Search Results

Impression of inlay, onlay crown, and bridge preparation

• Crown, bridge impression
• Inlay and onlay impression
• Functional impression
• Denture impression
• Study model impression

Bright Impress impression material is a fast-set of addition-reaction silicone elastomer (Vinyl polysiloxane)-based material for dental professionals, consisting of five types (Light, Medium, Heavy, Bite and Putty) with superior hydrophilicity, dimensional accuracy, high tensile strength, and resistant to deformation. It is designed for versatile impression techniques of crowns, bridges, orthodontics and implants.

The document is a 510(k) Summary for the dental impression material "Bright Impress" by Genoss Co., Ltd. It compares the characteristics of Bright Impress to a predicate device, HySil Impression Materials, and presents performance and biocompatibility data.

Here's an analysis of the provided information regarding acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

The document provides extensive tables for both biocompatibility and performance for each variant of "Bright Impress" (Light, Medium, Heavy, Putty, Bite). I will consolidate and present a representative sample, focusing on the "Performance Data" which directly addresses how the device meets physical/mechanical acceptance criteria. The "Biocompatibility Data" also uses "Acceptance Criteria" and "P/F" (Pass/Fail) results.

Comprehensive Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Important Note: The document often states "Pass" for certain criteria in the performance tables where a specific numerical result might be expected (e.g., Working Time for Bright Impress - Bite, Flexural Strength for Bright Impress - Bite). This indicates that the device met the specified quantitative acceptance criteria, even if the exact number isn't explicitly shown in that particular table. The "Technological Characteristics" section comparing to the predicate does provide specific numbers for some of these.

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

• Sample Size: The document does not explicitly state the sample sizes used for the performance and biocompatibility tests. It lists "Report No." for biocompatibility tests, suggesting external lab reports, but these reports are not provided. For performance, it lists Method (e.g., ISO 4823, DIN 13903) which implies standardized testing procedures that would define sample sizes, but the actual numbers of samples tested are not given.
• Data Provenance: The manufacturer is Genoss Co., Ltd., located in Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do, Korea, South. The document doesn't specify if the testing was done in Korea or elsewhere. The studies appear to be prospective bench tests and biocompatibility assessments conducted to demonstrate equivalency for regulatory clearance, rather than retrospective or prospective clinical studies on human subjects.

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

This information is not applicable to the type of study described. The document outlines bench testing (physical and mechanical properties) and biocompatibility testing of a medical device material. The "ground truth" here is established by adherence to international standards (ISO, DIN) and objective measurements using laboratory equipment, not by human expert consensus on clinical data.

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

This is not applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used in clinical studies, particularly for image interpretation or diagnosis where multiple readers provide opinions, and a consensus process is needed to establish ground truth. The studies described are bench tests and biocompatibility assessments, which rely on objective measurements and established protocols.

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

This is not applicable. This document describes the clearance of a dental impression material, not an AI-powered diagnostic device. Therefore, no MRMC study or assessment of human reader improvement with AI assistance was performed or reported.

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

This is not applicable. This device is a material, not software or an algorithm.

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

The "ground truth" for the tests performed is based on:

• International Standards: Adherence to established ISO (International Organization for Standardization) and DIN (Deutsches Institut für Normung) standards for dental materials, which define methods and acceptance criteria for properties like consistency, working time, dimensional change, elastic recovery, and detail reproduction.
• Objective Laboratory Measurements: Data obtained from quantitative measurements in a laboratory setting (e.g., electronic scale for volume, specific instruments for consistency, hardness, flexural strength).
• Biocompatibility Protocol Compliance: Results from standardized biological tests (e.g., Cytotoxicity, Sensitization, Irritation) following ISO 10993 guidelines, indicating the material's interaction with biological systems.

Essentially, the ground truth is objective scientific measurement and compliance with established performance and safety standards.

8. The sample size for the training set

This is not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device, so there is no concept of a "training set."

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

This is not applicable as there is no training set for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device