Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K102118
    Manufacturer
    Date Cleared
    2010-09-08

    (42 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    872.5570
    Panel
    Dental
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    SNORE GUARD ADVANCE

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

    The Snore Guard Advance is intended to be used for the treatment of nighttime snoring and mild to moderate Obstructive Sleep Apnea in adults.

    Device Description

    The Snore Guard Advance consists of a mouthguard worn on the maxilla, connected to an occlusal stop (called an "occlusal ramp"), which contacts the patient's mandibular incisors. Both the maxillary tray and the occlusal ramp are custom fitted using a "boil-and-bite" process.

    AI/ML Overview

    This 510(k) summary for Ranir's Snore Guard Advance does not provide the requested information about acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets those criteria. The document is a premarket notification for a Class II medical device, focused on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting performance study results against specific acceptance criteria.

    Therefore, I cannot populate the table or answer the specific questions about sample size, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, ground truth establishment, or training set details based on the provided text.

    The summary states:

    "The Snore Guard Advance has the same intended use and similar indications, principles of operation, and technological characteristics as Hays & Meade Anti-Snoring Device. The minor differences in the Snore Guard Advance's technological characteristics do not raise any new questions of safety or effectiveness. Thus, the Snore Guard Advance is substantially equivalent to its predicate devices."

    This indicates that the primary proof was demonstrating equivalence to an already approved device, rather than conducting a new clinical study with predefined acceptance criteria for efficacy and safety.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1