Search Results

The device is intended for use in stabilizing and fixating bone filling material and/or barrier membranes used for guided bone/tissue regeneration in the oral cavity. Single patient use only.

SAVE GBR is manufactured by Ti-6Al-4V ELI. The SAVE GBR is composed of GBR Screw and Bone Tack and these screws and tacks are used to fix barrier membranes in bone regeneration procedures.

The diameter of the GBR screw is 1.4 and length is 3.9, 4.38, 5.9, 6.38, 7.9 and 8.38mm. The diameter of the Bone Tack is 2.5 and length is 2.6 and 4.1mm.

These screws and tacks are implanted for a maximum duration of 6 months. The SAVE GBR is provided sterile.

The subject device is compatible with the OssBuilder membrane cleared in K172354.

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the "SAVE GBR" device, which is an intraosseous fixation screw or wire used in guided bone/tissue regeneration in the oral cavity. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria through a standalone clinical study.

Therefore, much of the requested information regarding "acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in terms of clinical performance metrics (like sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, or human reader improvement with AI) is not applicable to this type of regulatory submission.

The document describes non-clinical testing performed to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the device compared to its predicates. The "acceptance criteria" here are typically compliance with relevant international standards and equivalence to predicate devices in terms of material, design, and performance characteristics.

Here’s a breakdown of the information that can be extracted from the provided text, addressing the points where applicable:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: The FDA 510(k) process for this device type doesn't establish numerical "performance" criteria in the way a diagnostic AI device might have sensitivity/specificity targets. Instead, "acceptance criteria" are compliance with standards and demonstration of equivalence to legally marketed predicates. The "reported device performance" reflects how the device met these engineering and material standards.

The following questions are not applicable to this 510(k) submission as it concerns a physical medical device (implants) and not a diagnostic or AI-driven system that would typically undergo such evaluations.

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

• Not Applicable. This document describes non-clinical (biocompatibility, mechanical, sterilization) testing of a physical implant device, not a diagnostic algorithm tested on a dataset of patient cases.

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. Ground truth for a diagnostic algorithm is not relevant here. The ground truth for device safety and performance relies on validated laboratory methods and engineering standards.

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

• Not Applicable. This pertains to expert review of diagnostic cases, which is not relevant for this physical device.

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. MRMC studies are for diagnostic interpretation improvement with AI. This document is for a physical implantable device.

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

• Not Applicable. This refers to the performance of an algorithm; it is not relevant for this physical device.

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

• The "ground truth" for this device's regulatory clearance is compliance with recognized international standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM for materials, sterilization, mechanical properties) and demonstration of substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices through comparative testing and analysis. This is based on objective measurements and verified material properties, not clinical expert consensus on diagnostic images or patient outcomes.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not Applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of an AI algorithm for this device. Testing involves samples of the physical device for non-clinical evaluations.

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

• Not Applicable. No training set; ground truth is established by engineering and materials science standards.

Ask a specific question about this device

SAVE GBR is a metal device intended for use with a dental implant to stabilize and support of bone graft in dentoalveolar bony defect sites.

The SAVE GBR consists of Healing Cap, Cover Cap and Spacer. The SAVE GBR are manufactured by Ti-6A1-4V ELI and used with a dental implant to stabilize and support of bone graft in dento-alveolar bony defect sites.

The subject device is compatible with the OssBuilder membrane cleared in K172354.

The dimension of the device is as below:

The healing cap and cover cap have same functions and uses but have different design and name. The SAVE GBR are removed from the patient after such time when sufficient bone regeneration is done.

I am sorry, but the provided text (K222451_Decision_Letter[1].pdf) does NOT contain information about acceptance criteria, device performance results, sample sizes for test and training sets, expert qualifications, ground truth establishment, or any details related to an AI/ML-driven medical device study.

The document is a 510(k) premarket notification letter from the FDA regarding a dental device called "SAVE GBR." This device is a metal component used with dental implants to stabilize and support bone grafts. The core of this FDA submission is to demonstrate substantial equivalence to already legally marketed predicate devices, not to present performance data from an AI/ML model.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for information regarding acceptance criteria and study details for an AI-driven device based on this input. The document focuses on material composition, dimensions, sterilization, shelf life, and intended use as compared to predicate devices, rather than AI performance metrics.

Ask a specific question about this device