Search Results

The UF(II) Bar holder abutment is intended to be used as a retention device in conjunction with the fixture in the maxillary and/or mandibular arch to provide support for overdentures for partially and fully edentulous patients.

UF(II) Bar holder abutment and set screw is used for prosthetic restoration. Bar holder abutment is intended to be used in conjunction with the fixture in the maxillary and/or mandibular arch to provide support for overdentures for partially and fully edentulous patients. UF(II) Bar holder abutments are made from Ti-6Al-4V ELI (ASTM F136). The UF(II) Bar holder abutment has two type shape which are Single body type and Cap type.

The UF(II) Bar holder abutment of single body type consists of abutment screw and set screw. The UF(II) Bar holder abutment of cap type consists of abutment screw, set screw and abutment cap. Both type Bar holder abutment has Hex, Non-Hex connection. Subject abutments are only intended for multi-unit restorations. It is provided non-sterile, this should be user steam sterilized before use. It is used for overdentures with clip for bar retention. The clip is fixed to the overdenture and used to supplement the retention of the bar and denture. The bar is used to fix the abutment and overdenture. It is held in place with the set screw. The cap is used to cover the bar holder abutment Cap Type. The components-clip, bar, and cap--are included in the device system.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the UF(II) Bar holder abutment:

This document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (UF(II) Bar holder abutment). It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than proving a device meets specific performance acceptance criteria through clinical or standalone studies for a new type of AI/diagnostic device.

Therefore, the requested information elements related to AI algorithm performance (e.g., sample sizes for test/training sets, expert ground truth, MRMC studies, standalone performance) are not applicable in this context. This is a traditional medical device submission for an implant component, where the focus is on mechanical integrity, materials, and intended use comparison to existing devices.

However, I can extract the relevant information regarding the non-clinical testing performed to establish substantial equivalence.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

For this device, the "acceptance criteria" are derived from established international standards for dental implants and abutments. Since no specific performance metrics like sensitivity/specificity are reported for this type of device, the "reported device performance" is successful completion of the specified tests, thereby demonstrating substantial equivalence.

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

• Sample Size for Fatigue Test: Not explicitly stated as a number of devices, but the test was performed on "finished assembled implant/abutment systems of the worst-case scenario (smallest diameter with maximum angulation)." This implies a representative number of units for the specific configurations tested, as per the ISO standard.
• Data Provenance: The standard (ISO 14801:2007) is international. The testing itself would have been conducted by the manufacturer or a contracted lab. The document does not specify country of origin for the test results, but the submitter (DIO Corporation) is from the Republic of Korea. It is a prospective test, newly performed or leveraged for this submission.

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 mechanical/material performance test, not a diagnostic or AI-driven assessment requiring expert ground truth for interpretation. The "ground truth" is determined by the physical outcome of the tests (e.g., whether the device fractured at a certain load, whether the sterilization parameters were met).

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

• Not Applicable. See point 3.

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 device is a physical dental implant abutment, not an AI diagnostic tool.

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

• Not Applicable. See point 5.

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

• For the fatigue test: The "ground truth" is the physical failure or non-failure of the device under specific, controlled dynamic loading conditions, as defined by the ISO standard.
• For sterilization: The "ground truth" is the measurable Sterilization Assurance Level (SAL), typically confirmed by biological indicators or other validated methods.
• For biocompatibility: The "ground truth" is the established safety profile of the material based on chemical composition and previous testing (ISO 10993).

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not Applicable. There is no training set as this is not an AI/machine learning device.

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

• Not Applicable. There is no training set.

Ask a specific question about this device