which contains approximately 25 U.S.P. units of Calcium Neutralized Dry Lithium Heparin. The device is packaged and sterilized by Ethylene Oxide.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the Pro-Vent® and Pulsator® Arterial Blood Sampling Syringes:

K981035: Acceptance Criteria and Study Details

Based on the provided 510(k) summary, the device's acceptance criteria and the study proving it meets these criteria are primarily based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a previously cleared predicate device.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample Size: The document does not specify the sample size used for the side-by-side comparison test.
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin or whether the data was retrospective or prospective. Given the nature of a 510(k) submission for a medical device modification, it is highly likely the data was prospectively collected as part of a formal verification and validation study. The testing was conducted by the manufacturer, SIMS Portex Inc.

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

• The document does not mention the use of experts to establish ground truth for this non-clinical study. The "ground truth" for this device comparison is the established performance of the legally marketed predicate device as measured by standard laboratory analysis. The comparison itself aims to show that the new device yields results consistent with these established analytical methods.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• No adjudication method is mentioned. This type of non-clinical comparison study evaluating analytical performance would not typically involve human adjudication in the way medical imaging studies might. The "adjudication" is based on statistical comparison of laboratory measurements.

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

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is an arterial blood sampling syringe, and its performance is evaluated based on the analytical results of the blood sample, not on human interpretation of images or clinical findings. Therefore, an MRMC study is not applicable.

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

• Yes, in essence, a standalone performance was done for the device itself. The "device performance" in this context is its ability to collect a blood sample and preserve its analytes such that standard laboratory analysis yields results statistically equivalent to those obtained with a predicate device. This is inherently a "standalone" evaluation of the syringe's function prior to external analytical measurement. There is no "algorithm" involved in the clinical use or intended function of the syringe.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• The ground truth relied upon the analytical performance of the legally marketed predicate device. The "truth" for this study is that the predicate device's performance characteristics (e.g., how well it preserves pO2 or pH values) are acceptable and that the new device yields comparable analytical results when measured by standard laboratory equipment. It's a comparison to an established and accepted device, rather than an independent "ground truth" like pathology or long-term outcomes.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This submission describes a non-clinical comparison study for a physical medical device (a syringe), not an algorithm or AI model that requires a "training set." There is no mention of machine learning or AI in the document.

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

• Not applicable. As there is no training set mentioned or implied for an AI/algorithm, this question is not relevant to the provided document.

Ask a specific question about this device