Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K103105
    Date Cleared
    2011-03-25

    (156 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 Orthodontic Screw is indicated for use as a fixed anchorage point for attachment of orthodontic appliances to facilitate the orthodontic movement of teeth. It is used temporarily and is removed after orthodontic treatment has been completed. Screws are intended for single use only

    Device Description

    The Orthodontic Screw is a dental implant system made of titanium metal intended to be used as a fixed anchorage point for attachment of orthodontic appliances to facilitate the orthodontic movement of teeth. It is 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8mm in screw diameter and 6, 8, 10mm in length. It is made of Titanium alloy (Ti-6AI-4V ELI, ASTM F 136- 02A). The surface of the screw is non-treated.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text describes the 510(k) summary for the OSSTEM Implant Co., Ltd.'s Orthodontic Screw. However, it does not contain information about a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria in the context of an AI/algorithm-based device.

    The "device" in this context is a physical Orthodontic Screw, and the review focuses on its substantial equivalence to a predicate device, primarily through material, design, and non-clinical mechanical testing, not through performance metrics of an AI.

    Therefore, many of the requested fields related to AI performance are not applicable. I will fill in the relevant available information based on the document provided.


    Acceptance Criteria and Study for OSSTEM Implant Orthodontic Screw

    This submission is for a physical medical device (Orthodontic Screw), not an AI/algorithm-based device. Therefore, the acceptance criteria and study detailed here focus on non-clinical performance and substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than AI performance metrics, ground truth establishment, or human-in-the-loop studies.

    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    Acceptance CriterionReported Device PerformanceStudy Type
    Fracture load testIn compliance with Osstem standard (OS-C-0013)Non-clinical testing
    Rotational fracture torque testIn compliance with Osstem standard (OS-C-0012)Non-clinical testing
    MaterialTitanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V ELI, ASTM F 136-02A) - Same as predicateComparison to predicate
    Indication for UseFixed anchorage point for orthodontic appliances - Same as predicateComparison to predicate
    SterilizationRadiation Sterile - Same as predicateComparison to predicate
    Shelf life5 years - Same as predicateComparison to predicate
    BiocompatibilityPerformed to comply with US & International regulationsSafety testing

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

    • Test set sample size: Not explicitly stated for the non-clinical tests (fracture load, rotational fracture torque). These tests would typically involve a statistically relevant number of physical samples, but the specific quantity is not provided in this summary.
    • Data provenance: The tests were conducted internally by OSSTEM Implant Co., Ltd. ("Osstem standard"). The country of origin for the data is implicitly Republic of Korea (where OSSTEM is based). The data is from non-clinical (laboratory) testing.

    3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and qualifications of those experts:
    Not applicable for this type of device and testing. Ground truth for mechanical tests is established by physical measurement against engineering standards, not expert consensus.

    4. Adjudication method for the test set:
    Not applicable. Mechanical test results are quantitative and do not require expert adjudication in the same way clinical or image-based assessments do.

    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.

    6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
    Not applicable. This is not an AI device.

    7. The type of ground truth used:
    For the non-clinical tests (fracture load, rotational fracture torque), the "ground truth" or reference was Osstem internal standards (OS-C-0013 and OS-C-0012). For substantial equivalence, the ground truth was the characteristics of the predicate device (Super Orthodontic Screw, K062156).

    8. The sample size for the training set:
    Not applicable. This is not an AI device, so there is no training set in the context of machine learning.

    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