Search Results

The Zeramex® P6 Dental Implant System is intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper and lower jaw to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, in order to restore aesthetics and chewing function.

The Zeramex® P6 Dental Implant System can be used for single or multiple unit restorations.

The Zeramex® P6 implants are intended for delayed loading.

The Zeramex® P6 implants are specially indicated for patients with metal allergies/ intolerances and chronic illness due to metal allergies/intolerances.

The Zeramex® P6 (Ø3.3mm SN) implant may only be used in the anterior teeth in the lower jaw and lateral incisor in the upper jaw.

The Zeramex® P6 Dental Implant System is an endosseous dental implant/abutment system including various sizes of endosseous two piece dental implants, abutments, and accessories. The Zeramex® P6 implants may be restored with cement retained abutments or screw retained abutments, depending on the dentist's preference. The Zeramex® P6 implants are placed using the Zeramex® P6 surgical tools.

The implants, produced from aluminum toughened zirconia, are provided in three diameters (Ø 3.3 mm, 4.1 mm, and 4.8 mm),three lengths (8 mm, 10 mm, and 12 mm). The implants are designed with an internal cylindrical connection. Anti-rotational features include internal triangular designs and external hexagonal connections; the feature used depends on the restoration method selected.

Straight and angular (15°) cement retained and screw retained abutments, provided in small neck (SN; 4.0mm) and regular neck (RN, 4.8mm) sizes, are compatible for use with the Zeramex® P6 implants. The straight and angular abutments are made from the same zirconium materials as the Zeramex® P6 implants.

The cement retained Zeramex® Zeralock™ straight and angular abutments have a cylindrical connector which fits into the internal cylindrical connection of the implant and a hexagonal design which fits into the implant's internal triangular design and locks the abutment into place. This design mitigates rotation in six possible positions.

The screw retained Zeramex® P6 abutments fit on the implant's external hexagonal connection such that rotation is mitigated in six possible positions. The Zeramex® P6 screw retained abutments are affixed to the implant with a carbon fiber reinforced PEEK-Optima™ Ultra (Endolign) screw which fits the internal thread of the implant and provides a secure, screw retained ceramic on ceramic connection.

Locator abutments facilitate removable full restoration of the upper or lower jaw. Three sizes (heights 2/3/5 mm) for each platform (SN 4.0mm and RN 4.8mm) are provided for the Zeramex® P6 Dental Implant System and provide the Zeralock™ connection. The Zeramex® P6 Locators are made from ATZ.

The Zeramex® Zeralock™ cement retained abutments are bonded to the implants using dental cements which have been tested and validated for use with the Zeramex® systems: Panavia" (K032455) and 3M ESPE RelyX (K111185).

The screw retained abutments are attached to the implants using carbon-fiber reinforced (CFR) VICARBO screws (made of PEEK-Optima™ Ultra (Endolign)), which are provided as straight and angular screws in SN and RN sizes.

Healing caps and gingivaformers are also provided in the system. These components, provided in SN and RN sizes, are manufactured from PEEK and are connected to the implant using a screw. The Zeramex® P6 Gingivaformers are provided in two (2) lengths (3 mm and 4 mm). Provisional restoration components may be used to support temporary crowns after the healing period. The Zeramex® P6 Provisional Restoration SN and RN are made of PEEK. The Zeramex® P6 Provisional Restoration Screw is made of carbon fiber reinforced PEEK.

A closure screw (Ø3.5 mm) may be used in lieu of the healing cap to allow the gingiva to cover the platform during the healing period. This component is manufactured from PEEK.

This document is a 510(k) summary from the FDA for a dental implant system. As such, it does not contain the detailed information required to describe acceptance criteria and associated study results for a medical device's performance.

Specifically, the document states under "VII. Performance Data": "New performance data is not required in support of this submission. The sterilization validation, shelf-life studies, biocompatibility studies, mechanical testing, and clinical studies from K152385 are applicable to this submission." This indicates that the current submission (K163043) is relying on previously submitted data for its predicate device (K152385) and does not present new performance studies. The changes made in this 510(k) (addition of a closure screw, administrative updates, additional contraindications, and a minor word revision in the Indications for Use) were deemed not to require new performance data.

Therefore, I cannot provide the information requested in your prompt because the provided document does not contain new performance study data, acceptance criteria, sample sizes, expert qualifications, or adjudication methods for the Zeramex® P6 Dental Implant System related to this specific 510(k) submission (K163043). The document is a regulatory approval notice based on substantial equivalence, not a detailed report of a new performance study.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Zeramex® P6 Dental Implant System is intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper and lower jaw to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, in order to restore aesthetics and chewing function.

The Zeramex® P6 Dental Implant System can be used for single or multiple unit restorations.

The Zeramex® P6 implants are intended for delayed loading.

The Zeramex® P6 implants are specially indicated for patients with metal allergies/ intolerances and chronic illness due to metal allergies/intolerances.

The Zeramex® P6 (Ø3.3mm SN) implant may only be used in the anterior teeth in the lower jaw and lateral teeth in the upper jaw.

The Zeramex® P6 Dental Implant System is an endosseous dental implant/abutment system including various sizes of endosseous two piece dental implants, abutments, and accessories. The Zeramex® P6 implants may be restored with cement retained abutments or screw retained abutments, depending on the dentist's preference. The Zeramex® P6 implants are placed using the Zeramex® P6 surgical tools.

The implants, produced from aluminum toughened zirconia, are provided in three diameters (Ø 3.3 mm. 4.1 mm. and 4.8 mm),three lengths (8 mm, 10 mm, and 12 mm). The implants are designed with an internal cylindrical connection. Anti-rotational features include internal triangular designs and external hexagonal connections; the feature used depends on the restoration method selected.

Straight and angular (15°) cement retained and screw retained abutments, provided in small neck (SN: 4.0mm) and regular neck (RN. 4.8mm) sizes, are compatible for use with the Zeramex® P6 implants. The straight and angular abutments are made from the same zirconium materials as the Zeramex® P6 implants.

The cement retained Zeramex® Zeralock™ straight and angular abutments have a cylindrical connector which fits into the internal cylindrical connection of the implant and a hexagonal design which fits into the implant's internal triangular design and locks the abutment into place. This design mitigates rotation in six possible positions.

The screw retained Zeramex® P6 abutments fit on the implant's external hexagonal connection such that rotation is mitigated in six possible positions. The Zeramex® P6 screw retained abutments are affixed to the implant with a carbon fiber reinforced PEEK-Optima™ Ultra (Endolign) screw which fits the internal thread of the implant and provides a secure, screw retained ceramic on ceramic connection.

Locator abutments facilitate removable full restoration of the upper or lower jaw. Three sizes (heights 2/3/5 mm) for each platform (SN 4.0mm and RN 4.8mm) are provided for the Zeramex® P6 Dental Implant System and provide the Zeralock™ connection. The Zeramex® P6 Locators are made from ATZ.

The Zeramex® Zeralock™ cement retained abutments are bonded to the implants using dental cements which have been tested and validated for use with the Zeramex® systems: Panavia" (K032455) and 3M ESPE RelyX (K111185).

The screw retained abutments are attached to the implants using carbon-fiber reinforced (CFR) PEEK-Optima™ Ultra (Endolign) screws (provided as straight and angular screws in SN and RN sizes).

Healing caps and gingiva formers are also provided in the system. These components, provided in SN and RN sizes, are manufactured from PEEK and are connected to the implant using a screw. The Zeramex® P6 Gingiva formers are provided in two (2) lengths (3 mm and 4 mm). Provisional restoration components may be used to support temporary crowns after the healing period. The Zeramex® P6 Provisional Restoration SN and RN are made of PEEK. The Zeramex® P6 Provisional Restoration Screw is made of carbon fiber reinforced PEEK.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and supporting studies for the Zeramex® P6 Dental Implant System:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided FDA 510(k) summary does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria (e.g., a specific percentage for success rates or a certain threshold for complications). Instead, it describes a retrospective clinical study and non-clinical tests whose positive results support the substantial equivalence claim.

However, based on the non-clinical and clinical study outcomes, we can infer the implied acceptance criteria from the reported success:

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

• Sample Size (Clinical Test Set): 19 patients, receiving a total of 35 screw-retained abutments. Follow-up data was obtained on 15 of those patients (representing 27 screw-retained abutments). Specific follow-up numbers are:

  • 6 months follow-up: 8 patients

  • 1 year follow-up: 3 patients

• Data Provenance: Retrospective clinical data. The country of origin is not explicitly stated in the provided text.

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

The document does not specify the number or qualifications of experts used to establish a "ground truth" for the retrospective clinical test set. The data appears to rely on clinical observations and professional documentation from the treatment of the 19 patients. It's implied that the treating clinicians (dentists/surgeons) made the assessments of complications and adverse events.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe any specific adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the clinical test set data. Given it's retrospective clinical data, it's highly likely that the outcomes were recorded as part of routine patient care, without a formalized independent adjudication process mentioned for the purpose of this 510(k) submission. Therefore, the adjudication method is effectively "none" in the context of this regulatory submission.

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

No, a multi-reader, multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This study focuses on the safety and performance of the device itself, not on comparing differences in human reader performance with or without AI assistance, as the device is a dental implant system, not an AI diagnostic tool.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done

This question is not applicable. The Zeramex® P6 Dental Implant System is a physical medical device (dental implant and associated components), not an algorithm or software-as-a-medical-device (SaMD). Therefore, "standalone algorithm performance" is not relevant to this submission.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

For the clinical study, the "ground truth" was based on clinical observations and outcomes data from real patients. This includes:

• Absence of complications (e.g., infection, pain, fracture).
• Absence of adverse events.
• Stability and function of the implant and abutment over time.

For the non-clinical studies, the "ground truth" was established by adherence to recognized international and national standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM) for material properties testing, biocompatibility, sterilization validation, and fatigue strength.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not describe a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI. This is a traditional medical device submission, not an AI/ML device. Therefore, this question is not applicable.

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

As there is no training set mentioned or implied for an AI/ML device, this question is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

SURFACE COAT is used to glaze/polish following restorations:

• Direct and indirect composite resins
• Acrylic provisional crowns and bridges
• Acrylic appliances
• Glass ionomers and resin-modified glass ionomers

SURFACE COAT is a single-component, light-cure resin glaze material that provides a clear and smooth surface, consisting of a multi-functional acrylate monomer that provides excellent durability and may reduce or even eliminate the need for manual polishing. SURFACE COAT has virtually no surface oxygen inhibition layer.

The provided 510(k) summary for K063228 (SURFACE COAT) does not contain the detailed information necessary to fully answer your request regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets those criteria.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification, which largely focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than presenting a detailed performance study with acceptance criteria in the manner you've outlined for clinical or diagnostic devices.

However, based on the available information, I can extract and infer some aspects:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document states: "Since there is no applicable FDA's recognized standard or international standard concerning performance of this type of device, certain specifications are designed for SURFACE COAT, the applicant device, and tested accordingly in comparison with the predicate devices validating that the applicant device is substantially equivalent to the predicate devices in terms of the effectiveness and performance."

This indicates that internal specifications were used, but these specific specifications and their corresponding performance metrics are not detailed in this 510(k) summary. It only mentions that the device was tested accordingly and validated against predicate devices for effectiveness and performance.

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

• Sample size for test set: Not specified.
• Data provenance: Not specified. Since it's a materials science submission, it's highly likely to be laboratory/bench testing data rather than patient data from a specific country, and thus, "retrospective or prospective" would not apply in the typical clinical sense.

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

• This type of information (experts establishing ground truth) is typical for clinical studies involving diagnosis or interpretation. For a dental material, "ground truth" would likely be established through objective laboratory measurements and material science standards/tests, not expert consensus in the diagnostic sense.
• Not applicable/Not specified.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable/Not specified for this type of material performance testing.

5. If a Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done

• No. This type of study is for diagnostic devices involving human readers interpreting images or data. It is not relevant for a dental resin glaze material.

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

• Not applicable. This device is a material, not a software algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• For a material like "SURFACE COAT," the "ground truth" would be established by the physical and chemical properties of the material as measured by standardized laboratory methods (e.g., tests for hardness, wear resistance, bond strength, surface smoothness, oxygen inhibition layer thickness).
• The document implies these were internal "specifications" and comparisons to predicate devices for "effectiveness and performance."

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable/Not specified. The concept of a "training set" is usually for machine learning algorithms. For material development, various formulations and batches might be tested during R&D, but this isn't typically referred to as a "training set" in the context of regulatory submissions for materials.

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

• Not applicable/Not specified.

Summary of Study Information (as inferable from the document):

The submission relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices (BISCOVER LIQUID POLISH, BISCOVER LV, etc.) rather than a full de novo performance study against explicit acceptance criteria.

The study performed was a comparison of the SURFACE COAT's effectiveness and performance characteristics against those of the predicate devices. The exact nature of these tests (e.g., specific mechanical properties tested, methods used) and their quantitative results are not disclosed in this summary. The manufacturer states that "certain specifications are designed for SURFACE COAT...and tested accordingly in comparison with the predicate devices validating that the applicant device is substantially equivalent." This implies bench testing to show similar or superior material properties relative to the predicates.

In essence, the "study" for this 510(k) demonstrated that the new device performs sufficiently similar to already approved devices, making it substantially equivalent, without needing to define new, explicit clinical acceptance criteria in the format you requested.

Ask a specific question about this device