Search Results

Final cementation of ceramic, composite or metal inlays, onlays, crowns, bridges, 2-3-unit Maryland bridges and 3-unit inlay/onlay bridges (excluded for patients with bruxism or periodontitis) Final cementation of post and screws Final cementation of ceramic, composite or metal restorations on implant abutments Cementation of abutments made of Lava™ zirconium oxide ceramic

Unicem Aplicap/Maxicap cements are dual-curing, self-adhesive resin cements available in two single dose delivery systems in capsules (K020256). They are used for the permanent cementation of indirect restorations made of ceramic, composite, or metal, and for posts and screws. Bonding and conditioning of the prepared tooth structure are not necessary with Unicem Aplicap™ and Maxicap™M. Unicem Aplicap™ and Unicem Maxicap™ release fluoride ions, and are available in various shades. Unicem Aplicap™ and Unicem Maxicap™ contain bifunctional (meth)acrylate.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a dental cement (Unicem Aplicap/Maxicap). It focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to predicate devices and expanding indications for use, primarily through comparison of performance data and biocompatibility testing. The document does not contain information on clinical studies that would involve acceptance criteria, test sets, ground truth establishment, or human reader performance as typically seen with AI/CADe devices.

Therefore, many of the requested details cannot be extracted from this specific document.

Here's an attempt to answer the questions based on the available information:

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

The document does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria or a direct performance table as would be found for an AI/CADe device. It generally states that "the comparison for performance data and indications for use shows that Unicem Aplicap™ /Maxicap™ is substantially equivalent to its predicate devices."

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

Not applicable. The submission is for a dental cement, not an AI/CADe device that uses a "test set" of clinical data in this manner. The "performance data" mentioned likely refers to physical and chemical properties of the cement, not clinical image data.

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. Ground truth as typically understood for AI/CADe devices (e.g., expert consensus on medical images) is not relevant to this dental cement submission.

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

Not applicable.

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.

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

Not applicable.

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

Not applicable in the context of clinical image interpretation. For dental cements, "ground truth" would likely refer to established physical and chemical properties and their compliance with relevant international standards, which are not detailed here beyond a general statement of "biocompatibility testing."

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is not an AI/CADe device, and therefore does not have a "training set" in the machine learning sense.

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

Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

• All classes of fillings (according to Black) with lightcuring composite or compomer
• Cementation of indirect restorations made of composite or compomer, ceramic, and metal using RelyX™ ARC, manufactured by 3M ESPE
• Core build-ups made of light-curing composite
• Root surface desensitization
• Repair of composite or compomer fillings
• Repair of restorations veneered with composite or ceramic
• Bonding orthodontic appliances to teeth for orthodontic treatment

Uno is classified Resin Tooth Bonding Agent (21 C.F.R. § 872.3200) because it is a device intended to be painted on the interior of a prepared cavity of a tooth to improve retention of restorative materials (compomer and composite restorative material). Like Adper Prompt L-Pop, 3M ESPE's well-known and well-established resin bonding agent, Uno offers the advantages of a simplified bonding procedure, eliminating the need for a separate etching step. Thus it reduces both possible errors during application and post-operative sensitivity. Additionally, it saves the dentist valuable chair time. Being based on methacrylate chemistry itself, Uno is well suited for bonding methacrylate based composites to dentin and enamel. Uno is also indicated to seal sensitive root surfaces as is Adper Prompt L-Pop. Furthermore, Uno is suited to bond orthodontic appliances to teeth for orthodontic treatment as is Prompt L-Pop. Like Adper Prompt L-Pop, Uno will be available in single dose applicators and in a vial version.

This document pertains to a 510(k) summary for a dental adhesive product called "Uno" and does not contain information about the acceptance criteria or a study proving its performance against such criteria in the context of an AI/ML device.

The provided text describes a "Resin Tooth Bonding Agent" and its substantial equivalence to predicate devices, focusing on its chemical composition, intended use (bonding restorative materials, sealing root surfaces, bonding orthodontic appliances), and biocompatibility.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information, such as:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance: This document is for a physical dental adhesive, not an AI/ML device.
• Sample size, data provenance, number of experts, adjudication method, MRMC studies, standalone performance, type of ground truth, training set size, or ground truth establishment for a test set: These concepts are relevant to the evaluation of AI/ML devices, not a resin tooth bonding agent.

The document states, "To provide evidence for safety biocompatibility testing was carried out. The results show that Uno is a safe device." This is the extent of any "study" mentioned, and it only addresses biocompatibility for safety, not performance against specific clinical efficacy metrics. The primary mechanism for clearance is demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to existing, legally marketed predicate devices.

Ask a specific question about this device