Search Results

The Primero Safe Access System is intended to facilitate placing a catheter through the skin into a vein or artery. The introducer needle is used in facilitating entry through the skin into a vein or artery to provide a conduit for the guidewire. The guidewire is an accessory device which is used for placement of a catheter or sheath in the vein or artery.

The Primero Safe Access System (SAS) is a catheter introducer that facilitates a quick approach for placement of a guidewire during the introduction of a catheter for vascular access. The Primero SAS combines an introducer needle, guidewire, advancer, and storage tube into a single integrated device to promote ease of use and quick access by the healthcare provider. The introducer needle consists of an 18Ga stainless steel needle with an echogenic tip and terminates on the proximal end with a colored translucent standard female luer lock hub. The introducer needle has an enhanced echogenic tip, that has been slightly modified to incorporate a small bulb-like feature at the proximal end of the tip bevel to enhance ultrasonic visualization during vascular access. The introducer needle is secured to the advancer through a luer lock connector at the distal end of the advancer. The advancer is a light-weight polymer handpiece that allows the user to grip the entire setup while introducing the needle into the vessel and then advancing the guidewire through the needle by either 'thumb" or 'two-finger" advancing based on the preference of the user. A cutout in the advancer handpiece wire path exposes the guidewire and conveniently allows the user to advance the guidewire with their fingers without having to let go of the handpiece. An internal path within the handpiece feeds the guidewire from a storage tube into the introducer needle. The looped storage tube is connected to the proximal end of the advancer and holds a spooled pre-loaded guidewire ready for deployment. A back stop has been inserted into the tube at the proximal end to prevent a guidewire from being over-retracted from the advancer. The Primero SAS is pre-loaded with a commercially available guidewire (previously cleared under K142393) ready for deployment through the introducer needle once placed in the target vessel. The guidewire is comprised of an uncoated nitinol core wire that is tapered at the distal tip where a stainless-steel coil is secured over the full-length of the core. The South53 Primero Safe Access System (SAS) integrates all the necessary elements into a single device to complete the Seldinger technique as part of a vascular access procedure.

The Primero SAS is provided sterile and is intended for single patient use. The device is not intended to be re-sterilized or re-used.

N/A

Ask a specific question about this device

Primescan 2 can be used as a diagnostic aid by licensed dentists for detection of caries on visible tooth surfaces, proximal caries, and tooth cracks.

The Primescan 2 is an intraoral scanner that records and generates digital images to provide caries diagnosis support using additional light sources at 405 nm and 850 nm and an optical filter to filter out the excitation light. By illuminating the tooth with these two wavelengths, two diagnosis support modes are realized, the fluorescence mode and the near-infrared mode. The acquired 2D data from the scanner can be viewed in the software in a live stream video during acquisition. The images are also stored in the cloud platform software for later patient communication.

In fluorescence mode, the tooth (or teeth) are illuminated with UV light (405 nm). This stimulates an autofluorescence of the enamel in the green wavelength range. In addition, the red fluorescence is stimulated in carious areas on the teeth. All stimulated fluorescence responses are significantly weaker in terms of their light intensity compared to the back-reflected excitation light. For this reason, the excitation light is filtered out with the aid of an optical filter. The dental professional can use the 2D image data of the fluorescence response (live stream video) as additional information for caries diagnosis.

For near-infrared mode (NIR mode), the tooth or teeth are illuminated with 850 nm. Enamel is partially transparent in this wavelength. The illumination can therefore penetrate the tooth and is reflected by structural defects such as cracks and cavities, as well as from the dentin core. The reflected light is picked up by the 2D sensor of the scanner.

When used, a sleeve is placed over the distal end of the scanner. This sleeve is the only patient contacting component and is offered as either a single-use disposable or a multi-use sleeve that is reprocessed.

Here's the breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the Primescan 2 device, based on the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The provided document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria or a specific table outlining them. However, it does mention that "in vivo bench tests demonstrated that Primescan-2 is effective as a diagnostic aid for occlusal caries using the fluorescence function and tooth cracks using the NIR function." This implies that the device met an unstated level of effectiveness for these diagnostic aids.

Since specific quantitative metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) are not provided in the summary, we cannot populate a detailed table with numerical acceptance criteria and performance outcomes.

Study Details

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified in the provided document.
• Data Provenance: The study was "in vivo bench tests," implying data was collected from living subjects. The country of origin and whether it was retrospective or prospective is not explicitly stated.

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

• Number of Experts: Not specified.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not specified.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Adjudication Method: Not specified.

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

• MRMC Study: Not mentioned in the provided document. The study described is "Performance Validation Testing of the Caries diagnostic Aid - In vivo bench tests demonstrated that Primescan-2 is effective as a diagnostic aid..." This describes standalone device performance rather than human-in-the-loop improvement.

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

• Standalone Performance Study: Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The document states: "Performance Validation Testing of the Caries diagnostic Aid - In vivo bench tests demonstrated that Primescan-2 is effective as a diagnostic aid for occlusal caries using the fluorescence function and tooth cracks using the NIR function." This indicates the device's ability to provide a diagnostic aid on its own.

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

• Type of Ground Truth: Not explicitly stated. For "in vivo bench tests" related to caries and tooth cracks, ground truth would typically be established through a combination of visual-tactile examination by experienced clinicians, potentially supplemented by radiography or even histology (though less common for a diagnostic aid). However, the document does not specify the method used here.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Sample Size for Training Set: Not applicable or not specified. This device appears to be a direct imaging and diagnostic aid rather than an AI/ML algorithm that requires a separate training set. The "diagnostic support" refers to the illumination and optical filtering techniques, not necessarily an AI algorithm trained on a dataset.

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

• Ground Truth for Training Set: Not applicable, as there's no indication of an AI/ML algorithm with a training set. The device operates on optical principles.

Key Observations and Limitations of Information:

• The provided 510(k) summary focuses highly on technological comparisons, safety, and regulatory compliance (electrical safety, biocompatibility, reprocessing, software, cybersecurity).
• While it mentions "Performance Validation Testing," it lacks specific quantitative results (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, AUC) that are typically associated with diagnostic device clearances.
• The clinical study details, such as sample size, expert qualifications, and ground truth establishment methods for the performance validation, are not provided in this specific document. This information would typically be in a more detailed study report submitted to the FDA, but is summarized very broadly here.
• The device is described as providing "diagnostic support" using optical modes (fluorescence and NIR), rather than an explicit AI algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

The PRIMED Sterilization wraps are intended to be used to enclose another medical device that is to be sterilized by a health care provider via the following:

• Pre-Vacuum Steam at 270°F/ 132°C for 4 minutes. The wrap has been validated for dry time of 20 minutes for P100 and P200 and dry time of 30 minutes for P300, P400, P500 and P600.
• 100% Ethylene Oxide Sterilization with a concentration of 725-735 mg/L at 131°F/55°C and 40% 80% relative humidity for 60 minutes. Validated for aeration times of 8 hours at 55°C or 12 hours at 43.3°C.
• Lumen. Non-Lumen. and Flexible Cycles in the STERIS V-PRO maX/maX2 and STERIS V-PRO 60/s2 low temperature Sterilization Systems.
• Advanced Sterilization Products STERRAD 100S system
• Advanced Sterilization Products STERRAD NX [Standard Cycle, Advanced Cycle]
• Advanced Sterilization Products STERRAD 100 NX [Standard Cycle, Flex Cycle, Express, Duo Cycle]

PRIMED Sterilization wraps are available in 6 models and different sizes ranging from 12" X 12" to 54" X 90" and are intended to allow sterilization of the enclosed medical device(s) and maintain sterility of the enclosed device(s) for a maximum of 180 days or until used. PRIMED Sterilization wraps are validated for use with above listed sterilization systems with the intended loads as described below.

The PRIMED Sterilization wraps are made of SMS (Spunbond) Polypropylene with addition of a master batch pigment for coloration and are available in three separate product offerings:

• 1- The Fused one colour double layer bonded wrap is comprised of two sheets ultrasonically bonded on two parallel sides. The wrap fabrics are composed of polypropylene with the addition of purple pigment. This product allows convenient simultaneous wrapping of medical devices to be sterilized in accordance with standard healthcare practices.
• 2- The Fused two colours double layer bonded wrap is comprised of two sheets of purple and blue fabrics ultrasonically bonded on two parallel sides. The wrap fabrics are composed of polypropylene with the addition of purple or blue pigment. This product allows convenient simultaneous wrapping of medical devices to be sterilized in accordance with standard healthcare practices.
• 3-The Single layer one colour wrap is comprised of a single nonwoven sheet. The standard purple wrap is composed of polypropylene with the addition of a purple pigment. Two sheets are used to sequentially wrap medical devices to be sterilized in accordance with standard healthcare practices.

PRIMED Sterilization wraps are available in various dimensions ranging from 12″ x 12″ x 90″ and six different weights as detailed in table 1.

The provided text describes the acceptance criteria and the comprehensive non-clinical testing performed for the PRIMED Sterilization Wrap (P100, P200, P300, P400, P500, P600) to demonstrate its safety and effectiveness.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

The document does not explicitly state the numerical sample size for each test set. However, it indicates that the testing was non-clinical. This implies that the data provenance is from laboratory testing and not from human patient data. The origin of the data is implicit in the "non-clinical" nature and the use of ISO/ASTM standards for testing.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications

This information is not applicable to this type of device and study. The "ground truth" for sterilization wraps and their performance is established through adherence to recognized international standards (ISO, AAMI, ASTM, EN) and empirical laboratory testing, not through expert consensus from human observation (e.g., radiologists).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable as the evaluations are based on objective laboratory measurements against predefined technical specifications and standards, not on subjective interpretations requiring adjudication.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

This information is not applicable as the device is a sterilization wrap, not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool for human readers.

6. Standalone Performance Study

Yes, the studies described are standalone performance studies (algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance), as they focus on the intrinsic properties and performance of the sterilization wrap itself against established technical and biological criteria. The "algorithm" in this context refers to the defined device specifications and its physical/chemical interactions, not a software algorithm.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used is primarily based on established industry standards and regulatory requirements for medical device sterilization and packaging, including:

• Biological indicators (for sterilant penetration and sterility maintenance) which have a known, predictable response.
• Physical and chemical property specifications (e.g., burst strength, air permeability, pH, leachable content) that are objectively measurable and defined by standards.
• Biocompatibility standards that define acceptable levels of cytotoxicity, irritation, and sensitization.
• Package integrity criteria for maintaining a sterile barrier for a specified duration.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable. The device is a sterilization wrap, not an AI/ML-based algorithm that requires a "training set" of data. The development and validation process for this device involves material science, engineering, and microbiology, not machine learning.

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

This information is not applicable for the reasons stated in point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

PRIMED Surgical Masks and PRIMED Procedure Masks are single use, non-sterile products intended to be worn by operating room and health care personnel in health care setting and during surgical procedures to protect both the patient and the operating room personnel from transfer of microorganisms, body fluids and particulate materials.

PRIMED Surgical masks and PRIMED Procedure masks are single use, non-sterile masks composed of a melt-blown filter layer placed between layers of non-woven inner and SS outer layer(s) material. PRIMED Medical Products Inc. offers various models in two main categories: Procedure masks with ear loops and Surgical masks with head ties. The level of protection varies based on the basis weight of the inner layer and the number of outer layers used in the mask's construction, in accordance with ASTM F2100:2023 specifications.

The provided text is an FDA 510(k) summary for PRIMED Surgical Masks and PRIMED Procedure Masks. It describes the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets those criteria. However, it does not include information about a complex AI-driven medical device, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) study, or detailed information about ground truth establishment by experts as would be relevant for an AI/CADe system.

Therefore, the following response will be tailored to the information available in the provided document, which pertains to a physical medical device (surgical masks) and its performance against established standards, rather than an AI/software device.

Here's the information as extracted and interpreted from the document:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for PRIMED Surgical Masks and PRIMED Procedure Masks

The device under review is PRIMED Surgical Masks and PRIMED Procedure Masks. The performance of these masks is evaluated against established physical and biocompatibility standards rather than a typical AI/CADe performance criteria.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and the Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are derived from ASTM F2100-23 standards for medical face masks and other relevant ISO and CFR standards for biocompatibility and flammability.

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

The document does not explicitly state the sample sizes used for each specific test (e.g., number of masks tested for BFE). These are typically defined by the test methodologies themselves (e.g., ASTM F2101 specifies sample sizes).
The data provenance is from non-clinical testing performed by the manufacturer, PRIMED Medical Products Inc., which is based in Edmonton, AB, Canada. The studies are prospective in the sense that they are conducted specifically for the purpose of demonstrating device performance for regulatory submission.

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 physical product (surgical masks) and not an AI or diagnostic software. Therefore, human experts are not establishing "ground truth" in terms of clinical diagnoses or interpretations of images. The "truth" is established by direct physical, chemical, and biological testing against engineering and material standards.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This is not applicable as there is no human interpretation or decision-making process being adjudicated. The tests involve objective measurements against predefined thresholds.

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

No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is relevant for AI/software in diagnostic imaging where human readers' performance with and without AI assistance is evaluated. This submission is for a physical medical device.

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

This is not applicable. The device is a physical product (surgical mask), not an algorithm or software. The "performance" is the inherent physical and chemical properties of the mask.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for the performance of the surgical masks is established directly through physical, chemical, and biological laboratory testing against well-defined, objective national and international consensus standards (e.g., ASTM F2100-23, EN 14683, ISO 10993 series, 16 CFR 1610). There is no "expert consensus," "pathology," or "outcomes data" utilized to establish ground truth in the context of diagnostic accuracy for this device.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This is not applicable. Surgical masks are physical devices, not AI or machine learning models that require training sets. The document describes performance testing of the final manufactured product.

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

This is not applicable for the same reason as above. There is no training set for a physical device like a surgical mask.

Ask a specific question about this device

The PRIMED Sterilization wraps are intended to be used to enclose another medical device that is to be sterilized by a health care provider via the following:

• Pre-Vacuum Steam at 270°F/ 132°C for 4 minutes. The wrap has been validated for dry time of 20 minutes for P100 and P200 and dry time of 30 minutes for P300, P400, P500 and P600.
• 100% Ethylene Oxide Sterilization with a concentration of 725-735 mg/L at 131°F/55°C and 40% 80% relative humidity for 60 minutes. Validated for aeration times of 8 hours at 55°C or 12 hours at 43.3°C.
• Lumen. Non-Lumen. and Flexible Cycles in the STERIS V-PRO maX/maX2 and STERIS V-PRO 60/s2 low temperature Sterilization Systems.
• Advanced Sterilization Products STERRAD 100S system
• Advanced Sterilization Products STERRAD NX [Standard Cycle, Advanced Cycle]
• Advanced Sterilization Products STERRAD 100 NX [Standard Cycle, Flex Cycle, Express, Duo Cycle]

PRIMED Sterilization wraps are available in 6 models and different sizes ranging from 12" X 12" to 54" X 90" and are intended to allow sterilization of the enclosed medical device(s) and maintain sterility of the enclosed device(s) until used. PRIMED Sterilization wraps are validated for use with above listed sterilization systems with the intended loads as described below.

The PRIMED Sterilization wraps are made of SMS (Spunbond) Polypropylene with addition of a master batch pigment for coloration and are available in three separate product offerings:
1-The Fused one colour double layer bonded wrap is comprised of two sheets ultrasonically bonded on two parallel sides. The wrap fabrics are composed of polypropylene with the addition of purple pigment. This product allows convenient simultaneous wrapping of medical devices to be sterilized in accordance with standard healthcare practices.
2- The Fused two colours double layer bonded wrap is comprised of two sheets of purple and blue fabrics ultrasonically bonded on two parallel sides. The wrap fabrics are composed of polypropylene with the addition of purple or blue pigment. This product allows convenient simultaneous wrapping of medical devices to be sterilized in accordance with standard healthcare practices.
3- The Single layer one colour wrap is comprised of a single nonwoven sheet. The standard purple wrap is composed of polypropylene with the addition of a purple pigment. Two sheets are used to sequentially wrap medical devices to be sterilized in accordance with standard healthcare practices.

PRIMED Sterilization wraps are available in various dimensions ranging from 12″ x 12″ x 90″ and six different weights as detailed in table 1.

The provided document is a 510(k) Summary for the PRIMED Sterilization Wrap. It outlines the device's technical characteristics, intended use, and a comparison to a predicate device, along with a summary of non-clinical testing.

However, the document does not describe an AI/ML-enabled medical device. It pertains to a physical sterilization wrap. Therefore, the questions related to AI/ML model performance, such as:

• Sample sizes for test and training sets
• Data provenance
• Number and qualifications of experts for ground truth
• Adjudication methods
• MRMC studies and effect sizes
• Standalone AI performance
• Type of ground truth

cannot be answered from the provided text. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence of a physical product to a predicate device through non-clinical testing of its physical, chemical, and functional properties related to sterilization and sterility maintenance.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study as presented for this physical device:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• The document refers to "non-clinical testing" and does not specify a "test set" in the context of data for an AI/ML model. Instead, it refers to tests performed on the physical sterilization wraps.
• The sample sizes for each specific physical test (e.g., number of wrap samples for sterilant penetration, integrity, etc.) are not provided in this summary.
• Data provenance is not applicable in the AI/ML sense; the data is generated from laboratory testing of the physical device. The country of origin for the data (where the tests were conducted) is not specified, but the manufacturer is based in Canada.

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

• Not applicable to this device. Ground truth, in this context, refers to established scientific and engineering standards and methods for assessing the performance of sterilization wraps, not expert interpretation of images or clinical data.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• Not applicable to this device. Testing is based on established laboratory protocols and quantitative or qualitative measurements leading to pass/fail criteria.

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done:

• Not applicable. This device is a physical sterilization wrap, not an AI/ML-assisted diagnostic or treatment aid for humans.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• For this device, the "ground truth" is established by adherence to recognized international and national standards for medical device sterilization and packaging. These include:
  • ANSI/AAMI ST79 (Comprehensive guide to steam sterilization and sterility assurance in health care facilities)
  • ANSI/AAMI/ISO 11138-7 (Sterilization of health care products - Biological indicators - Part 7: Biological indicators for ethylene oxide sterilization processes)
  • ANSI/AAMI/ISO 11607-1 (Packaging for terminally sterilized medical devices - Part 1: Requirements for materials, sterile barrier systems and packaging systems)
  • AAMI TIR12 (Guidance for establishing product family groupings for sterilization)
  • ANSI/AAMI ST77 (Sterilization of health care products - Sterile device packaging - Requirements)
  • ISO 10993-5 (Biological evaluation of medical devices - Part 5: Tests for in vitro cytotoxicity)
  • ISO 10993-10 (Biological evaluation of medical devices - Part 10: Tests for irritation and skin sensitization)
  • EN 868-2 (Packaging for terminally sterilized medical devices - Part 2: Sterilization wraps - Requirements and test methods)
  • Various ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) standards for fabric properties (D3776, D737-04, D3786, D5034-09, D5587-15)
  • AATCC127-2014 (Water Resistance: Hydrostatic Pressure Test)
  • NWSP 160.1 (Nonwoven Standard Procedure for linting)
• These standards define the methodologies and acceptable performance limits.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML model.

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

• Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

PRIME-XV FreezIS DMSO-Free MD is for use in human ex vivo tissue and cell culture processing applications.

PRIME-XV Freez/S DMSO-Free MD is a liquid medium intended for use in human ex vivo tissue and cell culture processing applications.

It is a chemically defined cryogenic preservation solution for human cells for use in a professional Healthcare Facility that performs cell culture and cell handling. It has comparable post-thaw cell viability as solutions containing dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), maintains potency of stem cells throughout cryopreservation, eliminates the risk of DMSO in stem cell therapy applications, is animal componentfree, enables cell preservation at -80°C to -196°C environments and is manufactured under cGMP conditions.

The provided text describes a medical device, PRIME-XV FreezIS DMSO-Free MD, which is a tissue culture medium. It presents the device's indications for use, technological characteristics, and a comparison to predicate devices, but it does not contain information about an AI-powered device or a study involving human readers or a test set to establish ground truth for performance metrics like sensitivity or specificity.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information regarding acceptance criteria and performance data for an AI device. The document is a 510(k) summary for a biological/chemical product, not a software device or an AI diagnostic tool.

The acceptance criteria provided in the document relate to the quality and performance of the tissue culture medium itself, such as:

• High cell viability, robust cell expansion post-cryopreservation, maintenance of cell function, phenotype and differentiation potential: To demonstrate lack of potential toxicity and support of tissue/cell growth.
• Endotoxin testing per USP <85>, mycoplasma testing per USP <63>: To demonstrate lack of endotoxin or pyrogen contamination.
• Compliance with GMP requirements regarding aseptic processing: For validation of Aseptic Processing and Sterility Assurance Level (SAL).
• Incoming raw materials are of high quality and are lot-tested for identity and purity: To demonstrate chemical purity.
• 24-month shelf life when stored at 2 – 8 °C: Based on stability testing confirming pH, osmolality, non-cytotoxicity, and protection against microbial contamination.

These are established through laboratory testing directly on the medium and its interaction with cells, not through studies involving expert readers or ground truth adjudication as would be relevant for an AI diagnostic device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The PRIMED level 1 Pediatric Facemask is a single use, disposable device that is intended to be used by patient/child 4 to 12 years old in healthcare setting under an adult supervision to provide a barrier for the respiratory tract from microorganisms, body fluids and particulate material.

The PRIMED level 1 Pediatric Facemask is a single use, disposable device intended to be used by patient/child 4 to 12 years old in healthcare setting under an adult supervision to prevent the transmission of microorganism.

PRIMED Pediatric Mask (PG4-1680) is composed of 4 layers of non-woven material bounded together and pleated to form a mask. This mask is appropriately sized to the smaller faces of children between ages of 4 to 12 years old. PRIMED pediatric mask meets the requirements of ASTM F2100 for level 1 procedure mask while providing a lower differential pressure this mask is single use, disposable and is provided non-sterile. All of materials used in this device are typical materials commonly used in the construction of legally marketed surgical/ procedure masks with a safe history of use. The mask is not made with natural rubber latex.

The provided text describes the regulatory clearance (510(k)) for the PRIMED Pediatric Facemask, classifying it as a Class II medical device (Surgical Apparel, product code OXZ). The document details the device's indications for use and presents a comparison to predicate devices, along with performance data demonstrating compliance with relevant standards.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The primary acceptance criteria for the PRIMED Pediatric Facemask are based on meeting or exceeding the performance requirements for a Level 1 procedure mask as per ASTM F2100. The table below summarizes these criteria and the reported performance of the device.

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

The document does not explicitly state the sample sizes used for each individual test (e.g., number of masks tested for BFE, PFE, etc.). It only provides the performance results.

The data provenance is implied to be from laboratory testing performed by the manufacturer or accredited testing facilities, as evidenced by the reference to specific ASTM, EN, ISO, and CPSC standards. The document does not specify the country of origin of the testing data, nor does it indicate if the data is retrospective or prospective in the context of clinical trials. These are performance tests on the device itself, not clinical data from human subjects.

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

This information is not applicable to this document. The "ground truth" for the performance tests of a medical facemask (like BFE, PFE, fluid resistance) is established by the validated and standardized test methods themselves (e.g., ASTM F2101 for BFE). These are objective measurements in a laboratory setting, not subjective assessments by human experts.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

This information is not applicable as the tests are objective laboratory measurements, not subjective assessments requiring adjudication.

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:

This information is not applicable. The device is a pediatric facemask, not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive technology for human readers. Therefore, an MRMC study related to AI assistance for human readers is irrelevant to this device.

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

This information is not applicable. The device is a physical medical product (facemask), not an algorithm or AI system.

7. The type of ground truth used:

The "ground truth" for the device's performance is based on objective measurements obtained through standardized laboratory tests according to recognized international and national standards (ASTM, EN, ISO, CPSC). This is an objective, quantitative ground truth for the physical and functional properties of the mask materials and construction.

8. The sample size for the training set:

This information is not applicable. As a physical medical device (facemask), there is no 'training set' in the context of machine learning. The design and manufacturing processes are refined through engineering principles and testing to meet specifications, not through machine learning training.

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

This information is not applicable for the same reasons as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

The implants are intended for both one- and two-stage surgical procedures in the following situations and with the following clinical protocols:

• · Replacing missing teeth in single or multiple unit applications in the mandible or maxilla.
• · Immediate placement in extraction sites and in situations with a partially or completely healed alveolar ridge.
• · Especially indicated for use in soft bone applications with other implant surface treatments may be less effective.
  • Immediate and early loading for all indications, except in single tooth situations on implant shorter than 8 mm or in soft bone (type 4) where implant stability may be difficult to obtain, and immediate loading may not be appropriate.
  · The intended use for PrimeTaper EV Ø3.0 is limited to replacement of maxillary lateral incisors and mandibular incisors.

DS Implants abutments provided with the EV connection are intended to be used in conjunction with implants with the EV connection in fully edentulous or partially edentulous maxillary and/or mandibular arches to provide support for crowns, bridges or overdentures.

MultiBase Abutments EV:
DS Implants abutments provided with the EV connection are intended to be used in conjunction with implants with the EV connection in fully edentulous or partially edentulous maxillary and/or mandibular arches to provide support for bridges or overdentures.

The proposed (A) PrimeTaper EV Dental Implant Ø3.0 is a root form endosseous implant which is intended for use by a dental clinician in the prosthetic restoration of chewing function in edentulous human jaws. It represents an additional extra small implant diameter implant) to reference device PrimeTaper EV Dental Implants (K210610).

The proposed (A) PrimeTaper EV Dental Implant Ø3.0 has the identical implant-abutment connection geometry as the predicate (A) Astra Tech EV Implant (K120414), and is therefore compatible with the reference device Astra Tech EV Abutments (K120414) with 3.0 mm diameter of the Astra Tech Implant System EV (K120414).

The proposed (B) DS Implant abutments with EV connection XS include the following abutments and accessories:

• TiDesign EV (XS) ●
• MultiBase Abutment EV (XS) ●
• . TempAbutment EV (XS)
• Healing Abutment EV (XS) ●
• HealDesign EV (XS) ●
• Cover Screw EV (XS)
• Abutment Screw EV (XS) ●

The proposed (B) DS Implants abutments with EV connection XS are used in conjunction with an endosseous dental implant with EV connection to aid in prosthetic rehabilitation in fully edentulous or partially edentulous maxillary and/or mandibular arches. They are prosthetic abutments compatible with the proposed (A) PrimeTaper EV Dental Implant Ø3.0 and represent an additional extra small abutment-implant diameter (XS, 3 mm diameter) to the Predicate (B) DS Implants abutments with EV Connection in sizes S (small), M (medium) and L (large) (K213449).

The proposed (B) abutments have the identical implant-abutment connection geometry as the reference device Astra Tech EV Abutments (K120414) and are therefore compatible with the predicate (A) Astra Tech EV Implants (K120414) with 3.0 mm diameter.

The proposed (A) PrimeTaper EV Dental Implant Ø3.0 and proposed (B) DS Implants abutments with EV connection XS are single-use devices and are provided sterile by electron-beam irradiation except for TiDesign EV (XS). TempAbutment EV (XS) and Abutment Screw (XS), which are provided non-sterile. Devices provided as non-sterilized by the end user via steam sterilization.

The document provided is a 510(k) summary for Dentsply Sirona's PrimeTaper EV Dental Implants Ø3.0 and DS Implants abutments with EV connection (XS). It describes the devices, their intended use, and substantial equivalence to predicate and reference devices based on non-clinical performance data and published literature.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information:

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

The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in a quantitative manner with specific thresholds. Instead, it relies on demonstrating that the proposed devices (PrimeTaper EV Dental Implants Ø3.0 and DS Implants abutments with EV connection XS) are substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices. The performance is assessed by confirming that the proposed devices satisfactorily meet the requirements of non-clinical bench testing and aligning with published clinical data on similar devices.

However, based on the non-clinical testing performed, we can infer performance criteria against established standards:

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

• Non-clinical Testing (Bench Tests): The document refers to "worst-case implant-abutment combination" for fatigue testing but does not specify the exact number of samples tested for each non-clinical performance test (e.g., fatigue, biocompatibility, sterilization validation, MRI). It is implied that sufficient samples were tested to meet the requirements of the respective ISO and ASTM standards.
• Clinical Literature:
  • Sample Size: 200 narrow diameter implants (OsseoSpeed 3.0 mm, Astra Tech Implant System (K080396)) were evaluated. These implants were placed in "over 160 patients."
  • Data Provenance: The data is from "six peer-reviewed scientific publications" presenting "1 to 5 years of clinical follow-up data from four (4) different clinical trials." The country of origin is not specified but it relates to published peer-reviewed scientific literature. The studies were prospectively followed up.

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)

This section is not applicable to this submission. The "ground truth" in this context is established through compliance with recognized international standards (ISO, ASTM) for non-clinical testing and clinical outcomes reported in peer-reviewed literature, rather than expert adjudication of a test set in the way one might see for an AI algorithm.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI/imaging device where expert adjudication for ground truth establishment is typically performed.

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 submission is for dental implants and abutments, not an AI-assisted diagnostic or therapeutic device.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI/algorithm-based device.

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

• Non-clinical Testing: The "ground truth" for non-clinical performance (sterilization, biocompatibility, fatigue, MRI safety, pyrogenicity, packaging) is defined by established international standards (ISO, ASTM) and FDA guidance documents. The device's performance is measured against these technical standards.
• Clinical Performance (via literature): The "ground truth" is based on outcomes data (survival rates, marginal bone maintenance) reported in peer-reviewed clinical literature.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device that requires a training set.

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 PrimeLOC Attachment System is designed to facilitate patient removal of a dental prosthesis for use with full arch overdentures or partial dentures retained in whole or in part by endosseous implants in the mandible or maxilla.

The PrimeLOC Attachment System consists of abutments and device-specific accessories (retention inserts and denture housings) to serve in a similar function to LOCATOR® abutments for resilient attachment of prostheses to endosseous dental implants. All PrimeLOC abutments are made of titanium alloy and have the same coronal ridge retention design that attaches to the overdenture component by an interference (snap) fit. The threaded apical end of the abutment connects to the implant and is specific to each compatible implant system and diameter. The PrimeLOC Attachment System is designed to accommodate a path of insertion divergence of up to 20° per implant and no more than 40° of divergence between implants. PrimeLOC abutments are provided with a titanium nitride (TiN) coating and are available in cuff heights up to 6 mm, with an implant interface diameter of 3.5 mm. Retention inserts are fixed within a metal denture housing which is embedded in an overdenture prosthesis. The retention inserts allow for varying levels of retention. This connection allows the denture to be retained on the abutments while the majority of loading is supported by the contact of the denture with the gingival tissue surrounding the mandibular and maxillary ridges. The PrimeLOC Attachment System are compatible with OEM implants, specifically Tapered Screw-Vent 3.5 mm platform dental implants manufactured by Zimmer Dental, Inc. Compatibility is based on agreements with the OEM to ensure that the abutments are designed to fit the corresponding implants. All interfaces of the subject device have been designed and verified by the OEM implant manufacturer. This ensures that the interface of the subject device with the identified compatible implants is appropriate. A thin titanium nitride coating is applied to the PrimeLOC abutments in the area that contacts gingival tissue and in the area that contacts the retention inserts. The denture attachment housing, which sits within the denture, may be colored through a titanium anodization process. This system includes instruments used for seating and removing abutments and retention inserts, and processing inserts, impression copings, and laboratory components used to facilitate the fixation of the retention insert and denture housing in the appropriate position within the denture. These components are endosseous dental implant accessories considered Class I 510(k)-exempt devices as defined in 21 CFR 872.3980.

The provided text describes the 510(k) summary for the PrimeLOC Attachment System, a dental device. It outlines the device's administrative information, classification, predicate devices, indications for use, description, and performance data used to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device.

Crucially, the provided text does not contain information about "acceptance criteria" and how the device's performance measured against those criteria in a structured, quantitative table, as would be typical for an AI/ML medical device submission. The performance data section describes non-clinical testing for areas like sterilization, biocompatibility, mechanical testing (dynamic loading, removal force), and MRI compatibility. It does not mention any clinical study involving a test dataset, ground truth established by experts, or metrics like accuracy, sensitivity, or specificity that would be relevant for an AI/ML device in the context of an "acceptance criteria" table.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill parts 1-9 of your request as the information is not present in the provided document. The document describes a traditional medical device (dental attachment system) clearance, not an AI/ML device that would typically involve the type of study design and data points you're asking about.

To answer your request based on the provided document, the following points are addressable:

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

• Not Applicable. The document describes non-clinical performance characteristics (sterilization, biocompatibility, mechanical properties) and demonstrates substantial equivalence to a predicate device. It does not present quantitative acceptance criteria for clinical performance in the manner of an AI/ML device (e.g., accuracy, sensitivity, specificity) against a test set. The "Performance Data" section discusses:
  • Sterilization validation (ISO 17665-1, ISO 17665-2)
  • Biocompatibility testing (ISO 10993-5, ISO 10993-12)
  • Mechanical testing (ISO 14801 for dynamic loading; testing removal force of retention insert)
  • Non-clinical worst-case MRI review (using scientific rationale and published literature)

Regarding the study that proves the device meets "acceptance criteria" (interpreting "acceptance criteria" in the context of this traditional device as demonstrating substantial equivalence through non-clinical testing):

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

• Not Applicable/Not Provided. The performance data mentioned are non-clinical tests (e.g., sterilization, biocompatibility, mechanical testing). These are laboratory/benchtop tests, not a clinical "test set" in the context of patient data for an AI/ML algorithm. The document does not specify typical sample sizes for these tests (e.g., how many abutments were tested for removal force), nor data provenance (as it's not patient-derived data).

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 is not an AI/ML device where expert radiologists or similar professionals would establish ground truth for a test set. The "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests would be the established standards for sterilization, biocompatibility, and mechanical properties.

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

• Not Applicable. Not a clinical study requiring adjudication of expert readings.

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 is not an AI-assisted device.

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

• Not Applicable. This is not an AI algorithm.

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

• Not Applicable / Pre-defined standards. For the non-clinical tests:
  • Sterilization: Ground truth is defined by the requirements of ISO 17665-1 and 17665-2.
  • Biocompatibility: Ground truth is defined by the requirements of ISO 10993-5 and 10993-12.
  • Mechanical Testing: Ground truth is defined by the requirements of ISO 14801 for dynamic loading, and internal company specifications for retention force (compared to the predicate).
  • MRI Review: Ground truth is based on scientific rationale and published literature for material properties in an MR environment.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not Applicable. There is no "training set" as this is not an AI/ML device.

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

• Not Applicable. There is no "training set."

In summary, the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary are for a traditional Class II dental device (an attachment system for dental implants), not an AI/ML medical device. Therefore, the questions related to AI/ML specific study design elements (test sets, ground truth by experts, MRMC studies, training sets) are not applicable to the content of this document.

Ask a specific question about this device

The implants are intended for both one- and two-stage surgical procedures in the following situations and with the following clinical protocols:

• Replacing missing teeth in single or multiple unit applications in the mandible or maxilla.
• Immediate placement in extraction sites and in situations with a partially or completely healed alveolar ridge.
• Especially indicated for use in soft bone applications with other implant surface treatments may be less effective.
• Immediate and early loading for all indications, except in single tooth situations on implant shorter than 8 mm or in soft bone (type IV) where implant stability may be difficult to obtain and immediate loading may not be appropriate.

The proposed PrimeTaper EV Dental Implants are endosseous dental implants, which are manufactured from commercially pure titanium (Grade 4). The implant surface is blasted, and acid etched. The dental implants are intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the mandible and maxilla to replace missing teeth in order to restore chewing function. The proposed PrimeTaper EV Dental Implants have a root form shape with a self-tapping thread design. The coronal portion of the implant has a minute threading (MicroThread™). The residual implant body has macro threads. The proposed implants are available in the diameters 3.6, 4.8, 5.4 mm and in the lengths 6.5, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 mm. The proposed PrimeTaper EV Dental Implants incorporate a conical implant - abutment connection interface with indexing option (EV Connection), which is identical to the internal connection of the predicate OsseoSpeed Plus (K120414) implants. The PrimeTaper EV Dental Implants are intended to be used in combination with prosthetic components with the conical EV connection (cover screws, healing abutments, cement-retained abutments and screw-retained abutments), which were previously cleared for use with the OsseoSpeed Plus Dental Implant System (K120414, K163350, K183079 and K111287). Dental implant abutments are intended to be used in the upper or lower jaw used for supporting tooth replacements to restore chewing function. No new Abutments are being proposed as part of this submission. The PrimeTaper EV Dental Implants are provided sterile by electron-beam irradiation.

I am sorry, but the provided text does not contain information about acceptance criteria and a study proving a device meets these criteria in the context you specified (AI/ML device performance).

The text is a 510(k) summary for a PrimeTaper EV Dental Implant, which is a physical medical device (an endosseous dental implant). The document details the device description, indications for use, comparison to predicate devices, and non-clinical as well as clinical performance data to demonstrate substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices.

Therefore, I cannot extract the following information that you requested:

• A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance.
• Sample size used for the test set and data provenance.
• Number of experts used to establish ground truth and their qualifications.
• Adjudication method for the test set.
• MRMC comparative effectiveness study details.
• Standalone (algorithm only) performance.
• Type of ground truth used.
• Sample size for the training set.
• How ground truth for the training set was established.

These specific points are relevant to AI/ML-enabled devices and their evaluation, not to the traditional medical device (dental implant) described in the provided document.

Ask a specific question about this device