Search Results

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

SuperLine® implants are indicated for use in surgical and restorative applications for placement in the bone of the upper or lower jaw to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, in order to restore the patient's chewing function. SuperLine® implants are indicated also for immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading. Single tooth cases on 7 mm length implants are indicated for delayed loading.

The purpose of this submission is to add dental implants to the SuperLine components cleared in K160965. This submission includes two series of implants: SuperLine FXSxxxxB Series and SuperLine FXSxxxx Series.

The FXSxxxB Series has a machined collar height that ranges from 0.03 mm (on the 3.6 mm body diameter implant) to 0.6 mm (on the 5.0 mm body diameter implant). All FXSxxxxB Series implants have an endosseous length of 7 mm, and threaded lengths ranging from of 6.98 mm to 6.4 mm. Other than the endosseous length of 7 mm, the subject device FXSxxxB implants are identical in design and sizes to SuperLine implants cleared in K160965.

The FXSxxxx Series has machined collar 1.5 mm in height for all implant body diameter sizes. For body diameters 4.0 mm to 5.8 mm, the collar has a reverse taper. All FXSxxxx Series implants have an endosseous length of 7 mm, and a threaded length of 5.5 mm. The FXSxxxx series implant design has not been cleared previously by FDA for any body diameter or length.

All subject device implants are manufactured from the same unalloyed titanium conforming to ASTM F67 and have the same surface treatment (S.L.A., Al2O3 blasted and acid etched) as the dental implants cleared in K160965.

All subject device implants are compatible with previously-cleared abutments and prosthetic components from Dentium Co., Ltd., including those cleared in K192436, K141457, and K041368.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (SuperLine dental implants) and does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria. The document discusses substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on non-clinical data and design comparisons.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for information regarding acceptance criteria and a study demonstrating device performance against those criteria.

Ask a specific question about this device

TruAbutment DS is a patient-specific CAD/CAM abutment, directly connected to endosseous dental implants and is intended for use as an aid in prosthetic rehabilitation.
TruBase is a titanium component that is directly connected to endosseous dental implants to provide support for patient-specific prosthetic restorations, such as copings or crowns. It is indicated for screw-retained single tooth or cement-retained single tooth and bridge restorations.

TruAbutment DS system includes patient-specific abutments which are placed into the dental implant to provide support for prosthetic restoration. The subject abutments are indicated for cemented or screw-retained restorations. The patient-specific abutment screw are made of Titanium grade Ti-6A1-4V ELI (meets ASTM Standard F-136). Each patient-specific abutment is supplied with two identical screws which are used for: (1) For fixing into the endosseous implant (2) For dental laboratory use during construction of related restoration. The abutment is placed over the implant shoulder and mounted into the implant with the provided screw. The design and manufacturing of the patient-specific abutments take into consideration the shape of the final prosthesis based on the patient's intra-oral indications using CAD/CAM system during the manufacturing. All manufacturing processes of TruAbutment DS are conducted at the TruAbutment milling center and provided to the authorized end-user as a final patient-specific abutment.
TruBase consists of a two-piece abutment, where the titanium base is a pre-manufactured abutment that will be used to support a CAD/CAM designed superstructure (the second part of the two-piece abutment) that composes the final abutment. TruBase abutments are made of titanium alloy conforming to ASTM F136 Standard Specification for Wrought Titanium-6Aluminum-4Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) Alloy for Surgical Implant Applications and are provided in various prosthetic platform diameters. CAD/CAM customized superstructure that composes the final abutment must be designed and milled through the 3Shape Abutment Designer Software, according to the prosthetic planning and patient clinical situation. The superstructure is cemented to the TruBase in the lab. Use "RelyX Unicem 2Automix" as an adhesive extra orally to connect. TruBase is provided non-sterile therefore must be sterilized after the cementation of the customized superstructure on the TruBase.

The provided text describes the regulatory clearance for the TruAbutment DS and TruBase devices, citing substantial equivalence to predicate devices, and includes details about non-clinical testing. However, it does not contain information about a study proving device performance against specific acceptance criteria for AI or algorithmic performance. The studies mentioned are focused on mechanical and biocompatibility testing of the physical dental implant abutments.

Therefore, for aspects related to AI/algorithmic performance, sample sizes, expert ground truth, adjudication, and MRMC studies, the information is not present in the provided document.

Here's a breakdown of the available information:

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document describes "Design Limitations" for both TruAbutment DS and TruBase, which can be interpreted as design acceptance criteria. It also references compatibility and mechanical performance tests.

TruAbutment DS Design Limitations / Reported Performance:

TruBase / Zirconia Superstructure Design Limitations / Reported Performance:

Mechanical Performance:

• Acceptance Criteria: Met the criteria of ISO 14801:2016 and FDA Guidance "Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Rootform Endosseous Dental Implants and Endosseous Dental Implant Abutments."
• Reported Device Performance: "The fatigue limit data for all other implant lines demonstrated the construct strengths to be sufficient for their intended use."

Sterilization Validation:

• Acceptance Criteria: Met the criteria of ISO 17665-1:2006, 17665-2:2009, and ANSI/AAMI ST79:2010.
• Reported Device Performance: Achieved through end-user moist steam sterilization.

Biocompatibility:

• Acceptance Criteria: Met the criteria of ISO 10993-1:2009, ISO 10993-5:2009, and ISO 10993-10:2010.
• Reported Device Performance: Not explicitly stated as "passed" for the subject device, but mentioned it was leveraged from predicate device testing and supports substantial equivalence.

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

• Test Set Sample Size: For mechanical testing (ISO 14801), "worst-case constructs" were subjected to static compression and compression fatigue testing for each compatible OEM implant line. The exact number of samples is not specified.
• Data Provenance: Not specified; the context implies laboratory testing. The document does not refer to real-world patient data for performance evaluation in the context of AI.

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

Not applicable. The tests performed are non-clinical (mechanical, sterilization, biocompatibility) of physical devices, not assessments requiring expert interpretation of data or images.

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

Not applicable for non-clinical, physical device 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. No AI component is described in the performance evaluation section for either TruAbutment DS or TruBase. The software mentioned (3Shape Abutment Designer Software) is for CAD/CAM design, which is a tool for designing the physical device, not an AI for diagnosis or interpretation that would involve human readers.

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

Not applicable. As noted above, the device itself is a physical dental abutment, and its design process involves CAD/CAM software, not a standalone AI algorithm for medical decision-making or image analysis.

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

• Mechanical Testing: Ground truth is established by the specified ISO standards (ISO 14801) and FDA guidance, defining acceptable force and fatigue limits for dental implant systems.
• Dimensional Analysis: Ground truth is against design specifications and reverse engineering of OEM implant-to-abutment connections.
• Sterilization: Ground truth is against ISO 17665-1:2006, 17665-2:2009, and ANSI/AAMI ST79:2010 standards for sterilization efficacy.
• Biocompatibility: Ground truth is against ISO 10993 standards for biological safety.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. The document describes a physical medical device and its manufacturing process, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set. The CAD/CAM software aids in design, but the document does not detail its internal development or any associated training sets.

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

Not applicable, as no training set for an AI/ML algorithm is described.

Ask a specific question about this device

Dentium Prosthetics are intended for use as an aid in prosthetic rehabilitation.

The purpose of this submission is to change the sterilization method of Healing Abutments and Cover Screws. These devices which have been provided non-sterilized by gamma radiation.

Healing Abutments are used provisionally as an accessory to endosseous dental implant during healing period to prepare gingival tissue for acceptance of a final abutment. Healing Abutments are designed to aid in soft tissue contouring during the healing period after implant placement, creating an emergence profile for the final abutment. Cover Screws are used provisionally as an accessory to protect the inner features of the implant.

The Healing Abutments and Cover Screws are prefabricated and made of Ti-6Al-4V ELI (ASTM F136). These devices are sterilized using gamma radiation method and intended for single use only.

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for "Healing Abutments and Cover Screws." This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than proving a device meets specific performance acceptance criteria through the kind of rigorous, large-scale studies typically associated with AI/ML-based medical devices or novel technologies.

Therefore, many of the requested details, such as sample size for test sets, data provenance, number of experts for ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and training set details, are not applicable to this specific submission. This document describes a change in the sterilization method for existing devices, not a new device with performance metrics that require extensive clinical validation studies beyond sterilization and biocompatibility.

Here's an analysis based on the information available in the document:

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

For a 510(k) submission concerning a change in sterilization method for mechanical components like healing abutments and cover screws, the "acceptance criteria" revolve around demonstrating that the new sterilization method achieves the required sterility assurance level and does not adversely affect the device's material properties or function, maintaining its substantial equivalence to the predicate.

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated as a separate "test set" in the context of clinical performance data typical for AI/ML devices. The "tests" here are primarily engineering and laboratory validations:
  • Sterilization Validation: ISO 11137 standards define the number of units and replicates required for sterility testing (e.g., bioburden determination, dose mapping, sterility testing), which are often small, specific lots. This is standard laboratory validation, not a patient-based test set.
  • Aging Studies: ASTM F1980 dictates sample sizes for accelerated aging, again, laboratory testing of physical samples.
  • Biocompatibility: Relies on a prior submission (K041368) which presumably included its own biocompatibility testing. No new "sample size" for a clinical test set is mentioned for biocompatibility here.
• Data Provenance: The studies are laboratory-based ("Non-clinical testing data"). The manufacturer is located in the Republic of Korea (Dentium Co., Ltd.). The data would be derived from their internal validation processes. It is neither retrospective nor prospective in the sense of patient studies.

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 submission does not involve image interpretation or clinical diagnosis where expert ground truth would be established. The "ground truth" for sterilization is a defined SAL, verified by microbiological and physical testing per ISO standards. The "ground truth" for material properties is based on ASTM standards and prior biocompatibility data.

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

• Not Applicable. As there is no clinical "test set" based on human interpretation or an AI algorithm's output requiring adjudication, this concept does not apply.

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 is a traditional medical device (dental implants and accessories), not an AI-assisted diagnostic or therapeutic device. Therefore, no MRMC study, human reader improvement, or AI assistance is relevant.

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

• Not Applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

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

• The "ground truth" for this submission is based on:
  • Standardized Sterility Assurance: Achieving a defined SAL of 10^-6, verified through validated sterilization processes and testing compliant with ISO 11137-1 and ISO 11137-2.
  • Material Standards: Biocompatibility established against Ti-6Al-4V ELI (ASTM F136) as per regulations and previous submissions.
  • Engineering Performance: Shelf-life demonstrated through accelerated and real-time aging studies per ASTM F1980.
  • Substantial Equivalence: Demonstrated by comparing engineering specifications and intended use against legally marketed predicate devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not Applicable. This involved physical device manufacturing and validation, not machine learning model training.

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

• Not Applicable. (See point 8)

Ask a specific question about this device

Dentium Ti-Base abutments are intended for use on Dentium endosseous dental implants in the edentulous or partially edentulous maxilla or mandible, as an aid in prosthetic rehabilitation.

All digitally designed abutments for use with Dentium Ti-Base abutments are intended to be sent to a Dentium-validated milling center for manufacture.

Dentium Ti-Base is a patient specific abutment fabricated by Dentium and composed of unalloyed titanium and zirconia ceramic. The Ti-Base has a titanium pre-manufactured precision abutment/implant interface and ceramic superstructure bonded to the post of the titanium base. Ti-Base is used for support of CAD/CAM fabricated zirconia superstructures or for support of hybrid crowns or bridges. Hybrid crowns or bridges and zirconia superstructures are manufactured by a Dentium validated milling center.

Ti-Base Abutments are available in two prosthetic diameters (4.5 and 5.5 mm) and four gingival heights (0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 mm). Each of the abutments is available indexed and non-indexed. All subject device abutments are compatible with Dentium and Dentium Superline dental implants.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the Dentium Ti-Base dental abutment, establishing its substantial equivalence to previously marketed predicate devices. This type of submission relies on non-clinical performance data rather than extensive clinical studies with specific acceptance criteria as might be seen for novel devices.

Here's an analysis of the provided information concerning acceptance criteria and supporting studies:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample Sizes and Data Provenance

• Test Set Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for any of the non-clinical tests. For ISO 14801, typical sample sizes are small (e.g., n=5 or n=10 per test condition), but this is not specified.
• Data Provenance: The studies are non-clinical (laboratory/mechanical testing). The manufacturer is Dentium Co., Ltd. in the Republic of Korea. Therefore, the data originates from the manufacturer's testing or a contracted testing facility. All data is presumably prospective as it was generated to support the 510(k) submission.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

• This information is not applicable as the studies are non-clinical performance tests for a device seeking substantial equivalence, not a diagnostic algorithm requiring expert-established ground truth. The "ground truth" for these tests is defined by the standards (ISO 17665-2, ISO 10993-5, ISO 14801).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• This information is not applicable as the studies are non-clinical performance tests and do not involve human adjudication for a "test set" in the context of diagnostic assessment.

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

• No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. The device is a physical dental abutment, not a diagnostic AI system that would assist human readers.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

• No, a standalone (algorithm only) performance study was not done. The device is a physical medical device. The "digitally designed abutments" mentioned refer to CAD/CAM processes used in manufacturing, but this is a manufacturing method, not an AI algorithm requiring standalone performance evaluation in the medical sense.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• The "ground truth" applied here is primarily established international standards for medical device testing (e.g., ISO 17665-2 for sterilization, ISO 10993-5 for cytotoxicity, ISO 14801 for mechanical strength). For substantial equivalence, the performance is compared against the characteristics of legally marketed predicate devices.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• This information is not applicable. The device is a physical product, not an AI/ML algorithm that is "trained" on a dataset. The manufacturing process might involve CAD/CAM software, but this is distinct from an AI training set.

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

• This information is not applicable as there is no "training set" in the context of an AI/ML algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

Dentium abutments are intended for use on endosseous dental implants in the edentulous or partially edentulous maxilla or mandible, as an aid in prosthetic rehabilitation.

All digitally designed abutments for use with Dentium CAD/CAM Abutments are intended to be sent to a Dentium-validated milling center for manufacture.

Dentium CAD/CAM Abutments are titanium abutments to be used in fabricating patient-specific abutments. Each patient-specific abutment is individually prescribed by the clinician. Dentium CAD/CAM Ti-Blank Abutments are abutments with a pre-manufactured precision interface and are used by a validated milling center to fabricate patient-specific abutments. Ti-Blanks are available in three cylinder diameters (10 mm, 14 mm, and 15.8 mm) and three connection designs (Hex, Long Hex). Dentium CAD/CAM Custom Abutments are patient-specific abutments fabricated by Dentium. Custom Abutments are available for fabrication in three connection designs (Hex, Long Hex, and Non-hex). Dentium CAD/CAM Abutments are available for four corresponding implant platform diameters (3.6 mm. 4.0 mm, 4.5 mm, 5.0 mm). Each abutment is supplied with a corresponding abutment screw, cleared previously in K141457. All subject device abutments are compatible with Implantium dental implants.

I am sorry, but the provided text from the FDA 510(k) Pre-Market Notification for Dentium CAD/CAM Abutments does not contain any information about acceptance criteria or a study proving that an AI/device meets acceptance criteria related to diagnostic performance.

The document is a clearance letter for a dental device (CAD/CAM abutments), not an AI or diagnostic imaging device. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on:

• Non-clinical performance data: steam sterilization validation, biocompatibility, and dynamic compression-bending testing.
• Design similarities: material, size, and interface.
• Intended use.

Therefore, I cannot extract the information required by your request, such as a table of acceptance criteria for diagnostic performance, sample sizes for test sets, data provenance, expert ground truth establishment, MRMC studies, standalone performance, or training set details, because this document is for a medical device that does not involve such diagnostic performance evaluations.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Biogenesis Implant System –Kisses is in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae, in support of single or multiple-unit restorations including; cemented retained, or overdenture restorations, and terminal or intermediate abutment support for fixed bridgework.

The Biogenesis Implant System - Kisses is for single and two stage surgical procedures. It is for delayed loading.

The Biogenesis 110 Implant System - Kisses is a dental implant system made of titanium intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw arches. This product is a substructure of a dental implant system to replace a single tooth, partial tooth and the lost root of edentulous patients. It consists of the hex part to be coupled to the superstructure, the single thread part to be fixed to the bone, and the cutting edge part with the self-tapping function.

The Biogenesis™ Implant System offers bone level implants in the size range of 3.8 – 5.5 mm diameter with 7 – 14.5mm length.

The Biogenesis TM Implant System also offers the following components.

• · Duplex Abutment
• Duplex Milling Abutment
• Simplex Abutment
• Temporary Abutment
• · Solid Screw Abutment
• · Ball Abutment
• Ball Cap

The implants are intended for use with straight implant only straight implants are included in the submission.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Biogenesis™ Implant System - Kisses, a dental implant system. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than proving the device meets specific performance acceptance criteria through the kind of studies you describe.

Therefore, the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, reported device performance, sample sizes, data provenance, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and ground truth for training/test sets cannot be fully extracted from this document. This kind of detailed study information is typically found in the full submission, not in the public 510(k) summary.

However, I can provide the limited information available regarding non-clinical testing and general acceptance of performance.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document states that "the test results met the pre-set criteria" for various performance tests. However, it does not explicitly list quantified acceptance criteria or specific numerical reported device performance values. It only confirms conformance.

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

The document does not provide details on:

• Specific sample sizes used for the non-clinical tests (e.g., sterilization, shelf life, biocompatibility).
• Data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective) for any test sets. Non-clinical studies like these are typically lab-based and not derived from clinical patient data in the same way clinical trials are.

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

This information is not applicable to the non-clinical bench testing described. These tests involve laboratory measurements and standards conformance, not expert assessment of clinical data to establish ground truth.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable to the non-clinical bench testing described.

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through comparison of technical characteristics and non-clinical bench testing to predicate devices, not on evaluating human reader performance with or without AI assistance.

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 mentioned. The device is a physical dental implant system, not a software algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

For the non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" or reference points were established by recognized international and national standards:

• ISO 17665-1/2 and ANSI/AANI ST79 for sterilization validation.
• ASTM F1980 for shelf life testing.
• ISO 10993-1 for biocompatibility testing.
• FDA Guidance Document for Endosseous Dental Implants and Abutments for overall conformance.

These standards define methods and acceptable limits for the performance characteristics being evaluated.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable. This document describes a physical medical device (dental implant), not an AI/ML algorithm that would typically require a training set.

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

This information is not applicable, as there is no mention of a training set for an AI/ML algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

Implantium II is intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw arches to provide support for prosthetics devices, such as artificial teeth, and to restore the patient's chewing function. Implantium II are for single stage or two stage surgery.

The Implantium II is a dental fixture made of pure titanium metal intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw arches. The Implantium II is similar to other commercially available products based on the intended use, the technology used, the claims, the material composition employed and performance characteristics. The differences between them are shape and surface. The Implantium II has one-stage and two-stage surgery. The Implantium II has S.L.A. or Anodizing surface while Implantium has S.L.A (Sand-blasted Large grit Acid-etched).

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a dental implant device called "Implantium II." This type of document is for medical device approval and focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than proving performance against specific acceptance criteria through a clinical study or standalone algorithm evaluation.

Therefore, the document does not contain the information requested in the prompt regarding acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, or standalone algorithm performance.

The "Review" and "Conclusions" sections state that "Implantium II has the same device characteristics as the predicate device. Material, design and use concept is similar" and "Implantium II is safe and effective and substantially equivalent to predicate devices." This substantial equivalence is the primary "acceptance criterion" for this type of submission.

Here's a breakdown of why the requested information is absent:

• Acceptance Criteria & Device Performance Table: Not applicable. The document focuses on demonstrating equivalence to a previously approved device (Implantium, K041368), not on meeting specific, quantitative performance metrics with a new study.
• Sample Size (test set) & Data Provenance: Not applicable. There is no specific "test set" in the context of an AI/algorithm performance study. The evaluation is based on a comparison of device characteristics, materials, and intended use to a predicate device.
• Number of Experts & Qualifications: Not applicable. There is no expert review of specific cases or data for ground truth establishment.
• Adjudication Method: Not applicable.
• Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study: Not applicable. This type of study would be relevant for evaluating human reader performance with and without an AI assist, which is not the subject of this 510(k).
• Standalone (algorithm-only) Performance Study: Not applicable. This document is not for an AI/algorithm device; it's for a physical dental implant.
• Type of Ground Truth Used: Not applicable. Ground truth typically refers to a definitive diagnosis or outcome for evaluating an AI's accuracy, which is not relevant here.
• Sample Size for Training Set: Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device.
• How Ground Truth for Training Set was Established: Not applicable.

In summary, the provided 510(k) summary is designed to establish substantial equivalence for a physical medical device (dental implant) by comparing it to a predicate device, not by presenting data from a study that evaluates performance against specific acceptance criteria in the manner described in the prompt for an AI or diagnostic algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Implantium abutments are intended to be used with the Implantium root-form endosseous dental implant to aid in prosthetic rehabilitation including overdenture retention. After the root-form endosseous dental implant is surgically placed, the endosseous dental implant abutment device is attached to it.

The Implantium abutments are devices made of pure titanium, titanium alloys, and plastic. The abutments in this 510(k) submission are supplemental to the previously cleared Implantium devices (K041368) and are designed to be used with the Implantium fixtures. These abutments are placed in the fixtures as a support for fitting prosthetic teeth. This submission includes four differently sized ball abutment kits for overdenture retention, and six different temporary abutments for placement of temporary restorations.

This 510(k) summary is for Dentium Inc.'s Implantium abutments and focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than presenting a clinical study with specific acceptance criteria and performance metrics typically found in AI/ML device submissions.

Therefore, many of the requested details about acceptance criteria, study design, expert involvement, and ground truth establishment are not applicable or present in this document.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text, indicating "N/A" where information is not available:

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

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: N/A (No specific test set or clinical study described for performance evaluation in this 510(k). Substantial equivalence is primarily based on material, design, and intended use comparison.)
• Data Provenance: N/A (No data provenance mentioned as it's not a clinical study.)

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

• Number of Experts: N/A
• Qualifications of Experts: N/A

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Adjudication Method: N/A

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

• MRMC Study: No, this is not an AI/ML device, and no MRMC study was performed.
• Effect Size: N/A

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

• Standalone Performance: No, this is not an AI/ML device.

7. The type of ground truth used

• Ground Truth Type: N/A (The "ground truth" here is the established safety and effectiveness of the predicate devices based on their prior clearance.)

8. The sample size for the training set

• Sample Size for Training Set: N/A (Not an AI/ML device; no training set.)

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

• Ground Truth Establishment for Training Set: N/A (Not an AI/ML device; no training set.)

Ask a specific question about this device