Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K982400
    Manufacturer
    Date Cleared
    1998-09-23

    (75 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    872.3275
    Panel
    Dental
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    STERI-OSS' IMPROV TEMPORARY DENTAL CEMENT

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

    Steri-Oss' ImProv Temporary Dental Cement is intended for cementing (luting) of crown and bridge prostheses to natural tooth abutments.

    Device Description

    Steri-Oss' ImProv Temporary Dental Cement serves as a cement for the temporary retention of crown and bridge prostheses. The cement is an anaerobic two part paste which self-cures upon mixing. The product is provided in two syringe-like cylinders made of a polyalkylene material, one containing 10 grams of cement Part A and one containing 10 grams of cement Part B.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text is a 510(k) submission for Steri-Oss' ImProv Temporary Dental Cement. In this type of submission, the manufacturer claims substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices, rather than conducting new performance studies against specific acceptance criteria.

    Specifically, the document states: "Performance Data: Not applicable". This means that the submission does not include primary data from a study designed to meet specific acceptance criteria for the device's performance. Instead, substantial equivalence is claimed based on similar technological characteristics (e.g., curing type, system, cement base) to the predicate devices.

    Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information for the following points as no such study or acceptance criteria are described in the provided text:

    1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
    2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance
    3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
    4. Adjudication method for the test set
    5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, and its effect size
    6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
    7. The type of ground truth used
    8. The sample size for the training set
    9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1