Search Results

The Sterngold 2.2mm Angled ERA dental implants are intended for long term as well as temporary surgical implantation in the bone of the patient's upper or lower arch to provide immediate load or delayed load of prosthetic systems, such as artificial teeth, in order to restore the patient's chewing function. Immediate loading of the ERA Implant should only occur when the position of the implants provides adequate bone quantity and quality to allow proper immediate mechanical stabilization of the self-tapping screw into the bone and where occlusal and lateral forces can be limited with appropriate occlusal design and a soft diet.

The Sterngold 2.2mm Angled Micro ERA Dental Implant System consists of a threaded, external-hex, selftapping, root-form endosseous implant with integral female insert (abutment). The thread major diameter is 2.2 mm; available implant lengths will be 10, 13 & 15 mm. The implants will be available in anglecorrection (0°, 5°, 11° & 17°) versions with cuff heights ranging from 0.76 - 4mm. The implants are manufactured from pure, implant-grade titanium alloy. The external surface of the implants (excluding the neck and the implant head) is lightly acid etched to remove any surface contaminants remaining from the manufacturing operation, and to achieve a slightly roughened microsurface to aid in implant osseointegration. The female insert is titanium nitride coated.

The provided document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification for a dental implant system. It describes the device, its indications for use, and asserts substantial equivalence to predicate devices. However, this type of submission (Abbreviated 510(k) in this case) for a device like a dental implant does not typically include detailed performance studies with specific quantitative acceptance criteria and results in the way that software or AI/ML devices do.

Instead, the "acceptance criteria" for a dental implant in this context mostly revolve around:

1. Showing Substantial Equivalence (SE) to legally marketed predicate devices: This is the primary goal of a 510(k). This is achieved by demonstrating that the new device has the same intended use and technological characteristics as the predicate devices, or if there are differences, that those differences do not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness.
2. Conformity to recognized standards and guidance documents: The document explicitly states that Sterngold has provided information to demonstrate conformity with "Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Root-form Endosseous Dental Implants and Endosseous Dental Implant Abutments." These guidance documents outline the types of testing and analyses typically expected for such devices (e.g., biocompatibility, mechanical testing, fatigue testing, etc.) to ensure safety and effectiveness.

Therefore, many of the requested details about acceptance criteria and study designs for AI/ML devices (like sample sizes, ground truth establishment, MRMC studies, etc.) are not applicable to this particular 510(k) submission for a physical medical device.

Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (as inferred from the document):

• Similar technological characteristics, or differences do not raise new questions of safety/effectiveness.
• Safe and effective for its intended use. | - Intended Use: Identical to predicate (dental implant for long-term/temporary surgical implantation to restore chewing function).
• Technological Characteristics: The device is described (threaded, external-hex, self-tapping, root-form endosseous implant with integral female insert; titanium alloy; acid-etched surface; TiN coated female insert).
• Conclusion: "Based on their indications for use, technological characteristics, and comparison to predicate devices, the Sterngold 2.2mm Angled Micro ERA Dental Implant System has been shown to be safe and effective for the product's intended use." |
  | 2. Conformance to Recognized Standards/Guidance (Abbreviated 510(k) approach) | - Device meets the requirements of the "Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Root-form Endosseous Dental Implants and Endosseous Dental Implant Abutments." (This guidance would outline specific mechanical, biocompatibility, and other performance tests). | - Evidence: "Sterngold has provided information to demonstrate conformity with the following standards: . Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Root-form Endosseous Dental Implants and Endosseous Dental Implant Abutments." (Specific test results are not detailed in this summary document, but would have been submitted to FDA). |
  | 3. Materials and Biocompatibility | - Materials used are implant-grade and biocompatible. | - Materials: "Manufactured from pure, implant-grade titanium alloy." "Female insert is titanium nitride coated." (Implied compliance with biocompatibility standards for these materials). |
  | 4. Design and Manufacturing Control | - Device manufactured under Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP).
• Design specifications effectively met. | - Implied: Through the 510(k) process, it is assumed the manufacturer adheres to 21 CFR Part 820 (Quality System Regulation/GMP) and has appropriate design controls in place. The FDA's clearance letter confirms the assumption that the device may be marketed "subject to the general controls provisions of the Act," including GMP. |
  | 5. Sterilization (where applicable) | - Device is sterile or can be sterilized to appropriate standards. | - Not explicitly stated in this summary, but would be a standard requirement for implants and would be covered under the general controls and quality system regulation. |

Regarding the other specific questions (primarily relevant for AI/ML or diagnostic devices):

1. 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 is a physical dental implant. There is no "test set" in the sense of a dataset for an algorithm. Performance is demonstrated through mechanical testing, biocompatibility testing, and comparison to predicate devices, not clinical data evaluation in this summary.

2. 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. No ground truth needed for a test set for this physical device.

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

   • Not applicable. No test set requiring expert adjudication.

4. 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/ML device or a diagnostic device where MRMC studies are typically performed.

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

   • Not applicable. This is not an software/AI/ML device.

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

   • Not applicable. No ground truth in the context of data for an algorithm. The "ground truth" for a physical device like this is its compliance with engineering specifications, material standards, and performance characteristics established through laboratory testing (e.g., fatigue strength, fracture resistance, biocompatibility).

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. No training set for an AI/ML model.

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

   • Not applicable. No training set.

Ask a specific question about this device