Search Results

Indications for Use for iPhysio® Profile Designer:

iPhysio® System Profile Designers are indicated to be placed in the end of the implant placement to protect the inner configuration of the implant and maintain, stabilize and form the soft tissue during the healing process. The healing abutments should be used only with comections. The healing abutments are intended for use up to 6 months.

Compatible Implant Systems:

Indications for Use for iPhysio® PEEK Temporary Abutment:

The iPhysio® System PEEK Temporary Abutment is an abutment placed on the iPhysio® System Profile Designer to provide support for prosthetic structures for up to 6 months. It can be used in single- or two-stage procedures and is intended to be placed out of occlusion.

The iPhysio® System is a set of two-piece titanium healing abutments (iPhysio® Profile Designers) be screwed into the implant using compatible anodized titanium screws during the 1st or the 2nd surgical intervention. The iPhysio® Profile Designer abutment is manufactured from titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V ELI) per ISO 5832-3 and includes a zirconium nitride (ZrN) coating. iPhysio® Profile Designers are available in multiples anatomical shapes and gingival heights, and are compatible with Nobel BioCare (NobelActive®, NobelReplace®, NobelParallel™), Straumann (Bone Level / Bone Level Tapered), and Zimmer Biomet (Trabecular Metal, Tapered Screw-Vent®) implants. All iPhysio® Profile Designers are straight (0°). Supporting screws are manufactured from titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V ELI) per ISO 5832-3 and are anodized to a color that aligns with its corresponding height. The iPhysio® Profile Designer healing abutment screw is for placing the iPhysio® Profile Designer in the implant in the patient's mouth.

The iPhysio® Profile Designer remains in place throughout the bone and gingival healing process as well as during the taking of a digital or conventional impression, preserving the emergence profile during the impression. The abutment is only removed once to place and finally screw in the final abutment. Anatomical healing, implant impression, and placement of the temporary crown may all be done without removing the iPhysio® Profile Designer.

A compatible PEEK temporary abutment may be clipped to the iPhysio® Profile Designer to which a non-load bearing temporary crown may be then placed for improved aesthetics during healing. To use the PEEK temporary abutment, the iPhysio® Profile Designer healing abutment screw is replaced with a compatible temporary abutment screw. The temporary crown is placed over the PEEK temporary abutment following modification of the abutment to the appropriate shape. The PEEK temporary abutment is connected onto the iPhysio® Profile Designer by a combination of friction and cement. All iPhysio® temporary abutments are manufactured from PEEK per ASTM F2026.

This document is part of a 510(k) summary for a medical device called "iPhysio® System." It details the comparison of the subject device to predicate devices to establish substantial equivalence, which is a key requirement for FDA clearance. The document focuses on non-clinical performance testing rather than studies involving human data or AI.

Therefore, the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, expert involvement, adjudication, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and ground truth establishment cannot be fully provided directly from this document as it pertains to clinical performance and AI algorithm validation, which are not the primary focus of this 510(k) submission for this specific type of dental device.

However, I can extract the information related to acceptance criteria for the non-clinical performance testing and the reported results:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Non-Clinical Testing)

Note: The document explicitly states "Device met all predetermined acceptance criteria" or "Coating met all predetermined acceptance criteria" for several tests, which implies the acceptance criteria were established prior to testing and the device successfully met them. The specific numerical or qualitative thresholds for these criteria are not detailed in this summary for each test but are generally understood to align with relevant international standards (e.g., ISO 14801 for fatigue).

The following points cannot be answered from the provided text, as this is a 510(k) summary for a dental implant accessory, primarily relying on non-clinical (bench) testing and substantial equivalence arguments, rather than clinical trials or AI/image analysis studies.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g., country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

• Not applicable / Not provided. The "tests" referred to are non-clinical bench tests (e.g., mechanical fatigue, material characterization), not clinical studies with human patient data. Sample sizes would refer to the number of physical device units tested for each non-clinical performance test. Data provenance in this context would be the lab where the bench tests were performed, which is not specified.

3. 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 / Not provided. Ground truth, in the context of diagnostic AI or clinical studies, refers to disease labels or interpretations. For non-clinical bench testing, the "ground truth" is adherence to established engineering standards and material properties, validated by testing methodologies. No human experts are establishing "ground truth" in the clinical sense for these types of tests.

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

• Not applicable / Not provided. Adjudication methods are relevant for resolving discrepancies in expert interpretations in clinical or imaging studies. This document describes bench testing, where outcomes are determined by physical measurements and adherence to engineering standards.

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 document explicitly states: "No clinical data was included in this submission." Therefore, no MRMC study or AI assistance evaluation was performed as part of this submission. The device (dental healing abutment) does not involve AI.

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

• No. As noted above, this device is a physical dental implant component, not an AI algorithm.

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

• Not applicable / Not provided. For this submission, which relies on non-clinical testing, the "ground truth" is adherence to established engineering specifications, material standards (e.g., ISO 5832-3 for titanium alloy, ASTM F2026 for PEEK), and performance test methods (e.g., ISO 14801 for fatigue testing).

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This device does not involve machine learning or a "training set."

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

• Not applicable. This device does not involve machine learning or a "training set."

Ask a specific question about this device