Search Results

Pulpdent Glaze II is a light-cured, unfilled resin that contains no Bisphenol A and is used as a penetrating composite sealer and bonding agent. Pulpdent Glaze II bonds to composite and etched enamel, seals composite margins, penetrates and seals composite surface, reducing micro-leakage, wear and marginal breakdown.

Pulpdent Glaze II is a light-cured, unfilled resin that contains no Bisphenol A and is used as a penetrating composite sealer and bonding agent. Pulpdent Glaze II bonds to composite and etched enamel, seals composite margins, penetrates and seals composite surface, reducing micro-leakage, wear and marginal breakdown.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a dental device, PULPDENT GLAZE II. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device rather than conducting new clinical trials with detailed acceptance criteria and performance studies as might be seen for novel, higher-risk devices.

Here's an analysis of the provided text based on your request, highlighting what is (and isn't) present:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

• Note: The acceptance criteria here are qualitative (substantial equivalence) rather than specific quantitative performance metrics (e.g., bond strength exceeding a certain MPa). The "reported performance" is a general statement of equivalence based on the comparison to predicate devices and limited laboratory testing.

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

• No specific sample size for a "test set" is mentioned.
• The data provenance mentioned is "laboratory testing" for physical and mechanical properties, but no details on the specific samples or their origin are provided. The general statement about predicate devices refers to "General usage of these materials over about 20 years" and "virtually billions of procedures in the United States," referring to the broader safety profile of similar materials, not a specific test set for this device.

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. This submission relies on demonstrating equivalence to existing devices and their established safety and effectiveness. There is no mention of a "test set" requiring expert ground truth establishment in the context of clinical images or similar diagnostic data. The "ground truth" implicitly relies on the long-standing use and FDA approval of the predicate devices.

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

• Not applicable. No clinical test set requiring adjudication 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

• No. This product is a dental bonding agent, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool. Therefore, an MRMC study is not relevant or mentioned.

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

• No. This is a material device, not an algorithm. Standalone performance as typically understood for AI/software devices is not applicable.

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

• The "ground truth" for the submission is the long-standing regulatory acceptance and clinical use of predicate devices which are described as being "substantially equivalent" in design, composition, performance, intended use, safety, and effectiveness. The safety and effectiveness are supported by an appeal to "General usage of these materials over about 20 years" and "virtually billions of procedures in the United States," indicating a history of safe and effective use for the material class. Additionally, "laboratory testing has shown that Pulpdent Glaze II is equivalent in physical and mechanical properties to the predicate products," which serves as supporting evidence for the "performance" aspect of the substantial equivalence claim.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. There is no "training set" as this is a physical dental material, not a machine learning model.

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

• Not applicable. No training set is involved.

Ask a specific question about this device

Pulpdent Glaze is a light-cured resin that contains no Bisphenol A and bonds tightly to enamel and composite restorations. Pulpdent Glaze can be used to seal composite surfaces, margins of restorations, cracks in teeth and restorations and to reduce micro-leakage. Two formulas can be used for dentin bonding.

Pulpdent Glaze is a light-cured resin that contains no Bisphenol A and bonds tightly to enamel and composite restorations. Pulpdent Glaze is offered in different formulations to meet the dental professional: filled, unfilled, very low filler level, no fluoride-releasing. Pulpdent Glaze can be used to seal composite surfaces, margins of restorations, cracks in teeth and restorations and to reduce micro-leakage. Two formulas can be used for dentin bonding.

The provided text is a 510(k) Premarket Notification for a dental device called "Pulpdent Glaze." This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device rather than conducting extensive clinical studies with acceptance criteria in the way a novel high-risk device might.

Therefore, many of the requested categories regarding acceptance criteria, specific study designs (like MRMC or standalone algorithm studies), sample sizes for test/training sets, and expert-established ground truth are not applicable to this document.

Here's an analysis based on the information provided:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated. The document refers to "laboratory testing," but details on sample size for these tests are not provided.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated beyond "laboratory testing." It's implied to be internal testing by Pulpdent Corporation. Retrospective or prospective is not specified, but typically lab testing for predicate equivalence would be prospective.

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

• Not Applicable. The ground truth for this type of submission is primarily based on equivalence to predicate devices and established chemical/physical properties rather than a clinical expert consensus on complex outcomes. The "ground truth" for the device's properties would be determined by standard laboratory testing methodologies.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Not Applicable. As described above, this is not a study requiring expert adjudication of results.

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:

• No. This is a dental material, not an AI or diagnostic imaging device. Therefore, no MRMC study was conducted or is relevant.

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

• No. This is a physical dental material, not a software algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

• The ground truth for demonstrating "safety and effectiveness" and "substantial equivalence" is based on:
  • Chemical Composition: Comparison of ingredients to predicate devices.
  • Physical and Mechanical Properties: Laboratory test results (e.g., bond strength, filler content, etc.) demonstrating equivalence to predicate devices.
  • Intended Use: Alignment with the intended uses of predicate devices.
  • Prior Regulatory Findings: The predicate devices themselves having been found substantially equivalent under 510(k) or regulated as Class II devices.
  • General Clinical Experience/Scientific Consensus: Reference to the NIH Technology Assessment Conference on Dental Restorative Materials, which broadly states a high benefit-to-risk ratio for such materials over 20 years.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Not Applicable. This is not a machine learning or AI device that requires a training set.

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

• Not Applicable. (See point 8)

Ask a specific question about this device