Search Results

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Dental Barrier and Sleeves are intended to be used as a disposable barrier for dental instruments and equipment. This device is non-sterile and intended for single patient use only.

Not Found

The provided text is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for a device named "Dental Barrier and Sleeves." It explicitly states that the device is a physical barrier and not an AI/software device. Therefore, the questions related to AI/software performance acceptance criteria, test sets, ground truth, expert opinions, and training sets are not applicable to this document.

The document discusses regulatory aspects of a Class II medical device, including:

• Trade/Device Name: Dental Barrier and Sleeves
• Regulation Number/Name: 21 CFR 878.4370, Surgical Drape And Drape Accessories
• Regulatory Class: Class II
• Product Code: PEM, PUI
• Indications for Use: Intended to be used as a disposable barrier for dental instruments and equipment. Non-sterile and intended for single patient use only.

Since the device is a physical product and not an AI or software-based system, the acceptance criteria would relate to its physical properties, material safety, effectiveness as a barrier, and manufacturing quality, rather than algorithms or data performance. Such tests would typically involve:

• Material Biocompatibility: Testing to ensure the materials are not toxic or irritating when in contact with patients or users.
• Barrier Integrity/Effectiveness: Physical testing to confirm its ability to prevent the passage of fluids, microorganisms, or other contaminants.
• Physical Properties: Tensile strength, tear resistance, and dimensions to ensure it performs as intended under typical dental use conditions.
• Sterility (if applicable, though this device is noted as non-sterile): If it were a sterile barrier, testing would confirm the absence of viable microorganisms.
• Shelf Life: Stability testing to ensure the product remains effective and safe over its intended storage period.
• Manufacturing Quality Control: Adherence to Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) to ensure consistent quality.

None of this information is detailed in the provided FDA clearance letter, as the letter primarily serves to confirm substantial equivalence to a predicate device and outlines regulatory obligations, not to present detailed study results for a non-AI/software device.

Ask a specific question about this device

Dental Barrier and Sleeves are intended to be used as a disposable barrier for dental instruments and equipment. This device is non-sterile and intended for single patient use only.

Dental Barrier and Sleeves consist of various sizes and shapes of polyethylene covers which are positioned on various small hand-held dental instruments such as hand pieces, curing lights, air/water syringes and similar hand instruments. In other forms, they are used to cover various devices such as dental chairs, dental instrument trays, x-ray heads, and others. The products are sold non-sterile, prepackaged, and are disposable, single use only.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called "Dental Barrier and Sleeves." It outlines the device's characteristics and compares them to a legally marketed predicate device to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them, based on the provided text:

Important Note: This submission is for a Class II medical device, "Dental Barrier and Sleeves," which are physical barriers (polyethylene covers) for dental instruments and equipment. The document does not describe an AI/Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) and therefore doesn't contain information related to AI model performance, expert consensus on image interpretation, or multi-reader multi-case studies. The performance criteria and studies described are for the physical properties and biocompatibility of the barrier sleeves themselves.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are primarily based on demonstrating equivalence in physical properties and biocompatibility with the predicate device.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

2. Sample Sizes Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance:

   • Test Set Sample Size: The document does not specify a specific "sample size" in terms of number of units for the performance tests (e.g., blood penetration, viral penetration, physical properties). It implies that standard testing procedures typical for medical devices of this type were followed.
   • Data Provenance: The studies are "Non-Clinical Testing" which means they were likely conducted in a laboratory setting. The country of origin for the tests or data is not explicitly stated. It is considered retrospective as the tests were performed to support the 510(k) submission.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications:

   • This question is not applicable to this device. As a physical barrier, there is no "ground truth" to be established by experts in the context of image interpretation or diagnostic accuracy. The performance is based on measurable physical and biological properties.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

   • This question is not applicable to this device. Adjudication methods like "2+1" or "3+1" are relevant for expert review of medical images or clinical outcomes, which is not the nature of the testing for this device.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done, and its effect size:

   • No. This is a physical device, not an AI/SaMD. MRMC studies are not relevant to its evaluation.

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

   • No. This is a physical device, not an algorithm. Standalone performance is not relevant.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

   • The "ground truth" for this device's performance is based on standardized test methods and material properties.
     • For performance properties (blood/viral penetration, tear, tensile, puncture), the ground truth is defined by the passing criteria of the respective ASTM standards (ASTM F1670, ASTM F1671, ASTM D882, ASTM F1342, ASTM D1004).
     • For biocompatibility, the ground truth is defined by the "non-cytotoxic, non-sensitizing, and non-irritating" outcomes determined by the ISO 10993 suite of standards (ISO 10993-5, ISO 10993-10, ISO 10993-23).
     • For X-ray device effectiveness, the ground truth is the continued proper function of dental X-ray devices when covered by the barriers.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

   • Not applicable. This is a manufactured physical device, not an AI model. There is no "training set" in the context of machine learning.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established:

   • Not applicable. As there is no training set, there is no ground truth to be established for it.

Ask a specific question about this device

Disposable Barrier Sleeves are intended to be used as a disposable barrier for dental instruments and equipment. This device is non-sterile and intended for single patient use only.

Not Found

The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification letter from the FDA regarding "Disposable Barrier Sleeves." This document is a regulatory clearance for a physical medical device (barrier sleeves), not an AI/software as a medical device (SaMD).

Therefore, the document does not contain any of the information requested in your prompt regarding acceptance criteria and study details for an AI/SaMD. Specifically:

• No AI/SaMD Performance: The device is a physical barrier sleeve, completely unrelated to AI performance metrics.
• No Test Set/Ground Truth: There is no mention of a test set, data provenance, expert ground truth, adjudication, or MRMC studies because these concepts are not applicable to the clearance of a disposable physical barrier.
• No Training Set: Similarly, there is no training set for a physical product.

The document indicates that the device is "substantially equivalent" to legally marketed predicate devices, which is the basis for its 510(k) clearance. The focus of the regulatory review for this product would have been on material safety, physical dimensions, intended use, and substantial equivalence to existing devices, not on algorithmic performance.

Ask a specific question about this device

Minitube Dentasleeve Protective Barrier Sleeves are intended to serve as a disposable barrier for dental instruments and equipment. This device is non-sterile and intended for single patient use only

Minitube Dentasleeve Protective Barrier Sleeves are made of polyethylene film and are used as accessories to dental instruments and equipment used during dental procedures. These disposable barrier sleeves are offered in various shapes and sizes to fit over and cover the intended dental instruments and equipment. The disposable Barrier Sleeves slip over the ends of the respective devices, allowing for the attachment of those parts of the devices used during dental procedures. Barrier Sleeves act as a physical barrier, augmenting existing infection control techniques, and facilitate clean up. The Minitube Dentasleeve Protective Barrier Sleeves are available in below sizes. All sizes below are provided in millimeters (mm, approx.) and excluding paper liner, i.e. actual sleeve only:

• . 1 ml Width: 29 mm Length: 148 mm
• 5 ml Width: 43 mm Length: 195 mm
• 50ml Width: 63 mm Length: 126 mm

This document, a 510(k) Premarket Notification from the FDA, details the equivalence of the Minitube Dentasleeve Protective Barrier Sleeves to a predicate device. The information provided is for a medical device (dental barrier sleeves), not an AI/algorithm-based device. Therefore, a significant portion of your request regarding AI model validation (e.g., training set, test set, ground truth for AI, MRMC studies, expert consensus, etc.) is not applicable to this document.

The acceptance criteria and study proving the device meets them are based on bench testing and material property comparisons rather than clinical performance or AI algorithm assessment.

Here's an attempt to answer your questions based on the provided document, highlighting where the information is not applicable (N/A) due to the nature of the device:

Device Name: Minitube Dentasleeve Protective Barrier Sleeves
Regulation Number: 21 CFR 878.4370 (Surgical Drape and Drape Accessories)
Regulatory Class: Class II
Product Code: PEM

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

This device is cleared based on substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Barrier Sleeves, K191448). The "acceptance criteria" are implied by the performance characteristics of the predicate device, which the new device must match or perform equivalently.

Note on Dimensions: While the predicate device had sizes 29x148mm and 36x279mm, the subject device offers 29x148mm, 43x195mm, and 63x126mm, stating these "will fit perfectly over a 1ml, 5ml and 50ml syringe, respectively." This is deemed "SE" (Substantially Equivalent) as it still fulfills the same barrier function for dental instruments, albeit with different specific sizes.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: The document does not specify exact sample sizes for each mechanical or biocompatibility test. It indicates that "samples of the proposed devices" were tested and that the "results are included in this submission."
• Data Provenance: The tests were conducted to support the 510(k) submission. The supplier (Minitube AB, Sweden) manufactures both the predicate and subject devices. This implies the bench testing was done by or for the manufacturer. The data is prospective as it's generated specifically for this premarket notification.

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

• N/A. This is a physical barrier device, and its "ground truth" is established through standardized laboratory bench tests, not through expert human interpretation of medical images or data. The standards (ASTM, ISO) themselves define the methodology and "ground truth" for material performance.

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

• N/A. Adjudication methods like 2+1 are relevant for subjective evaluations, typically in clinical studies or AI performance assessment. Here, the assessment is based on objective, quantitative measurements from standardized laboratory tests.

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

• N/A. This device is a physical barrier, not an AI or imaging device. Therefore, MRMC studies are not applicable.

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

• N/A. This is not an algorithm or AI device.

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

• Bench Testing Standards and Predicate Device Performance: The "ground truth" is established by compliance with recognized international standards (e.g., ISO 10993 for biocompatibility, ASTM F1670, F1671, D882, F1342, D1004 for material properties) and by demonstrating identical or equivalent performance to the legally marketed predicate device.

8. The sample size for the training set

• N/A. This is not an AI/machine learning device; therefore, there is no training set in that context.

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

• N/A. As above, no training set for an AI model. For the device itself, the manufacturing process is regulated by Quality Systems (21 CFR Part 820), ensuring consistency and adherence to product specifications, which can be thought of as the "ground truth" for uniform product characteristics.

Ask a specific question about this device

Plasdent Disposable Barrier Sleeves and Barrier Film are intended to be used as a disposable barrier for dental instruments and equipment. This device is non-sterile and intended for single patient one time use only.

Plasdent Disposable Barrier Sleeves and Barrier Film are made of polyethylene film (PE), and come in various shapes and sizes as dental accessories intended to fit over and cover dental instruments and equipment. The Disposable Barrier Sleeves cover small hand-held dental instruments such as air/water syringes, curing lights, hand pieces, computers, sensors, dental instrument trays, and other similar handheld instruments to provide as a physical barrier or cover during a dental procedure. In other forms, the Disposable Barrier Film Covers are used to cover equipment, such as dental chairs, headrests, X-Ray heads, and other devices. The device is non-sterile, prepackaged, and is disposable, for single patient and one time use only.

This document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from the FDA for a medical device: "Plasdent Disposable Barrier Sleeves and Barrier Film." It is primarily focused on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through non-clinical performance testing.

It is important to note that this document does NOT describe the validation of an AI/ML powered medical device. It describes the testing of a physical barrier device. Therefore, many of the requested elements for an AI/ML device validation (e.g., sample size for test set with data provenance, number of experts for ground truth, MRMC study, sample size for training set, ground truth for training set) are not applicable or present in this context.

However, I can extract the relevant information for the physical device based on the provided text, focusing on acceptance criteria and performance data from the non-clinical testing.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (for a physical barrier device)

The document presents non-clinical testing results to demonstrate that the Plasdent Disposable Barrier Sleeves and Barrier Film are substantially equivalent to a predicate device.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

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

• Sample Size: The document does not specify the exact sample sizes (N) for each performance test. It lists results for multiple "samples" (e.g., HL181201, HL20190601, HL20190605 for Tensile Strength) but doesn't quantify the total count per test.
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin for the test data directly. It is inferred to be manufacturer-generated for regulatory submission. All tests appear to be retrospective in the sense that they were conducted in a lab setting, not in a live clinical environment, to characterize the device properties.

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 Applicable. This is a physical device (barrier sleeves/film), not an AI/ML device requiring expert interpretation of images or other data for ground truth establishment. The "ground truth" for these tests comes from objective measurements and standardized test methods (e.g., ASTM, ISO standards).

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

• Not Applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used for human-reviewed data in clinical studies, typically for establishing ground truth in image analysis or diagnostic contexts. This is a physical device undergoing lab-based performance testing.

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 type of study relates to AI-assisted human performance, which is not relevant for a physical barrier device. The study is a comparison of the subject device to a predicate device based on material properties and barrier effectiveness.

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

• Not Applicable. This applies to AI algorithms. The device itself is a standalone physical product, and its performance was evaluated without human intervention in the loop of its function (i.e., its barrier properties were tested directly).

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

• The "ground truth" for this device is based on objective measurements and adherence to recognized industry standards (ASTM, ISO) for material properties (tensile strength, puncture resistance, tear resistance, thickness) and barrier performance (synthetic blood penetration, viral penetration), as well as biocompatibility assessments (cytotoxicity, sensitization, irritation). There isn't a "clinical ground truth" in the diagnostic sense.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not Applicable. This is not an AI/ML device, so there is no "training set."

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

• Not Applicable. As there is no training set for an AI/ML device, this question is irrelevant.

Ask a specific question about this device

Barrier Sleeves are intended to serve as a disposable barrier for dental instruments and equipment. This device is non-sterile and intended for single patient use only.

Barrier Sleeves are made of polyethylene film and are used as accessories to dental instruments and equipment used during dental procedures. These disposable barrier sleeves are offered in various shapes and sizes to fit over and cover the intended dental instruments and equipment. The disposable Barrier Sleeves slip over the ends of the respective devices, allowing for the attachment of the devices used during dental procedures. Barrier Sleeves act as a physical barrier, augmenting existing infection control techniques, and facilitate clean-up.

The provided text describes the 510(k) premarket notification for "Barrier Sleeves" by Ivoclar Vivadent, AG. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than proving a new device's independent efficacy through a "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in the context of, for example, an AI/ML medical device.

The "acceptance criteria" here are based on the similarity to the predicate device and meeting established performance standards for surgical drapes/barrier materials. The study described is a series of non-clinical bench tests and biocompatibility assessments.

Here's how to structure the information based on your request, with the understanding that this is not an AI/ML device study, but rather a traditional medical device submission for substantial equivalence:

Device: Barrier Sleeves (K191448)

Intended Use: "Barrier Sleeves are intended to serve as a disposable barrier for dental instruments and equipment. This device is non-sterile and intended for single patient use only."

The claim of substantial equivalence is supported by demonstrating that the Barrier Sleeves have the same intended use, fundamental technology, working principle, material composition, and comparable performance properties to the predicate device (Disposable Barrier Sleeves and Covers, K160232) manufactured by the same supplier.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

For this type of device, "acceptance criteria" are implied by demonstrating equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device and meeting relevant industry standards for barrier materials. The study is a series of physical and biological tests.

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

The document does not explicitly state specific sample sizes for each non-clinical test (e.g., how many sleeves were tested for blood penetration). It refers to "the samples" for mechanical properties.

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for each test, generally referred to as "the samples."
• Data Provenance: Non-clinical bench testing conducted by the manufacturer for the purpose of this 510(k) submission. The document doesn't specify country of origin for the testing itself, but the submitter (Ivoclar Vivadent) is based in New York, USA, and the parent company in Liechtenstein. The material supplier is Minitube AB, Sweden. The tests are prospective, conducted specifically for this submission.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications

This section is not applicable for this type of medical device submission. Ground truth, in the context of AI/ML or diagnostic devices, is typically established by medical professionals reviewing images or patient data. For a barrier sleeve, "ground truth" refers to meeting the chemical, physical, and biological performance standards, which are evaluated by laboratory testing under defined ASTM and ISO standards, not by expert medical review of "cases."

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. Adjudication methods (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) are used for resolving disagreements among human reviewers of medical data (e.g., radiologists interpreting images). The "test set" here involves laboratory measurements against established standards.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

No. MRMC studies are performed to assess the impact of AI on human reader performance, typically in diagnostic imaging. This device is a physical barrier and does not involve human interpretation or AI assistance.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

Not applicable. This is not an algorithmic or software device.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

For this device, the "ground truth" is defined by established engineering and biocompatibility standards (e.g., ASTM F1670/F1670M for synthetic blood penetration, ISO 10993-5 for cytotoxicity). The device performance is measured against these standards and compared to the predicate device. It is not based on medical outcomes data or expert consensus in the diagnostic sense.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This device is not an AI/ML device, so there is no concept of a "training set" for an algorithm.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

Not applicable. As per point 8, there is no training set for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device

BH Medical Dental Barrier Sleeves and Barrier Film are intended to be used as a disposable barrier for dental instruments and equipment. This device is non-sterile and intended for single patient use only.

BH Medical Dental Barrier Sleeves and Barrier Film consist of various sizes and shapes of clear polyethylene covers which are positioned on various small hand-held dental instruments such as hand pieces, curing lights, air/water syringes and similar hand instruments. In other forms, they are used to cover various devices such as dental chairs, dental instrument trays, x-ray heads, and others. The products are sold non-sterile, prepackaged, and are disposable, single use only.

The provided text is an FDA 510(k) Premarket Notification letter for BH Medical Dental Barrier Sleeves and Barrier Film. This document does not describe an AI or algorithm-based medical device therefore, it does not contain the information requested regarding acceptance criteria and study details for an AI/ML device.

The document describes the regulatory clearance process for physical medical devices—dental barrier sleeves and film—which are used as disposable barriers for dental instruments and equipment. The performance testing mentioned (e.g., resistance to penetration, tear resistance, biocompatibility) relates to the physical properties of these barrier products, not an AI/ML algorithm's performance.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information about acceptance criteria for an AI device, sample sizes for test/training sets, expert qualifications, ground truth establishment, or MRMC studies, as these concepts are not applicable to the device described in the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device

Disposable Barrier Envelopes are intended to be used as a disposable barrier for Air Techniques Phosphor Storage Plates. This device is non-sterile and intended for single patient use only.

The ScanX barrier envelopes are made from one layer of clear blown polyethylene film and one layer of black blown polyethylene film heat sealed along three edges. An adhesive strip along the fourth edge is used for temporary barrier. Barrier Envelopes are used with Air Techniques' intraoral Phosphor Storage Plates. Barrier Envelopes are non-sterile, and disposable, single use only- discarded after each use.

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for "ScanX Barrier Envelopes" and describes the acceptance criteria and study results demonstrating that the device meets these criteria.

Here's an analysis of the requested information:

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

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

The document lists standards (e.g., ISO 10993, ASTM) that were followed for testing. These standards specify methodologies and may include sample size requirements within their procedures. However, the exact sample sizes used for each specific test in this study (e.g., "how many barrier envelopes were tested for tensile strength?") are not explicitly reported in this summary.

Regarding data provenance: The tests are material and mechanical property tests of a medical device (barrier envelopes), not clinical data involving patient information. Therefore, 'country of origin of the data' and 'retrospective or prospective' study design are not applicable in the typical sense for these types of non-clinical performance studies. The testing would have been conducted in a laboratory setting.

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)

This product (ScanX Barrier Envelopes) is a physical barrier device for dental phosphor storage plates. The "ground truth" for its performance is established through objective, standardized laboratory testing of its physical properties (e.g., tensile strength, resistance to penetration, biocompatibility) and its impact on image quality, as outlined by the listed ASTM and ISO standards. It does not involve human expert interpretation of medical images or diagnoses in the way an AI-driven diagnostic device would.

Therefore, this question (number of experts, qualifications, etc.) is not applicable to this type of device and study. The "ground truth" is derived from the results of the physical and chemical tests themselves, performed by qualified technicians in accredited labs according to the specified standards.

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

This concept is primarily relevant for studies involving human interpretation (e.g., reading medical images) where discrepancies between readers need to be resolved. Since this study involves objective laboratory measurements of physical properties, adjudication methods are not applicable. The results are quantitative measurements or pass/fail determinations based on predefined criteria within the respective standards.

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 comparative effectiveness study was not conducted for this device. This type of study is specifically designed to evaluate the impact of an AI algorithm on human reader performance, typically in diagnostic imaging. The ScanX Barrier Envelope is a physical accessory, not an AI diagnostic tool, so such a study would be irrelevant.

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

This question is also not applicable. The device is not an algorithm; it's a physical product. The "standalone performance" here refers to its ability to meet the specified physical and biological safety standards, which was indeed evaluated through the non-clinical tests listed.

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

The "ground truth" for the ScanX Barrier Envelopes is based on objective, quantitative measurements and qualitative assessments derived from adherence to recognized national and international standards (ASTM, ISO) for material properties, barrier effectiveness, biocompatibility, and image quality. This is not clinical ground truth (like pathology or outcomes data) but rather engineering and safety ground truth.

8. The sample size for the training set

The concept of "training set" is specific to machine learning and AI algorithms. Since this device is not an AI algorithm, there was no training set in that context. The development and testing of the barrier envelopes would involve material science, engineering, and manufacturing processes, not AI model training.

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

As there was no AI model training set, this question is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device