Search Results

Take 1 Advanced is a complete system of vinylpolysiloxane impression materials suitable for all crown and bridge, edentulous and implant impressions.

Toke 1 Advonced is a complete system of vinylpolysiloxane impression materials composed of addition silicone chemistry where reaction between vinyl-terminated polydimethyl siloxane and poly-hydrogen siloxane catalyzed by platinum complex catalyst generates an optimum elastomeric material suitable for all crown and bridge, edentulous and implant impressions. The Take 1 Advanced system of materials is available in five viscosities, four delivery options, and in a range of set times. Take 1 Advanced has high elongation for easy mouth removal while its elastic recovery and tear strength provide accurate, detailed impressions time after time. The Wash viscosities are available in both Cartridge and Unidose syringe, a single use delivery system. The Tray viscosity is available in both Cartridge and Volume 5:1 delivery, for use in automated dynamic mixing machines. Take 1 Advonced offers three setting speeds: Regular Set, Fast Set, and Super Fast Set. Take 1 Advanced Putty is also available for Putty/Wash technique.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for a dental impression material named "Take 1 Advanced." This submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device ("Take 1") based on non-clinical performance data (biocompatibility and bench testing) rather than clinical testing or an AI algorithm. Therefore, many of the requested elements for an AI-based device, such as sample sizes for test/training sets, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, or MRMC studies, are not applicable.

However, I can extract the acceptance criteria related to the device's technical characteristics and summarize the reported performance based on the non-clinical data.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are implicitly based on demonstrating comparable performance to the predicate device, "Take 1 (K091613)", across various physical and chemical properties. The study concluded that "Take 1 Advanced" is substantially equivalent to the predicate device based on these comparisons.

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

The document does not specify a "test set" in the context of an AI device. The testing conducted was non-clinical (biocompatibility and bench testing) to compare "Take 1 Advanced" against a predicate device. The sample sizes for these specific bench tests are not provided in the summary, nor is the country of origin explicitly stated, though the submitting company is based in Orange, California, USA. The data is retrospective in the sense that it relies on existing established test methods and comparisons to an already-marketed device.

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

Not applicable. There was no "ground truth" to establish in the context of an AI device's performance. The evaluation was based on objective, quantifiable physical and chemical properties measured, and biocompatibility testing.

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

Not applicable. No clinical or human-reader-based adjudication was involved.

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 device, and no MRMC study was conducted.

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

Not applicable. This is a dental impression material, not an algorithm.

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

The ground truth was established through objective measurements of physical and chemical properties (e.g., work time, set time, strain in compression, hardness) and standardized biocompatibility tests as per ISO guidelines (Agar Diffusion Test, Kligman Maximization Test, Oral Irritation Test). The "truth" was whether these measurements for "Take 1 Advanced" were comparable to those of the predicate device, "Take 1."

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is not an AI device.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI device.

Ask a specific question about this device

Take 1 Advanced Rigid Tray is an addition-cure vinyl polysiloxane dental impression material that is used for all crown and bridge, edentulous, orthodontic and implant impression techniques.

The device is an addition-cure vinyl polysiloxane dental impression material that is used for all crowns and bridges, edentulous, orthodontic and implant impression techniques. Take 1 Advanced Rigid Tray is a two-part, base/catalyst – paste/paste system. The product is available in a heavy body viscosity, offered in cartridge 1:1 delivery and Volume 5:1 delivery, and in 3 setting speeds: regular set, fast set and super fast set.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for a dental impression material, Take 1 Advanced Rigid Tray. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting a study of a device's performance against specific acceptance criteria in the way an AI/ML device study would. Therefore, most of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, sample sizes for test/training sets, expert qualifications, and adjudication methods is not directly applicable or available in the provided text for a device like this.

However, I can extract the information that is present and indicate where it's not applicable.

Here's a breakdown based on the provided document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

For this specific device, the "acceptance criteria" are implied by demonstrating substantial equivalence to its predicate for certain material properties, rather than explicit numerical thresholds the device must achieve independently. The reported performance is comparative.

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for specific tests (e.g., how many samples for compressive strength were tested). The text mentions "data from bench testing," implying multiple tests were performed.
• Data Provenance: Bench testing data. No geographic origin is specified, but it was performed by Sybron Dental Specialties, Inc. (USA-based company). Retrospective.

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

• Not Applicable. This is a dental impression material. The "ground truth" for its performance is derived from physical and chemical measurements rather than expert human interpretation.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not Applicable. As per point 3, no human adjudication was involved in establishing performance metrics for this material.

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

• No. This is not an AI/ML device, nor does it involve human readers. Clinical testing was explicitly stated as not conducted.

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

• Not Applicable. This is a physical dental material; there's no algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used

• For physical/chemical properties (Working Time, Setting Time, Compressive Strength, etc.): Objective physical and chemical measurements governed by established testing standards (e.g., those specified in ISO standards for dental materials, though specific standard numbers for each test are not listed other than ISO 10993 for biocompatibility).
• For biocompatibility: Adherence to ISO 10993 standards for biological evaluation of medical devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not Applicable. This is not an AI/ML device; there is no training set in the machine learning sense. The "training" in manufacturing would relate to process control and quality assurance, not data-driven model training.

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

• Not Applicable. See point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

Take 1 Advanced Rigid Tray is an addition-cure vinyl polysiloxane dental impression material that is used for all crown and bridge, edentulous, orthodontic and implant impression techniques.

The device is an addition-cure vinyl polysiloxane dental impression material that is used for all crowns and bridges, edentulous, orthodontic and impression techniques. Take 1 Advanced Rigid Tray is a two-part, base/catalyst – paste/paste system. The product is available in a heavy body viscosity, offered in cartridge 1:1 delivery and Volume 5:1 delivery, and in 3 setting speeds: regular set, fast set and super fast set.

This submission pertains to a dental impression material, which is a low-risk device. As a result, the provided documentation focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting a detailed study with acceptance criteria and performance data in the context of AI/software. There is no mention of a study involving artificial intelligence, human readers, or specific quantitative performance metrics beyond the general characteristics expected of dental impression materials.

Therefore, many of the requested sections (e.g., sample size for test set, number of experts, MRMC study, standalone performance) are not applicable to the provided information.

However, based on the context of a 510(k) submission for a non-AI device, we can infer some general "acceptance criteria" through the lens of substantial equivalence and device characteristics for dental impression materials.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Since this is a non-AI device, the "acceptance criteria" are implicitly derived from the characteristics of the predicate device and the general intended use of dental impression materials. Performance is reported through the substantial equivalence claim.

Notes on "Acceptance Criteria" for this device:

• No quantitative statistical thresholds are explicitly stated because this is a Class II dental impression material cleared via substantial equivalence, not a high-risk device with specific performance endpoints like sensitivity/specificity for disease detection.
• The "acceptance criteria" here refer to matching the material composition, physical properties (viscosity, setting times), and intended use to a legally marketed predicate device.

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

Not applicable. The document does not describe a "test set" in the context of evaluating a software algorithm or diagnostic device. The evaluation for substantial equivalence typically involves material characterization and comparison to the predicate, not a clinical study with a specified test set of patient data.

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

Not applicable. This is not a study requiring expert-established ground truth for a test set of medical cases.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. No test set requiring adjudication is mentioned.

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 typically conducted for diagnostic imaging devices or AI-powered interpretation systems to evaluate the impact of the AI on human reader performance, which is not relevant for a dental impression material.

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

Not applicable. This is a physical dental impression material, not an algorithm, so the concept of "standalone performance" for an algorithm is not relevant.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

Not applicable in the conventional sense of expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data for diagnostic accuracy. For this type of device, the "ground truth" for demonstrating equivalence would be based on established dental material standards and performance data for the predicate device, as well as the physical and chemical properties of the new device confirming it performs as intended.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

No training set is mentioned or applicable. This is a physical product, not a machine learning model.

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

Not applicable, as there is no training set for a machine learning model.

Ask a specific question about this device

Take I is an addition-cure vinyl polysiloxane dental impression material that is used for all crown and bridge, edentulous, orthodontic and implant impression techniques.

The device is an addition-cure vinyl polysiloxane dental impression material that is used for all crowns and bridges, edentulous, orthodontic and implant impression techniques. Take 1 is a two-part, base/catalyst - paste/paste system. The product is available in three viscosities, Wash, Tray, and Medium.

I am sorry, but the provided text does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study that proves a device meets such criteria. The document is a 510(k) summary for a dental impression material named "Take 1," confirming its substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device.

The document includes:

• Contact information for the submitter.
• Device name, common name, and classification name.
• Identification of the predicate device (Kerr Corporation, Kerr VPS Impression Material).
• Device description and intended use.
• A statement of substantial equivalence to other legally marketed devices.
• FDA's letter acknowledging the 510(k) premarket notification and confirming substantial equivalence.
• Information regarding regulatory compliance and contact details for further inquiries.
• An "Indications for Use" statement for the device.

There is no information regarding specific performance metrics, acceptance criteria, study methodologies, sample sizes for testing or training, expert qualifications for ground truth establishment, adjudication methods, or results of MRMC or standalone studies.

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device