Search Results

The LOCATOR Angled Abutment is indicated for the attachment of full or partial, fixed and removable restorations retained by endosseous implants to restore masticatory function for the patient.

The purpose of this submission is to expand the Indications for Use of the LOCATOR® Angled Abutment product line (K243272 & K233587) by adding compatibility of existing abutments with various new dental implant systems from Implant Direct and Biohorizons. Additionally, the submission expands the Indications for Use of the product line with a modified version of the predicate device shown to be compatible with the Implant Logistics Implant-One Series 300 and Series 400 Implant Systems. The LOCATOR Angled Abutment is designed and intended for the attachment of full or partial, fixed and removable, restorations retained by endosseous implants in the mandible or maxilla, as cleared to be used with LOCATOR FIXED (K213391) and LOCATOR Attachment Systems (K072878).

The LOCATOR Angled Abutments are manufactured from titanium (Ti-6Al-4V) and are titanium nitride (TiN) coated in various abutment heights, identical to the predicate device. The LOCATOR Angled Abutment interfacing features are provided at a 15 degree angle to allow for angle correction, substantially equivalent to the predicate device of K233587 and K243272. The abutments will be used with the accessories of the LOCATOR Implant Attachment System (retention inserts, denture attachment housing, and ancillary processing parts) and LOCATOR FIXED Attachment System (fixed inserts, denture attachment housing) for the attachment of a restoration, identical to the predicate device.

The provided document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the LOCATOR® Angled Abutment, K250721. This document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device and expanding indications for use, rather than detailing a study that proves the device meets specific performance acceptance criteria for a new clinical application.

Therefore, much of the requested information regarding study design, sample sizes, expert involvement, and ground truth establishment (which are typical for AI/ML device clearances or those requiring extensive clinical performance data) is not present in this type of regulatory submission for a dental implant abutment.

However, based on the information provided, I can construct a table for the acceptance criteria and reported "performance" in the context of this 510(k) submission, which is primarily a demonstration of mechanical compatibility and safety rather than a clinical efficacy study.

Here's an interpretation based on the provided text:

Overview of Device Performance and Acceptance Criteria (as per the 510(k) Submission)

The LOCATOR® Angled Abutment (K250721) is a dental implant abutment. The "study" proving it meets acceptance criteria in this context is a series of non-clinical tests and engineering analyses demonstrating its compatibility with various dental implant systems and confirming its mechanical properties and biocompatibility are substantially equivalent to previously cleared devices. The acceptance criteria are implicitly met by showing conformance to established standards and similarity to predicate devices.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated as "sample size" in the conventional sense for a clinical trial. For physical testing (fatigue, packaging), standard engineering test specimen numbers would have been used, but these are not detailed. For material and biocompatibility, existing data was leveraged. Functional compatibility was primarily through engineering analysis.
• Data Provenance: The data comes from in-vitro non-clinical testing and engineering analyses conducted by the manufacturer, Zest Anchors, LLC, or leveraged from previous submissions (K243272, K233587, K213391, K072878, K173701, K102822). The origin is the manufacturer's internal testing and regulatory submissions. The nature of these tests is "retrospective" in the sense that results from previous validated tests (e.g., K233587 for TiN coating, K072878 for biocompatibility) are being applied ("leveraged") to demonstrate equivalence for the current device, implying these tests were performed in the past.

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

• Number of Experts: Not applicable. For this type of device (dental abutment) and submission (510(k) for expanded compatibility), "ground truth" is established through engineering specifications, material standards, and validated physical/mechanical testing protocols (e.g., ISO, ASTM). It does not involve human expert consensus on clinical images or patient outcomes.
• Qualifications of Experts: N/A, as the "ground truth" is based on objective, standardized physical and material properties, confirmed by engineering analysis.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Adjudication Method: Not applicable. This is not a study requiring human adjudication of results. Engineering and laboratory tests have objective pass/fail criteria or conformance to standards.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

• MRMC Study Done? No. MRMC studies are typically for AI/ML devices where human readers interpret diagnostic images. This device is a physical dental implant component.
• Effect Size of Human Readers Improvement: Not applicable.

6. Standalone Performance Study (Algorithm Only)

• Standalone Performance Study Done? No. This device is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Type of Ground Truth: The "ground truth" for this device's "performance" and "acceptance" is based on:
  • Engineering specifications and drawings: Ensuring physical compatibility (e.g., fit with implants).
  • International Standards: Conformance to mechanical testing standards (ISO 14801:2016 for fatigue), material standards (ASTM F136), and biocompatibility standards (ISO 10993 series).
  • Predicate device performance: Demonstrating that the subject device's design, materials, and performance characteristics are "identical" or "substantially equivalent" to previously cleared devices.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Sample Size for Training Set: Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that requires a training set.

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

• How Ground Truth Established: Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

The LOCATOR Angled Abutment is indicated for the attachment of full or partial, fixed and removable restorations retained by endosseous implants to restore masticatory function for the patient.

The LOCATOR Angled Abutment consists of various height abutments with identical attachment features compared to LOCATOR Abutments of the LOCATOR Implant Attachment System, cleared in K072878. The LOCATOR Angled Abutment will be used with the accessories of the LOCATOR Implant Attachment System (retention inserts, denture attachment housing, and ancillary processing parts) and LOCATOR FIXED Attachment System (fixed inserts, denture attachment housing) for the attachment of a restoration. The LOCATOR Angled Abutment interfacing features are provided at a 15 degree angle to allow for angle correction, substantially equivalent to the predicate device of K233587. The LOCATOR Angled Abutments are manufactured from titanium (Ti-6Al-4V) and are titanium nitride (TiN) coated, identical to the predicate device.

This document (K243272) is a 510(k) premarket notification for a dental device, the LOCATOR Angled Abutment. It is important to note that this document does not describe the performance of software or an AI device. Instead, it describes a mechanical dental implant component and its substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicates.

Therefore, many of the requested categories related to AI/software performance criteria, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, ground truth establishment for AI/ML, and training set information are not applicable to this type of medical device submission.

However, I can extract the relevant information regarding the acceptance criteria (in terms of performance testing for a mechanical device) and how the device meets them:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria (for a mechanical device) and Reported Device Performance:

Study Details (for a mechanical device):

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

   • Specific quantitative sample sizes for each mechanical test (e.g., number of abutments fatigued, number of coatings tested) are not detailed in this summary.
   • The data provenance is from non-clinical performance testing conducted by the manufacturer, Zest Anchors, LLC. This is typically internal laboratory testing.
   • The nature of the tests (fatigue, coating, packaging, functional fit) indicates this is prospective testing performed specifically to support this regulatory submission. Country of origin for data is not specified but is implicitly from the manufacturer's testing facilities (likely USA, given the submission location).

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

   • This question is not applicable as the "ground truth" for a mechanical device is established through objective engineering measurements and standardized performance tests (e.g., ISO, ASTM standards), not by human expert consensus on interpretations. The "experts" involved would be qualified engineers and technicians performing the tests.

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 establishing ground truth from multiple human readers/experts in AI/medical image analysis. For mechanical device testing, the results are objectively measured and compared against predefined performance specifications.

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 device is a mechanical dental abutment, not an AI or software product. Therefore, no MRMC study involving human readers and AI assistance was conducted or is relevant.

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

   • Not applicable. This device is a mechanical abutment, not an algorithm.

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

   • The "ground truth" for this device's performance is based on established engineering principles, material science specifications, and adherence to international standards (e.g., ISO 14801, ASTM F1044, ASTM F1147, ISO 10993). Functional fit was verified against OEM implant specifications through direct testing.

8. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. This is a mechanical device, not a machine learning model. There is no "training set."

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

   • Not applicable. As above, no training set exists for this type of device.

In summary, the provided document explicitly states that the submission aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence of the new LOCATOR Angled Abutment variations to existing predicate devices. This is achieved by showing that the new abutments share the same intended use, principles of operation, materials, manufacturing processes, and fundamental design, and they meet the same functional and performance characteristics through non-clinical testing. The "acceptance criteria" here refer to the successful completion and passing of these engineering and material performance tests against established standards.

Ask a specific question about this device

ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic is intended for use with dental implants as a support for single or multiple-unit prosthetic restorations in the maxilla or mandible of partially or fully edentulous patient. It is including; cemented retained, screw-retained, or overdenture restorations.

It is compatible with the following systems:

• · Astra OsseoSpeed EV(K130999) 3.0
• · Astra OsseoSpeed EV(K120414) 3.6, 4.2, 4.8, 5.4 mm
• Tapered Internal Implants (K071638) (K143022) 3.4. 3.8. 4.6. 5.8 mm
• · BioHorizons Laser-Lok Implant System (K093321) 3.0 mm
• · Conelog Screw-Line (K113779) 3.3, 3.8, 4.3, 5.0 mm
• Osstem TSIII SA (K121995) 3.5 (3.7) , 4.0 (4.2) , 4.5 (4.6) , 5.0 (5.1), 6.0 (6.0), 7.0 (6.8) mm (Mini. Regular)
• · Megagen AnyRidge Internal Implant System (K140091) 4.0, 4.4, 4.9, 5.4 (3.1)
• · Neodent Implant System GM Helix (K163194, K180536) 3.5, 3.75, 4.0, 4.3, 5.0 (3.0) 6.0 (3.0)
• · Nobel Active 3.0 (K102436) 3.0
• · Nobel Active Internal Connection Implant (K071370) NP RP
• · Nobelactive Wide Platform (Wp) (K133731) WP
• Straumann BLX Implant (K173961, K181703, K191256) 3.5, 3.75, 4.5, 5.5, 6.5 (RB, WB)
• · Straumann 02.9 mm Bone Level Tapered Implants, SC CARES Abutments (K162890) 2.9 (SC)
• · Straumann® Bone Level Tapered Implants (K140878) 3.3, 4.1, 4.8 (NC, RC)
• · Zimmer 3.1mmD Dental Implant System (K142082) 3.1 (2.9)
• (Ti-base only) Screw Vent® and Tapered Screw Vent® (K013227) 3.7(3.5), 4.7(4.5), 6.0(5.7)

All digitally designed abutments and/or coping for use with the abutments are intended to be sent to a ALLONUS Tech-validated milling center for manufacture.

ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic is made of titanium alloy (Ti-6AI-4V ELI, ASTM F136) intended for use as an aid in prosthetic restoration. It consists of Pre-Milled Blank abutment, Ti-Base Abutment, and Multi-unit Abutment and Components (Multi-unit Healing Cap, Multi-unit Temporary cylinder, Multi-unit Ti-cylinder).

Pre-Milled Blank has a pre-manufactured implant interface connection interface with a customizable cylindrical area-by CAD/CAM- above the implant-abutment interface.

Ti Base consists of a two-piece abutment, where the titanium base is a pre-manufactured component of the abutment that will be used to support a CAD/CAM-designed zirconia superstructure (the second part of the two-piece abutment) that composes the final abutment.

Multi-unit Abutment which are placed into the dental implant to provide support for the prosthetic restoration. The abutments are made of Titanium grade Ti-6A1-4V ELI (meets ASTM Standard F-136). Multi-unit Abutment includes abutments and components (Multi-unit Healing Cap, Multi-unit Temporary cylinder, Multi-unit Ti-cylinder). Multi-unit Abutment - are provided in various gingival cuff height ranging from 1 to 6 mm.

All digitally designed abutments and/or coping for use with the abutments are intended to be sent to a ALLONUS Tech-validated milling center for manufacture.

The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for the ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic, which is an endosseous dental implant abutment. It details the device's technical characteristics and compares it to predicate devices to establish substantial equivalence, rather than describing a study that proves the device meets specific acceptance criteria for a new and novel performance claim.

Therefore, many of the requested categories for acceptance criteria and study details are not directly applicable or available in this type of submission. The information provided primarily focuses on demonstrating equivalence through comparison to existing legally marketed devices, material properties, and standard performance tests for similar devices.

However, I can extract the relevant information that is available from the document for each type of device within the ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic family: Pre-Milled Blank, Ti Base, Multi-Unit Abutment, Multi-Unit Healing Cap, Multi-Unit Temporary Cylinder, and Multi-Unit Ti-Cylinder.

General Information on Acceptance Criteria and Studies for ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic (as inferred from the 510(k) Summary):

The ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic is claiming substantial equivalence to predicate devices, meaning it does not need to establish new performance criteria but rather demonstrate that it is as safe and effective as existing legally marketed devices. The "acceptance criteria" here are largely implied by the performance of the predicate devices and the relevant ISO standards for dental implant abutments. The studies performed are non-clinical bench tests.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria (Inferred from Comparison) and Reported Device Performance:

The document presents comparisons to predicate devices to establish substantial equivalence rather than explicit acceptance criteria and corresponding performance metrics for novel claims. However, the design limits of the subject devices are compared to the design limits of the predicate devices, which act as de facto acceptance criteria in the context of substantial equivalence. The device's performance is demonstrated by meeting the standards in non-clinical testing.

Here's a generalized table summarizing this approach:

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

• Test Set Sample Size:
  • The document does not specify the exact sample sizes used for the non-clinical bench tests (fatigue, sterilization, biocompatibility, or dimensional analysis). It only states that tests were performed "for the subject device" and "of the worst-case scenario through fatigue testing."
• Data Provenance:
  • The 510(k) submission is from ALLONUS Tech Co., LTD. in the REPUBLIC OF KOREA. This implies the testing was likely conducted in or overseen by this entity.
  • The studies were non-clinical bench tests, not clinical studies involving human patients. Therefore, terms like "retrospective" or "prospective" clinical dataProvenance are not applicable here.

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

• This information is not provided in the 510(k) Summary. For non-clinical bench testing, "ground truth" is typically established by recognized international standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM) and engineering principles, rather than expert consensus on clinical cases.
• The document mentions "Dimensional analysis and reverse engineering... were performed" and "assessment of maximum and minimum dimensions... along with cross-sectional images." This suggests engineering expertise, but specific numbers or qualifications of experts are not stated.

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

• This is not applicable as the studies were non-clinical bench tests. Adjudication methods like 2+1 (two readers plus one adjudicator) are used in clinical studies, particularly for diagnostic imaging, to resolve discrepancies in expert interpretations of patient data.

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 done. This type of study (MRMC) is relevant for diagnostic AI devices that assist human interpretation of medical images or data. The ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic is a physical medical device (dental implant abutment), not an AI diagnostic tool.

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

• No, a standalone (algorithm-only) performance study was not done. This question is also typically relevant for AI/software as a medical device (SaMD). The ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic is a physical device that integrates with human dental procedures.

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

• For the non-clinical tests (fatigue, sterilization, biocompatibility), the "ground truth" is adherence to recognized international standards (ISO, ASTM) and established engineering specifications.
• For implant-to-abutment compatibility, the "ground truth" was based on dimensional analysis and reverse engineering of OEM implant bodies, abutments, and screws, comparing the subject device's design to established OEM specifications.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• This is not applicable. "Training set" refers to data used to train machine learning algorithms. The ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic is a physical medical device, not an AI/ML algorithm.

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

• This is not applicable as there is no training set for a physical medical device.

Ask a specific question about this device

Immediate Molar Dental Implants are intended for surgical placement in the upper or lower jaw to provide a means for prosthetic attachment in single tooth restorations and in partially or fully edentulous spans with multiple single teeth utilizing delayed loading, or with a terminal or intermediary abutment for fixed or removable bridgework, and to retain overdentures.

Immediate Molar Dental Implants may also utilize immediate loading for these indications. Immediate Molar Dental Implants are intended for immediate function on single tooth and/or multiple tooth applications when good primary stability is achieved, with appropriate occlusal loading, in order to restore chewing function. The Immediate Molar Dental Implants may be placed immediately following an extraction or loss of natural teeth provided there is sufficient volume of alveolar bone to provide good primary stability. The Immediate Molar Dental Implants are intended for implantation in the maxillary or mandibular molar region where bone exists and the surgeon has determined that the placement of a narrower diameter implant would increase the probability of failure due to poor primary stability, or increased surgical procedures leading to complications.

The Immediate Molar Dental Implants are also indicated for compatibility with the following OEM abutment systems:

The Immediate Molar Implants are basic screw-type designs available in tapered body geometry. The devices are manufactured from Commercially Pure Titanium (ASTM F67) and feature a roughened apex and traditional OSSEOTITE® coronal surface. The device is packaged in a Titanium sleeve that is inserted into a polypropylene inner tray, covered with a Tyvek lid and heat-sealed. This assembly is then placed inside a larger polyethylene thermoformed outer tray, covered with a Tyvek lid and heat-sealed. The outer tray is packaged inside a box. The device is sold sterile. The shelf life of the Immediate Molar Implants is 5 years and they are intended for single use only. The device is sterilized using gamma irradiation method. The implants are available in various platform options and feature an internal hex connection for mating with associated Biomet 3i internal connection restorative components and also a TSV connection for mating with associated Zimmer Dental TSV connection restorative components. The implants are also compatible with titanium abutments manufactured by Terrats Medical SL and Zfx GmbH. The implants are offered in a variety of diameters and lengths to accommodate varying patient anatomy. The T3 PRO Immediate Molar Implants are offered in 8, 10 and 11.5mm implant lengths for each of the implant body diameter sizes of 7, 8 and 9mm. The TSX Immediate Molar Implants are offered in 6, 8, 10 and 11.5mm implant lengths for each of the implant body diameter sizes of 7 and 8mm. The TSX Immediate Molar Implants are offered in 8, 10 and 11.5mm lengths for implant body diameter size of 9mm.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (Immediate Molar Implants) and does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving that an AI/software device meets acceptance criteria.

The document explicitly states: "No clinical data were included in this submission." and focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on technological characteristics, non-clinical testing (fatigue, MR compatibility, pull-out tests, surface area analysis, sterilization, biocompatibility, shelf life), and contractual agreements for compatible components.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information about acceptance criteria and a study proving a device meets acceptance criteria using clinical or performance data, as this information is not present in the provided text. The document describes a dental implant, not an AI or software-based device that would typically have acceptance criteria presented in the manner requested.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Customized Abutments are intended for attachment to dental implants in order to provide support for customized prosthetic restorations. Customized Abutments are indicated for screwretained single restorations or cement-retained single or multi-unit restorations. The Customized Abutment will be attached to a dental implant using the included abutment screw.

Patient-Specific Abutment is compatible with following Implant Systems:

1. Zimmer Tapered Screw-Vent®
   / Implant diameter size (mm): 3.7, 4.1, 4.7, 6.0/ Restorative Platform diameter (mm): 3.5, 4.5, 5.7
2. Straumann® Bone Level Tapered Implant
   / Implant diameter size (mm): 3.3, 4.1, 4.8/ Restorative Platform diameter (mm): 3.1, 3.7, 4.4

All digitally-designed Customized abutments are intended to be sent to an ARUM DENTISTRY validated milling center for manufacture.

Patient-specific abutment is made from Ti-6Al-4V Eli conforming to ASTM F136 to be used in fabricating patient-specific abutments. The subject devices are indicated for cemented or screwand cement retained prosthesis (SCRP) restorations. Each patient-specific abutment is individually prescribed by the clinician.

The diameters of patient-specific abutment are 3.3, 3.7, 4.1, 4.7, 4.8, 6.0 mm and Hex and square connection design.

Customized abutments are supplied with an abutment screw and provided non-sterile.

The provided text describes the regulatory clearance (K234112) for the ARUM DENTISTRY Co., Ltd. Customized Abutment, particularly focusing on its substantial equivalence to a predicate device (K223634). The information provided does not outline acceptance criteria for an AI/ML powered device, nor does it detail a study proving the device meets AI/ML specific acceptance criteria.

The information provided pertains to a traditional medical device (dental abutments) and focuses on engineering and material performance rather than AI/ML algorithm performance.

Therefore, many of the requested fields regarding AI/ML specific criteria cannot be extracted from the given text.

However, I can provide information on the non-clinical tests conducted for the Customized Abutment device, which are analogous to acceptance criteria and performance data for this type of medical device.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and the Reported Device Performance (Non-AI/ML):

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

• Mechanical Testing (Static and Fatigue): The document mentions "The worst-case construct was tested" for sterilization and that "static and fatigue testing according to ISO 14801" was conducted. Specific sample sizes are not provided.
• Data Provenance: The non-clinical tests were conducted internally or by contractors to ARUM DENTISTRY. The document does not specify a country of origin for the data beyond ARUM DENTISTRY Co., Ltd. being in the Republic of Korea. These are most likely prospective tests conducted specifically for this submission.

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 information is not applicable and not provided as the approval is for a physical dental abutment, not an AI/ML algorithm requiring expert interpretation for ground truth.

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

This information is not applicable and not provided. "Adjudication" typically refers to resolving discrepancies in expert labeling or diagnoses for AI/ML ground truth, which is not relevant here.

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. No MRMC study was conducted as the device is a physical dental abutment, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

This is not applicable. The device is a physical product, not an algorithm.

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

For the non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" is defined by the standards and specifications used (e.g., ASTM F136 for material, ISO 14801 for mechanical testing, ISO 17655-1 for sterilization, FDA guidance for MRI safety). The device's performance is compared against the requirements of these established standards.

8. The sample size for the training set:

This is not applicable. The device is a physical product, not an AI/ML model that requires a training set. The device design parameters are "trained" through engineering design principles and verified through physical testing.

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

This is not applicable. There is no training set as it's not an AI/ML algorithm. The design of the abutment relies on established engineering principles, material science, and compatibility specifications with existing implant systems.

Ask a specific question about this device

DESS Dental Smart Solutions abutments are intended to be used in conjunction with endosseous dental implants in the maxillary or mandibular arch to provide support for prosthetic restorations.

All digitally designed custom abutments for use with DESS Ti Base abutments or Pre-Milled Blank abutments are to be sent to a Terrats Medical validated milling center for manufacture.

The purpose of this submission is to add components to the DESS Dental Smart Solutions system, which includes dental implants, abutments, and prosthetic components cleared previously in various submissions. The previously cleared abutments and prosthetic components are compatible with a variety of original equipment manufacturer (OEM) dental implants as well as DESS Dental Smart Solutions dental implants.

This submission adds various abutments to the DESS and OEM implant lines as summarized on the following pages in Table 1 Summary of Subject Device Abutment Designs, and Table 2 Summary of Subject Device Abutment Sizes.

The subject device abutment designs include Cover Screws, Healing Abutments, Temporary Abutments, Ti Base Abutments, AURUM Base Abutments (Ti Base abutments with a screw channel design that allows easier instrument access to the abutment screw), CoCr Base Abutments, Pre-Milled Blank Abutments, Multi-Unit Abutments (straight and angled), DESSLoc Abutments (Locator-type abutments), and abutment screws.

This document is a 510(k) summary for the DESS Dental Smart Solutions, a line of endosseous dental implant abutments. It details the device's characteristics, intended use, and a comparison to predicate devices to establish substantial equivalence.

Based on the provided text, the device itself is a physical medical device (dental implant abutments and associated components), not a software or AI-driven system. Therefore, the questions related to AI acceptance criteria, training/test sets, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, and ground truth establishment for AI would not be directly applicable to this product as described.

The document focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices through:

• Identical Intended Use: The device is intended for "functional and esthetic rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible or maxilla" by providing support for prosthetic restorations, which is the same as the predicate devices.
• Similar Technological Characteristics: The device utilizes similar designs, materials (Ti-6Al-4V, Co-Cr-Mo alloy), manufacturing processes, and sterilization methods as its predicates.
• Performance Data: Non-clinical testing (mechanical testing per ISO 14801, MR environment assessment) and comparison to existing data from predicate devices are used to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Therefore, many of the requested elements for describing AI acceptance criteria and studies are not present or applicable in this document.

However, I can extract information relevant to the device's performance assessment and criteria for its type of submission.

Here's an attempt to answer the questions based solely on the provided text, acknowledging that the nature of the device (a physical implant component) means many AI-specific questions will be answered as "Not Applicable" (N/A):

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

The document does not explicitly state quantifiable "acceptance criteria" in a table format with corresponding "reported device performance" metrics for this specific 510(k) submission. Instead, it relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices.

The underlying "acceptance criteria" for demonstrating substantial equivalence for this device type are primarily through:

• Mechanical Testing (ISO 14801): This is a critical performance standard for dental implants and abutments. The document states that mechanical testing was "conducted according to ISO 14801 to support the performance." The acceptance criteria would be successful completion of these tests, demonstrating the device's mechanical strength and fatigue resistance are comparable to or better than predicate devices. The reported performance is simply that the tests supported the performance.
• Material Conformance: Materials must conform to specific ASTM standards (e.g., ASTM F136 for Ti-6Al-4V, ASTM F1537 for Co-Cr-Mo). The reported performance is that the materials conform to these standards.
• Biocompatibility: While not detailed in this excerpt, the mention of "biocompatibility" in relation to predicates implies conformance to relevant biocompatibility standards (e.g., ISO 10993 series). The reported performance is that it is compatible.
• Sterilization Validation: Demonstrated sterility assurance level (SAL) of 10⁻⁶ via validated methods (moist heat or gamma irradiation). The reported performance is that validation was performed and met this SAL.
• Dimensional Compatibility: The abutments must fit the corresponding OEM implants correctly. The reported performance is that reverse engineering dimensional analysis confirmed compatibility.

Due to the nature of the document being a 510(k) summary focusing on substantial equivalence rather than a full study report, specific numerical performance results for the device tests are not provided in this text.

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

• Sample Size for Mechanical Testing: The document states "mechanical testing conducted according to ISO 14801." For such tests, ISO 14801 typically specifies minimum sample sizes (e.g., 10-11 samples for static strength, typically more for fatigue). The exact number of samples used for this specific submission is not explicitly stated, but it would have followed the standard's requirements.
• Data Provenance: The mechanical testing and material analyses are assumed to be "non-clinical data submitted or referenced" by the manufacturer, Terrats Medical SL, based in Barcelona, Spain. The "reverse engineering dimensional analysis" was done by Terrats Medical SL or through contractual agreement. This is prospective testing performed to support the 510(k). The document itself does not specify the country of origin for the underlying OEM implant data used for reverse engineering, although the OEM companies are listed (e.g., Astra Tech AB, BioHorizons).

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 device. Ground truth, in the context of AI, refers to validated labels for data used to train and test an algorithm. For a physical device, performance is evaluated through engineering and biocompatibility testing against defined standards. There are no "experts" establishing ground truth in the AI sense. Testing would be performed by qualified engineers and technicians.

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

N/A. Adjudication methods are typically used in clinical studies involving interpretation (e.g., by radiologists) to resolve discrepancies. This document describes non-clinical performance testing of a physical device.

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 product is a dental implant abutment, not an AI software intended to assist human readers.

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

N/A. This is a physical device, not an algorithm.

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

N/A. For engineering tests of physical devices, the "ground truth" is typically derived from established engineering principles, international standards (e.g., ISO 14801 for mechanical properties, ASTM for materials), and the physical properties of the materials and designs themselves. There isn't "expert consensus" or "pathology" in the AI or clinical trials sense.

8. The sample size for the training set

N/A. This is a physical device; there's no "training set" in the machine learning sense. The device is manufactured based on established engineering designs and material specifications.

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

N/A. No training set for AI. For device manufacturing, the "ground truth" for design and production parameters comes from established engineering best practices, prior successful device designs (predicate devices), and adherence to quality systems regulations (21 CFR Part 820).

Ask a specific question about this device

DESS Dental Smart Solutions abutments are intended to be used in conjunction with endosseous dental implants in the maxillary or mandibular arch to provide support for prosthetic restorations.

The purpose of this submission is to expand the DESS Dental Smart Solutions abutment system by a change in sterilization status to provide products sterile to the end user that were previously cleared to be provided non-sterile. The subject device abutments and abutment screws were cleared previously to be provided non-sterile to the end user in K170588, K191986, K212628, and K22288. All subject device components will now be provided sterile.

The subject device components include Healing Abutments, Multi-Unit Abutments (0, 17°, and 30°), and abutment screws.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the DESS Dental Smart Solutions, an endosseous dental implant abutment. It details the device, its intended use, and its substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate and reference devices. However, this document does not contain the acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria in the context of an AI/ML medical device.

The 510(k) submission for this dental abutment focuses on establishing substantial equivalence based on:

• Design and Material: The subject device components are identical in design, material (Ti-6Al-4V alloy, DLC coating), and technological characteristics to previously cleared devices.
• Manufacturing: The manufacturing process is consistent with previously cleared devices.
• Biocompatibility: Referenced from previous K-clearances.
• Sterilization: The main change in this submission is expanding the system to provide products sterile to the end-user via gamma irradiation, which was validated by referencing a previous K-clearance (K212538).
• MR Environment Testing: Non-clinical analysis was performed to evaluate the subject devices in the MR environment, referencing published literature and FDA guidance.
• Shelf Life Testing: Referenced from a previous K-clearance (K212538) for samples after accelerated aging.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request to describe the acceptance criteria and a study proving an AI/ML device meets them based on the provided text, as this document is not about an AI/ML medical device. It's about dental implant abutments and establishes substantial equivalence through non-clinical performance data and comparison to predicate devices, not through AI/ML performance metrics.

To provide the information you requested, I would need a document detailing the validation of an AI/ML medical device, which would include definitions of acceptance criteria (e.g., accuracy, sensitivity, specificity), details of training and test datasets, ground truth establishment, and potentially clinical effectiveness studies if applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Elos Accurate® Customized Abutments are intended for attaching to dental implants in order to provide basis for single or multiple tooth prosthetic restorations. The Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment will be attached to a dental implant using the included Elos Prosthetic screw. The Elos Accurate® Customized Abutments are compatible with the implant systems listed in Table 1.

The Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment is a patient specific abutment intended for attaching to dental implants in order to provide basis for single- or multiple tooth prosthetic restorations. The Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment will be attached to the implant using the included Elos Prosthetic Screw and attached to the crown/coping manually by cementation. The Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment consists of an Abuttnent Blank used in fabricating of a full patient-specific abutment in Titanium alloy per ASTM F136. The Abutment Blank used in creation of the Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment has a pre-manufactured connection interface that fits directly to a pre-specified dental implant. The customized shape of the abutument is intended to be manufactured according to a digital dentistry workflow or intended to be manufactured at an FDA registered Elos Medtech approved milling facility. The Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment is delivered non-sterile and the final restoration including corresponding Elos Prosthetic Screw is intended to be sterilized at the dental clinic before it is placed in the patient. The Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment provides clinicians and laboratories with a prosthetic device that can be used in definitive (permanent) single- or multi restorations.

The provided document, K231307 for Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment, is an FDA 510(k) premarket notification. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices rather than presenting a standalone study with defined acceptance criteria and performance metrics in the way a clinical trial or a performance study for an AI/ML powered medical device would.

The "acceptance criteria" discussed in this document pertain to the device meeting the requirements for FDA 510(k) clearance by demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, primarily through engineering, dimensional, and non-clinical testing. There is no mention of a human-in-the-loop study, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) study, or an AI/ML algorithm-only standalone performance study.

Therefore, many of the requested fields regarding expert adjudication, MRMC studies, and ground truth establishment for AI/ML models are not applicable to the information contained within this 510(k) submission.

Here's an interpretation of the document's contents in relation to your request, with a focus on non-clinical testing and substantial equivalence:

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

The "acceptance criteria" for this device are implicitly tied to demonstrating substantial equivalence to its predicates and meeting established material and dental implant abutment standards. The document doesn't present a table with numerical acceptance criteria and performance for a diagnostic AI algorithm. Instead, it lists various non-clinical tests and their successful outcomes as evidence of substantial equivalence and safety/effectiveness.

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

• Test Set Sample Size: The document does not specify exact "sample sizes" in terms of number of abutments or implants tested for each reported non-clinical test. The tests are general performance validations (e.g., fatigue, cytotoxicity, sterilization efficacy) and dimensional analyses that demonstrate compliance with relevant standards or a worst-case scenario. For example, fatigue testing often involves a small number of samples (e.g., 6 minimum per ISO 14801, though more are often used for statistical power) under specific loading conditions. Similarly, biocompatibility is performed on representative samples.
• Data Provenance: The data comes from the manufacturer's (Elos Medtech Pinol A/S) internal testing and leverages data from previously cleared devices where material, size, and geometry are substantially equivalent. The provenance is therefore the manufacturer's testing facilities and associated regulatory submissions. There is no indication of different countries of origin for the data concerning these non-clinical tests. The tests are prospective in nature, as they are part of the premarket submission process.

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

This question is not applicable. The "ground truth" for this medical device (dental abutment) is established by engineering specifications, material properties, performance standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM), and clinical safety and effectiveness data from the predicates. There is no AI/ML component described that would require expert human review or "ground truth" establishment in the context of diagnostic interpretation.

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

This question is not applicable as there is no human interpretation or diagnostic "test set" that would require adjudication.

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 question is not applicable. The device is a physical dental abutment and its associated digital design workflow, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool requiring human reader studies.

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

This question is not applicable. The device is not a standalone AI algorithm. The digital dentistry workflow involves CAD software and CAM software, but these are tools for designing and manufacturing the physical abutment, not for automated diagnostic interpretation or decision-making in the clinical sense of an AI/ML algorithm.

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

The "ground truth" for this device's performance, as demonstrated in the submission, is based on:

• Compliance with international standards (e.g., ISO 14801 for fatigue, ISO 10993-5 for biocompatibility, ISO 17665 for sterilization).
• Engineering and dimensional analysis against established dental implant system specifications.
• Physical testing results (e.g., torque, heating, displacement) for MR compatibility.
• Validation of the digital workflow ensuring design constraints and manufacturing accuracy.
• The fundamental demonstration is substantial equivalence to existing legally marketed predicate devices, implying that their established safety and effectiveness forms the basis of the "ground truth" for this device's intended use.

8. The sample size for the training set

This question is not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that requires a training set for model development. The design software has built-in constraints ("design limitations" and "design limits in the library file"), which are more akin to pre-programmed rules and geometric parameters rather than a learned model from data.

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

This question is not applicable. No AI/ML training set is mentioned or implied. The "ground truth" for the design limitations within the software (e.g., minimum material thickness) would be established by engineering principles, biomechanical studies (often in labs, not clinical trials), and clinical experience with dental prosthetics, which define safe and effective design parameters.

Ask a specific question about this device

Multi-Unit DAS System abutments are intended for use with dental implants as a support for single-unit or multi-unit prostheses in the maxillary or mandibular arch of a partially or fully edentulous patient.

Multi-Unit DAS System abutments are designed for retention of single-unit and multi-unit restorations. The multi-unit abutments are provided in a straight design (no angulation in the base portion) that threads directly to the OEM implant. For each of the compatible OEM implant lines, the multi-unit abutments are provided with gingival heights ranging from 1 mm to 5 mm, a prosthetic platform diameter of 4 mm, and a prosthetic post height of 1.4 mm. The multi-unit abutments are the base of a two-piece abutment. The second piece is a metal coping, called a Ti-Base in this submission, that attaches to the multi-unit abutment (not directly to an implant). For permanent restorations a zirconia superstructure is attached to the Ti-Base, and additional gingival height and angulation may be provided in the zirconia superstructure.

The subject device metal copings (Ti-Bases) include: a straight, prepable design with an additional gingival height of 1.5 mm and a prepable 9 mm prosthetic post; and Dynamic Ti-Bases in three (3) designs, each with an additional gingival height of 0.5 mm and a cut-out in the prosthetic post to accommodate a restoration with an angled screw channel when clinically necessary. The Dynamic Ti-Base prosthetic post heights are 4.5 mm (maximum height) / 3.0 mm (cut-out height), and 9.0 mm/3.5 mm. Multi-Unit DAS System Ti-Bases with a 9.0 mm post height may be shortened to no less than 4 mm for a single-unit restoration. The prepable Ti-Base has a platform diameter of 4 mm (platform to the multi-unit abutment) and a prosthetic platform diameter of 4 mm. The Dynamic Ti-Bases have a platform diameter of 4 mm (platform to the multi-unit abutment) and a prosthetic platform diameter of 4.15 mm.

The compatibility between the subject device abutments and the OEM implants listed in the Indication for Use Statement was established by reverse engineering analysis of the OEM implants, OEM abutments, and OEM abutment screws.

All subject device abutments and abutment screws are made of titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) conforming to ASTM F136 and ISO 5832-3.

All zirconia copings (superstructures) for use with the subject device Dynamic Ti-Base will be made at a Talladium España, SL validated milling center under FDA quality system regulations, and the material will conform to ISO 13356.

The design parameters for the CAD-CAM zirconia superstructure for the Multi-Unit DAS System are:

Minimum wall thickness - 0.25 mm

Minimum post height for single-unit restorations - 4.0 mm

Maximum gingival height in the zirconia superstructure - 5.24 mm for compatible Biomet 31 OSSEOTITE® Certain®, MegaGen AnyRidge, NobelActive®, and Zimmer Tapered Screw-Vent® implants; 5.76 mm for compatible Astra Tech OsseoSpeed TX implants

Minimum gingival height - 0.5 mm (in the Ti-Base)

Maximum angulation - 30° for compatible Biomet 3i OSSEOTITE® Certain®, MegaGen AnyRidge, NobelActive®, and Zimmer Tapered Screw-Vent® implants; 25° for compatible Astra Tech OsseoSpeed TX implants

The recommended cement for bonding the zirconia superstructure to the Dynamic TiBases to create the final two-piece abutment is G-CEM LinkAce™, cleared as GAM-200 in K120243.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the Multi-Unit DAS System:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Mechanical Testing (ISO 14801) & Sterilization Validation: The document does not explicitly state the sample sizes used for these tests. For ISO 14801, typically a statistically significant number of samples are tested to demonstrate fatigue resistance, but the exact number isn't provided. For sterilization, typically multiple runs with biological indicators are performed.
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin for the data for specific tests, but the manufacturer, Talladium España, SL, is located in Lleida, Spain. The data is non-clinical.

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 (N/A) as the submission details non-clinical data (mechanical testing, material specifications, biocompatibility, sterilization, MR safety analysis) rather than studies involving human expert assessment of images or clinical outcomes.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• N/A, as no expert adjudication for medical diagnoses/interpretations was conducted due to the non-clinical nature of the studies.

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 MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done. This is a medical device for dental implants, not an AI software intended for diagnostic assistance. The document explicitly states: "No clinical data were included in this submission."

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

• No standalone algorithm performance study was done. This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

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

• Mechanical Testing: Ground truth is defined by the ISO 14801 standard and the manufacturer's performance specifications.
• Biocompatibility: Ground truth is established by the cellular responses and lack of toxicity as defined by ISO 10993-5.
• Material Composition: Ground truth is defined by the ASTM F136 and ISO 5832-3 standards.
• Sterilization: Ground truth is defined by the Sterility Assurance Level (SAL) of 10^-5, validated against microbiological indicators as per ANSI/AAMI/ISO 17665.
• MR Safety: Ground truth is established by scientific rationale and published literature, determining the device's behavior in an MR environment.
• Compatibility with OEM Implants: Ground truth is established by the precise measurements and design characteristics obtained through reverse engineering analysis of the OEM implants and their components.

8. The sample size for the training set

• N/A. There is no AI component or machine learning model that requires a training set for this device.

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

• N/A. There is no AI component or machine learning model that requires a training set for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device

AOT & T-L Abutment is intended for use in conjunction with the fixture in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae, in support of multiple-unit restorations.

It is compatible with the following systems:

• · Astra OsseoSpeed EV(K130999) 3.0
• · Astra OsseoSpeed EV(K120414) 3.6, 4.2, 4.8, 5.4 mm
• · Dentium Company Limited Implantium (K041368): 3.6, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0 (Regular)
• · Implant Direct Legacy2(K192221) 3.0
• · Megagen AnyRidge Internal Implant System (K140091) 3.5, 4.0, 4.4, 4.9, 5.4 (3.1)
• Neodent Implant System GM Helix (K163194, K180536) 3.5, 3.75, 4.0, 4.3, 5.0 (3.0) 6.0 (3.0)
• · Nobel Active 3.0 (K102436) 3.0
• · Nobel Active Internal Connection Implant (K071370) NP RP 3.5, 4.3, 5.0
• · Nobelactive Wide Platform (Wp) (K133731) WP 5.5
• · TS Fixture System (K121995) 3.5 (3.75), 4.0 (4.2), 4.5 (4.6) , 5.0 (5.1) mm (Mini, Regular)
• Straumann BLX Implant (K173961, K181703, K191256) 3.5, 3.75, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, 5.5, 6.5 (RB, WB)
• · Straumann 02.9 mm Bone Level Tapered Implants, SC CARES Abutments (K162890) 2.9 (SC)
• · Straumann® Bone Level Tapered Implants (K140878) 3.3, 4.1, 4.8 (NC, RC)
• · Zimmer 3.1mmD Dental Implant System (K142082) 3.1 (2.9)
• · Screw Vent® and Tapered Screw Vent® (K013227) 3.7(3.5), 4.1(3.5), 4.7(4.5), 6.0(5.7)

AOT & T-L Abutment which are placed into the dental implant to provide support for the prosthetic restoration. The abutments are made of Titanium grade Ti-6A1-4V ELI (meets ASTM Standard F-136). AOT abutment is a straight multi-unit abutment that connect implant fixtures to a restoration, such as a dental bridge or a denture. AOT products includes abutments and components (AOT Base, AOT Temporary, AOT Base Screw, AOT Plus Screw). T-L abutment is for partial and full arch restorations on endosseous dental implants. AOT & T-L abutments are provided in various gingival cuff height ranging from 1 to 3 mm for AOT , 1 to 6 mm for T-L.

The provided document describes the TruAbutment Inc. AOT & T-L Abutment and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device. This document focuses on the non-clinical testing for dental implant abutments, primarily mechanical and sterilization performance, rather than clinical efficacy involving human readers or AI.

Therefore, many of the requested categories related to human-in-the-loop performance, statistical measures like effect size, and large-scale clinical study methodologies are not applicable to this 510(k) submission.

Here's a breakdown of the available information based on your request:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are implicitly defined by compliance with specified ISO standards and FDA guidance documents. The reported device performance is that it met these criteria.

Study Details

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

   • Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for specific tests. For mechanical fatigue testing (ISO 14801), it mentions "worst-case constructs" were subjected to testing, implying a representative selection rather than a large clinical sample. Industry standards typically specify minimum sample sizes for such tests (e.g., 5-10 samples per test group for fatigue).
   • Data Provenance: Not specified, but likely from laboratory testing conducted by the manufacturer or a contracted third-party lab. It's a non-clinical, bench-top study.
   • Retrospective or Prospective: Non-clinical laboratory testing is neither retrospective nor prospective in the clinical sense. It's a controlled experimental study.

2. 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 non-clinical, bench-top engineering and materials performance study, not a diagnostic or clinical efficacy study requiring expert human interpretation of data for ground truth. Compliance with engineering standards and material specifications forms the basis of "ground truth."

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

   • Not applicable. Adjudication methods are typically used in clinical trials or studies involving subjective human interpretation (e.g., image reading) to resolve discrepancies. This study involves objective measurements from laboratory tests.

4. 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 a non-clinical technical performance study for dental implant abutments, not a study evaluating human reader performance or AI assistance.

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

   • Not applicable. This device is a physical dental abutment, not a software algorithm. The "standalone" performance here refers to the device's inherent mechanical properties and material characteristics as tested against engineering standards.

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

   • Ground Truth: Engineering standards (ISO 14801, ISO 17665, ISO 10993), material specifications (ASTM F136), and dimensional compatibility with OEM implant systems. Performance is measured objectively against these established criteria.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of this non-clinical performance evaluation. This is not a machine learning or AI device.

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

   • Not applicable for the same reason as above.

Ask a specific question about this device