Search Results

Bonding System (Contax) is indicated for

• bonding chemically cured, light cured, or dual cured resin-based materials e. g. composite, compomer, ormocer materials to tooth structure (dentin and enamel)
• treatment of hypersensitive teeth .

Composite Repair MMA-free is indicated

• as a bonding agent for the intra- or extraoral repair of poor or damaged resin-based materials restorations
• as a bonding agent for composite-based posts .
• for shade corrections of esthetically unsatisfying restorations .
• for repair and completion of temporary crowns and bridges .
• as a bonding agent on resin-based materials .

PrimaFlow is indicated for

• minimally invasive restorations
• Class III and V restorations .
• bases .
• extended fissure sealing
• restorations of all classes of cavities in deciduous teeth .
• as a temporary luting cement for e.g. veneers, and .
• as a flowable compomer repair agent .

Flowable Composite (LuxaFlow) is indicated as

• as an aesthetic anterior restoration .
• a base restoration under posterior or anterior composites .
• an add-on or repair material for provisional crowns & bridges .
• for incorporation of most mechanically anchored attachment components into the acrylic base of an overdenture or partial denture.
• as a temporary luting cement for e.g. veneers, and .
• as a flowable composite repair agent . .

The Composite/Compomer Repair Kit consists of 4 materials:

• 1. A general 6" generation bonding agent for enamel and dentin,
• 2. A special bonding agent for resin-based materials in general, i. e. composites, compomers, and ormocers,
• 3. A flowable compomer and
• 4. A flowable composite

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a "Composite/Compomer Repair Kit." It describes the device's indications for use and claims substantial equivalence to predicate devices, but it does not contain information about acceptance criteria, a specific study proving the device meets these criteria, or any performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) that would be presented in a table.

The document states that the submission is an Abbreviated 510(k) and refers to FDA guidance documents for dental composites, implying that the safety and performance were established by demonstrating conformity with these guidelines and substantial equivalence to existing devices. However, the details of those demonstrations are not included here.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for the specific points related to acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them because that information is not present in the provided text.

Based on the information given, I can only state the following:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: Not provided in the document. The document primarily focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to predicate devices.
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective): Not provided in the document.
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 provided in the document.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not provided in the document.
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 relevant and not provided. This device is a dental material, not an AI diagnostic tool.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not relevant and not provided. This device is a dental material, not an algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert concensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): Not provided in the document.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not relevant and not provided. This device is a dental material, not an AI model.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not relevant and not provided. This device is a dental material, not an AI model.

The document concludes that the device is "safe and effective for its intended use" based on "indications for use, technological characteristics, and comparison to the predicate devices." This implies that the 'study' conducted was likely a comparison of material properties and performance against established standards and predicate devices, rather than a clinical trial with specific performance metrics against a ground truth.

To answer your prompt, I would need a different type of document, typically one that details a clinical study or a comprehensive performance evaluation with specific endpoints and acceptance criteria.

Ask a specific question about this device