Search Results

S.I.N. Dental Implant System is intended for placement in the maxillary or mandibular arch to provide support for single-unit or multi-unit restorations. When a one-stage surgical approach is applied, the S.I.N. Dental Implant System is intended for immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading.

Unitite Slim, Unitite, Unitite Compact, Strong SW CM S.I.N Dental Implant System implants with lengths less than 7 mm are intended for delayed loading only.

Epikut CM, Epikut Plus CM, Epikut S, Epikut S Plus S.I.N. Dental Implant System implants with lengths of 18, 20, 22, or 24 mm may be tilted up to 30°. When used in the mandible or maxilla with implants with lengths of 18, 20, 22, or 24 mm at an angulation of 30°, a minimum of four implants must be used and must be splinted. When placed in the maxilla with lengths of 18, 20, 22, or 24 mm at angulations between 0° and less than 30°, the S.I.N. Dental Implants are only indicated for multiple unit restorations in splinted applications that utilize at least two implants.

Epikut CM, Epikut Plus CM, Strong SW CM Plus, Strong SW HE Plus, Strong SW HI Plus All digitally-designed custom abutments for use with Interface CAD-CAM abutments are to be sent to a S.I.N.-validated milling center for manufacture.

The purpose of this submission is to add labeling claims for a surface treatment designated HA™®, which is applied to implants of the S.I.N. Dental Implant System, as previously cleared in K170392. K193096. K200992, K211921, K221453, and K222231. The new labeling claims and the information supporting the claims are shown below in Performance Data.

The following information is a summary of the designs of the subject device implants, as they have been previously cleared with the HA"" surface treatment. Note that there are no changes to any aspect of the design, nor to the HA" surface treatment, as described in the respective 510(k) Premarket Notifications referenced above.

The previously cleared implants that are the subject of this submission includes eleven (11) product lines from six (6) 510(k)s. Implant body diameters, platform diameters and lengths for each product line are shown below in Table 10.1 Summary of Subject Device Designs and Sizes.

K170392: Unitite Slim, Unitite, Unitite Compact K193096: Strong SW CM Plus, Strong SW HE Plus, Strong SW HI Plus K200992: Strong SW Plus K211921: Epikut Plus CM, Epikut Plus HE K221453: Epikut Plus CM (additional lengths) K22231: Epikut S Plus

All subject device dental implants are manufactured from unalloyed titanium conforming to ASTM F67. The HA1000 surface treatment is identical to that cleared in K211921.

The provided text is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from the U.S. FDA for the S.I.N. Dental Implant System. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices by comparing their indications for use, designs, materials, and manufacturing processes, with an emphasis on adding new labeling claims related to a surface treatment.

Crucially, this document states: "No clinical data were included in this submission." This means that the device's performance was not proven through a study involving human subjects or artificial intelligence (AI). The document relies on non-clinical data such as in vitro testing, animal testing referenced from published literature, sterilization, endotoxin, shelf-life, biological evaluation, MR compatibility, and fatigue testing to support the claims and substantial equivalence.

Therefore, most of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, expert involvement, and specific performance metrics for an AI/device study cannot be extracted from this document.

However, I can extract the information related to the non-clinical performance data presented to meet the criteria for substantial equivalence to predicates.

Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted and an explanation of why other requested information is not present:

Information that CANNOT be extracted from this document (and why):

• A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance (for clinical/AI studies): Not applicable as no clinical or AI study was performed. The acceptance criteria relate to demonstrating substantial equivalence through non-clinical data, not specific performance metrics against a ground truth for a diagnostic claim.
• Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable.
• Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable.
• Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable.
• 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.
• If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable (not an AI device).
• The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.) for test set: Not applicable as no clinical study or diagnostic AI was evaluated.
• The sample size for the training set: Not applicable (not an AI device).
• How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable (not an AI device).

What CAN be extracted/inferred regarding "acceptance criteria" and "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in the context of this 510(k) submission:

The "acceptance criteria" for a 510(k) are typically met by demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing legally marketed devices (predicates). The "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in this case refers to the non-clinical tests and comparisons performed to show this equivalence and support the new labeling claims.

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported "device performance" (in terms of non-clinical criteria):

The acceptance criteria for this 510(k) submission are implicitly met by demonstrating that the subject device is as safe and effective as the predicate devices and that the new labeling claims are supported by scientific evidence. The "performance" here refers to meeting specific engineering, biological, and material standards, not diagnostic accuracy.

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

• Sample Size: Not applicable. The "test set" here would refer to the samples used in the non-clinical tests (e.g., in vitro cell cultures, physical test samples, animal models where applicable for referenced studies). Exact sample sizes for these referenced non-clinical studies are not provided in this summary.
• Data Provenance:
  • Country of Origin: Not specified for the referenced studies (Bezerra et al., da Silva et al.). The manufacturing country for the device is Brazil (S.I.N. - Sistema de Implante Nacional S.A., São Paulo, Brazil).
  • Retrospective or Prospective: Not applicable as these were non-clinical, in vitro, or animal studies, not human clinical trials.

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 a non-clinical submission for a dental implant, not an AI/diagnostic device requiring expert ground truth for imaging interpretation. The "ground truth" for the non-clinical properties is established by the methods, standards, and scientific literature cited (e.g., ASTM, ISO standards, and published research papers).

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

• Not applicable. There was no expert reader study.

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, an MRMC study was not done. This is not an AI-enabled device.

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

• No, a standalone algorithm performance study was not done. This is not an AI-enabled device.

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

• The "ground truth" for the claims made are based on non-clinical in vitro and animal studies, and adherence to recognized standards for material properties, sterilization, biocompatibility, and mechanical performance. Specifically for the HAnano claims, the ground truth is derived from the experimental results reported in the referenced scientific publications (e.g., measurements of water contact angle, observation of cell morphology, assessment of gene marker expression).

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This is not an AI device trained on a dataset.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an AI device.

Ask a specific question about this device