Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K030639
    Manufacturer
    Date Cleared
    2003-08-12

    (165 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    872.3640
    Panel
    Dental
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Predicate For
    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The XiVE 3.0 Dental Implant System is indicated for single tooth restorations and splinted tooth restorations in the region of 7 to 10 and 23 to 26.

    Device Description

    The XiVE 3.0 Dental Implant System consists of subgingival threaded dental implants with a 3.25mm diameter and lengths of 11 -- 15mm . The implants are coated with the FRIOS Deep Profile Surface. The XiVE Dental Implant System is comprised of dental implants, surgical and laboratory instruments and prosthetic components. The system is designed for two stage procedures for single tooth replacement in the anterior regions of the mouth.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the FRIADENT GmbH XiVE® 3.0 Dental Implant System. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting a performance study with detailed acceptance criteria and results as would be found for a novel AI/software medical device.

    Therefore, many of the specific details requested regarding acceptance criteria, sample sizes for test and training sets, expert qualifications, and adjudication methods are not explicitly present in the provided text, as this type of information is typically not included in a 510(k) summary for a dental implant demonstrating substantial equivalence.

    Here's an analysis based on the available information:

    Description of Acceptance Criteria and Proving Device Meets Criteria

    The document states: "Performance evaluations of the XiVE 3.0 dental implant system show that the device performs as intended for the anterior region of the mouth. Comparison of the XiVE 3.0 dental implant system to the predicate device show that the device is substantially equivalent."

    This suggests that the "acceptance criteria" primarily revolved around demonstrating substantial equivalence to the predicate device in terms of design, materials, coatings, mechanical strength, prosthetic options, and intended use, as well as satisfactory performance for its intended use. The specific quantitative criteria for "performance as intended" are not elaborated.

    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    Acceptance Criteria (Implied)Reported Device Performance
    Substantial equivalence to predicate device (FRIALIT-2® 3.4mm Dental Implant System) in:The XiVE® 3.0 dental implant is substantially equivalent to the FRIALIT-2® 3.4mm Dental Implant Systems in terms of design, materials, coatings, mechanical strength, prosthetic options and single tooth intended use.
    - Design(Implied to meet, as per substantial equivalence statement)
    - MaterialsConstructed of CP-2 titanium, identical to predicate in materials.
    - CoatingsCoated with FRIOS Deep Profile Surface, identical to predicate in coatings.
    - Mechanical StrengthTested for compressive and static strength. (Specific results not provided but implied to meet)
    - Prosthetic OptionsVariety of prosthetic options (EstheticBase, AuroBase, Select, Telescopic Abutments), identical to predicate.
    - Intended Use (single tooth replacement in anterior regions)Performs as intended for the anterior region of the mouth. Indicated for single tooth restorations in the region of 7 to 10 and 23 to 26.
    Finite Element Analysis (FEA) resultsFinite element analysis performed. (Specific results not provided, but implied to meet)

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

    • Sample size: Not specified. The document mentions "performance evaluations" and mechanical testing (compressive, static strength, finite element analysis) but does not provide numbers of devices tested or specific clinical data from a "test set."
    • Data provenance: Not explicitly stated. The tests conducted (compressive, static strength, finite element analysis) are typically laboratory-based engineering tests rather than clinical trials with patient data.

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

    • Not applicable as this is not a study requiring expert-established ground truth in the context of diagnostic interpretation (e.g., radiology). The "ground truth" for a dental implant would be its physical properties and mechanical performance.

    4. Adjudication method for the test set

    • Not applicable. This is not a study involving human interpretation or subjective assessment that would require adjudication.

    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 a dental implant, not an AI/software device that assists human readers.

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

    • Not applicable. This is a dental implant, not an algorithm.

    7. The type of ground truth used

    • The ground truth for a dental implant's performance would be derived from engineering specifications, material science standards, and mechanical testing results (e.g., strength, fatigue life, material composition). The document mentions "compressive and static strength and finite element analysis," which are methods to establish this type of ground truth.

    8. The sample size for the training set

    • Not applicable. This is a dental implant, not a machine learning model, so there is no "training set."

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

    • Not applicable.
    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1