Search Results

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 Bases or Pre-milled Blanks are to be sent to a Terrats Medical validated milling center for manufacture, or to be designed and manufactured according to the digital dentistry workflow. The digital dentistry workflow integrates multiple components: scan files from intra-oral and lab (desktop) scanners, CAD software, CAM software, ceramic material, milling machine, and associated tooling and accessories.

The purpose of this submission is to expand the DESS Dental Smart Solutions abutment system cleared under K221301 and K240982 to allow additional options of zirconia material, scanners, CAM software, and milling machines to the digital dentistry workflow. The subject devices are to be sent to Terrats Medical validated milling centers for manufacture, or to be designed and manufactured via a digital dentistry workflow. The digital dentistry workflow integrates multiple components: scan files from intra-oral and lab (desktop) scanners, CAD software, CAM software, titanium and ceramic material, milling machine, and associated tooling and accessories. There are no changes to the abutment design, implant compatibilities, or design parameters. All part numbers have been cleared for manufacturing via a validated milling center and digital dentistry workflows (also referred to as point of care) under K221301 and K240982.

The subject device DESS Dental Smart Solutions abutments provide a range of prosthetic solutions for dental implant restoration. DESS abutments are offered in a variety of connection types to enable compatibility with currently marketed dental implants. All abutments are provided non-sterile, and each abutment is supplied with the appropriate abutment screw (if applicable) for attachment to the corresponding implant.

Subject device Base Abutments are designed for fabrication of a patient-specific CAD/CAM zirconia superstructure on which a crown may be placed. They are two-piece abutments for which the second part (or top half) is the ceramic superstructure. They also may be used for support of a crown directly on the abutment.

All patient-specific custom abutment fabrication for Base Abutments and Pre-milled (Blank) Abutments is by prescription on the order of the clinician. The subject device Pre-milled (Blank) Abutments and all zirconia superstructures for use with the subject device Ti Base Interface, DESS Aurum Base, ELLIPTIBase, and DESS C-Base will be manufactured using a validated milling center or a digital dentistry workflow. A validated milling center will be under FDA quality system regulations. The digital dentistry workflow scans files from intra-oral and lab (desktop) scanners, CAD software, CAM software, titanium and ceramic material, milling machine and associated tooling and accessories.

The digital dentistry workflow uses scan files from intra-oral and lab (desktop) scanners, CAD software, CAM software, ceramic material, milling machine and associated tooling and accessories.

The provided 510(k) summary for DESS Dental Smart Solutions focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices for dental implant abutments. It primarily addresses the expansion of compatible materials, scanners, CAM software, and milling machines within an existing digital dentistry workflow. The document does not describe an AI/ML-based device that would typically have acceptance criteria related to diagnostic performance.

Therefore, many of the requested items related to AI/ML device performance (like acceptance criteria for diagnostic metrics, sample size for test sets, data provenance, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and training set details) are not applicable to this submission.

The acceptance criteria and supporting "study" (non-clinical data) for this device are related to its mechanical performance, biocompatibility, and integration within the digital workflow, demonstrating that the expanded components maintain the safety and effectiveness of the previously cleared predicate devices.

Here's a breakdown based on the information provided and the non-applicability of AI/ML-specific questions:

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

Since this is not an AI/ML diagnostic device, the acceptance criteria are not in terms of traditional diagnostic metrics (sensitivity, specificity, AUC). Instead, they are related to material properties, mechanical integrity, and the digital workflow's accuracy.

• Abutment design library validated to demonstrate established design limitations are locked and cannot be modified by the user. (Implies successful implementation and verification of design constraints.) |
  | CAM Restriction Zones / Manufacturing Accuracy | - Validation testing of CAM restriction zones conducted, including verification to show avoidance of damage or modifications of the connection geometry, and locking of restriction zones from user editing in CAM software. (Implies successful validation to ensure manufacturing precision and prevent damage.) |
  | Material Conformance | - Zirconia materials conform to ISO 6872.
• Titanium alloy conforms to ASTM F136.
• Co-Cr-Mo alloy conforms to ASTM F15337. (Implies materials meet standards.) |
  | Physical Dimensions | - Device encompasses the same range of physical dimensions as the predicate device. (Implies dimensional equivalence.) |

2. 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 in terms of a "test set" for diagnostic performance. The validation involved physical testing of components (e.g., fatigue testing) and software verification. The specific number of abutments or digital design instances used for these non-clinical tests is not detailed in this summary.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of patient data for an AI/ML device. The "data" here refers to engineering and material testing results, likely conducted in controlled lab environments (implied to be in accordance with international standards like ISO and ASTM). The manufacturer is Terrats Medical SL, in Spain, so testing would likely originate from their facilities or contracted labs.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

Not applicable. This is not a diagnostic device requiring expert interpretation for ground truth. The "ground truth" for this device relates to engineering specifications and material science.

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

Not applicable. This is not a diagnostic device involving expert review 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

Not applicable. This device is not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML algorithm.

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

For this device, the "ground truth" is based on:

• Engineering Specifications: Defined design parameters (e.g., minimum wall thickness, post height, angulation limits).
• Material Standards: Conformance to international standards such as ASTM F136, ISO 6872.
• Benchmarking/Predicate Equivalence: Performance is assessed against established performance of the predicate devices and OEM implant systems.
• Software Validation Logic: Verification that software correctly enforces design rules and CAD/CAM restrictions.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This device does not involve a machine learning training set.

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

Not applicable. This device does not involve a machine learning training set.

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 cleared under K221301 to add the ability for the subject device Base Abutments and Pre-milled (Blank) Abutments to be designed using AbutmentCAD software in the digital dentistry workflow, as well as add angulation to some of the Pre-Milled (Blank) Abutments. The subject devices are to Terrats Medical validated milling centers for manufacture, or to be designed and manufactured via a digital dentistry workflow. The digital dentistry workflow integrates multiple components: scan files from intra-oral and lab (desktop) scanners, CAD software, CAM software, titanium and ceramic material, milling machine, and associated tooling and accessories. The proposed change is to allow the subject devices to be designed using AbutmentCAD by exocad GmbH, the current workflow allows only the use of 3Shape by 3Shape A/S for the design software. Another purpose of this submission is to expand the design parameters to allow angulation (up to 30°) on Pre-milled (Blank) Abutments that are compatible with Neodent Grand Morse, Nobel Active/Nobel Parallel Conical 3.0 mm, and Straumann BLX implants. There are no changes to the abutment design or implant compatibilities. All part numbers have been cleared for manufacturing via a validated milling center and digital dentistry workflows in under K221301.

The subject device DESS Dental Solutions abutments provide a range of prosthetic solutions for dental implant restoration. DESS abutments are offered in a variety of connection types to enable compatibility with currently marketed dental implants. All abutments are provided non-sterile, and each abutment is supplied with the appropriate abutment screw (if applicable) for attachment to the corresponding implant.

Subject device Base Abutments are designed for fabrication of a patient-specific CAD/CAM zirconia superstructure on which a crown may be placed. They are two-piece abutments for which the second part (or top half) is the ceramic superstructure. They also may be used for support of a crown directly on the abutment.

All patient-specific custom abutment fabrication for Base Abutments and Pre-milled (Blank) Abutments is by prescription on the order of the clinician. The subject device Pre-milled (Blank) Abutments and all zirconia superstructures for use with the subject device Ti Base Interface, DESS Aurum Base, ELLIPTIBase, and DESS C-Base will be manufactured using a validated milling center or a digital dentistry workflow. A validated milling center will be under FDA quality system regulations. The digital dentistry workflow scans files from intra-oral and lab (desktop) scanners, CAD software, titanium and ceramic material, milling machine and associated tooling and accessories.

The digital dentistry workflow uses scan files from intra-oral and lab (desktop) scanners, CAD software, CAM software, ceramic material, milling machine and associated tooling and accessories. The digital workflow includes the following products (not subject devices of this submission):

• Ceramic material: VITA YZ ST and VITA YZ XT (K180703)
• . Cement: Ivoclar Vivadent Multilink Hybrid Abutment Cement (K130436)
• . Intraoral Scanner: 3Shape TRIOS A/S Series Intraoral Scanner (510(k) exempt under 21 CFR 872.3661)
• Desktop scanner: 3Shape D900 Dental Lab Scanner (510(k) exempt under 21 CFR 872.3661)
• Abutment design software: 3Shape Abutment Designer Software (K151455) and AbutmentCAD ● (K193352)
• . Milling machine: VHF R5 by vhf camfacture AG with DentalCAM and DentalCNC 7 software

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for DESS Dental Smart Solutions, which are dental implant abutments. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving a device's effectiveness through clinical performance studies with specific statistical acceptance criteria for accuracy, sensitivity, or specificity.

Therefore, the document does not contain the information requested regarding:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance (in terms of clinical metrics like accuracy, sensitivity, specificity).
• Sample size used for the test set or its provenance.
• Number of experts used to establish ground truth or their qualifications.
• Adjudication method for the test set.
• Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study or its effect size.
• Standalone (algorithm only) performance.
• Type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data).
• Sample size for the training set.
• How the ground truth for the training set was established.

The study described in this document focuses on non-clinical performance data to demonstrate substantial equivalence, specifically:

1. Sterilization validation: According to ISO 17665-1, ISO 17665-2, and ISO 14937.
2. Biocompatibility testing: According to ISO 10993-5 and ISO 10993-12.
3. Fatigue testing and reverse engineering analysis: Of OEM implant bodies, OEM abutments, and OEM abutment screws to confirm compatibility. This includes fatigue testing of OEM implant bodies with patient-specific abutments made at worst-case angled conditions.
4. MR Conditional labeling.
5. Validation testing of CAM restriction zones: Including verification to show avoidance of damage or modifications of the connection geometry, and locking of restriction zones from user editing in the CAM software.
6. Software verification: Included testing of restrictions that prevent design of components outside of the stated design parameters. The abutment design library was validated to demonstrate that established design limitations and specifications are locked and cannot be modified by the user.

The acceptance criteria and reported "performance" for this submission are based on these engineering and design validations, ensuring the device meets safety and performance standards equivalent to the predicate device, K221301. The key "performance" metrics are about maintaining physical and material integrity and compatibility.

The core of the submission is to expand the DESS Dental Smart Solutions abutment system to:

• Allow design using AbutmentCAD software (in addition to 3Shape software).
• Add angulation (up to 30°) to some Pre-milled (Blank) Abutments for specific implant systems.

The document explicitly states: "No clinical data were included in this submission." and "The subject device, the predicate device, and reference devices have the same intended use, technological characteristics, and are materials. The subject device, the predicate device, and reference devices encompass the same range of physical dimensions, manufactured by similar methods, are packaged in similar materials, and are to be sterilized using similar methods. The data included in this submission demonstrate substantial equivalence to the predicate devices listed above."

Therefore, this FDA submission is for a physical medical device (dental implant abutment) and its manufacturing/design software modifications, not an AI or diagnostic device that would involve clinical performance metrics like sensitivity or specificity.

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

MIST IC abutments are intended for use to support a prosthetic device in a partially or completely edentulous patient. They are intended to support a single-unit or multi-unit, cement retained prosthesis in the mandible or maxilla. MIST IC abutments are compatible for use with the following implants:

All digitally designed custom abutments for use with MIST IC abutments are to be sent to an Imagine Milling Technologies validated milling center for manufacture.

MIST IC abutments for Biomet 3i Certain 3.25 mm implant bodies are indicated for maxillary lateral and mandbular central/lateral incisors only.

MIST IC from Imagine Milling Technologies, LLC is a line of Ti-base and machinable blank abutments to interface with compatible dental implants from 3 manufacturers, a total of 14 implant-abutment interface compatibilities. The compatible implant body diameters range from 3.25 mm to 6.0 mm and the corresponding implant platform diameters range from 3.4 mm. The subject device prosthetic platform diameters range from 3.8 mm. All stock subject device components (abutments and abutment screws) are made of titanium alloy conforming to ASTM F136. The subject device MIST IC L-LINK abutments have a TiN coating achieved through a physical vapor deposition (PVD) process that is identical to the process used for TiN coating of Imagine Milling Technologies, LLC devices cleared in K 182246. The PVD cathodic arc evaporation process is a high current, low voltage process in which material evaporated from the cathode (Ti) is ionized, transported through the vacuum chamber with reactive gas (N2) and deposited as a non-porous, thin film on the titanium substrate.

Each abutment is supplied with the non-sterile abutment screw designed for attachment to the corresponding compatible OEM implant.

All patient-specific abutment fabrication for all MIST IC abutments is by prescription on the order of the clinician. All MIST IC abutments are intended to be milled at an Imagine Milling Technologies, LLC validated milling center under FDA quality system regulations.

MIST IC L-LINK abutments are two-piece abutments to be used as a base when fabricating a CAD-CAM customized restoration where the superstructure produced will compose the second part of the two-piece abutment; the assembly becoming a final finished medical device after cementation on the subject device abutment. They are provided in straight designs, with engaging and non-engaging connections. The L-LNK abutments and corresponding zirconia superstructure are provided to the clinician either with the superstructure cemented to the abutment by the dental laboratory, or separately for the clinician to bond together chairside using the cement recommended in the labeling (RelyX RMGIP bonding cement, cleared in K022476).

Design parameters for the L-LINK zirconia superstructure are: Minimum wall thickness - 0.5 mm Minimum post height for single-unit restoration - 4.0 mm Minimum gingival height of the coping - 0 mm (all L-LINK bases have minimum gingival height of 0.5 mm) Maximum gingival height – 5.0 mm Maximum angle - 20°

All zirconia copings (superstructures) for use with the subject device MIST IC L-LINK abutments will conform to ISO 13356.

MIST IC PREFIT abutments are cylindrical abutments designed for patient-specific abutment fabrication by a CAD-CAM process and machined into a one-piece, all titanium abutment. The portion of the abutment available for milling is either 9.9 mm in diameter by 20 mm in diameter by 20 mm in diameter by 20 mm in length. MIST IC PREFIT abutments have an engaging connection.

Design parameters for the PREFIT patient specific abutment are: Minimum wall thickness - 0.5 mm Minimum post height for single-unit restoration - 4.0 mm Minimum gingival height - 0.5 mm Maximum gingival height - 5.0 mm Maximum angle - 30°

The provided text describes the regulatory clearance of a dental device, "MIST IC." It outlines the device's intended use and compares it to a predicate device. However, it does not contain explicit information about acceptance criteria or a specific study proving the device meets those criteria, especially in the context of AI performance.

This document focuses on establishing substantial equivalence for regulatory purposes, relying heavily on non-clinical testing and comparison to an existing predicate device. The information provided is primarily relevant to the safety and mechanical performance of the dental implant abutments, not AI/algorithm performance.

Therefore, many of the requested fields cannot be directly answered from the provided text.

Here's a breakdown of what can and cannot be extracted from the document based on your request:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state acceptance criteria in terms of numerical thresholds or performance metrics for an AI algorithm. Instead, it lists non-clinical tests performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence to the predicate device and ensure safety and efficacy.

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

This information is not provided in the document. The document refers to "non-clinical testing data" but does not detail the sample sizes for these tests or the provenance of any data beyond indicating it's for dental implant abutment compatibility and mechanical strength. There is no mention of an "AI test set."

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

This information is not provided. The document describes mechanical performance and material compatibility testing, not a study requiring expert-established ground truth for an AI algorithm.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not provided. As no "test set" for AI or expert review is mentioned, adjudication methods are not applicable here.

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. The document explicitly states: "No clinical data were included in this submission." This type of study typically involves human readers and is clinical in nature.

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

The document describes a physical medical device (dental implant abutments) and its mechanical and material properties. There is no mention of an AI algorithm or standalone algorithm performance.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

For the non-clinical tests mentioned, the "ground truth" is established by objective engineering standards and validated testing protocols (e.g., ISO 14801 for mechanical testing, ISO 10993 for biocompatibility). There is no "expert consensus," "pathology," or "outcomes data" as ground truth for an AI in this context.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not provided. There is no mention of a training set as the document does not concern an AI algorithm.

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

This information is not provided as there is no mention of a training set or AI algorithm in the provided text.

Summary of what the document IS about:

The document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the MIST IC dental abutment. It establishes substantial equivalence to a predicate device (K182246) based on:

• Non-clinical testing: Biocompatibility, sterilization, MR compatibility, reverse engineering for compatibility, and static/dynamic compression-bending.
• Material properties: Both subject and predicate devices are made of Titanium Alloy (ASTM F136), with TiN coating for L-LINK abutments, and use zirconia copings (ISO 13356) and the same bonding cement (RelyX RMGIP).
• Design similarities: Similar CAD-CAM fabrication process, restoration types (single/multi-unit, cement-retained), and design parameters (minimum wall thickness, post height, gingival height, angulation).
• Intended Use: Supports a prosthetic device in partially or completely edentulous patients, compatible with various specified implant systems.

The text does not discuss, describe, or evaluate any AI component of the device.

Ask a specific question about this device

MINICONE are dental implants that are intended for the stabilization of removable dentures.

MINICONE Implants ø2.6 mm are suitable for oral endosteal implantation in the upper and lower jaw of fully or partially edentulous patients. The implants can be placed with immediate function when good primary stability is achieved. Furthermore, they are to be used in combination with the corresponding prosthetic Optiloc® matrix system and individual new or existing Optiloc® compatible overdentures or partial dentures.

For mandibular restorations, at least 4 MINICONE Implants should be placed.

For maxillary restorations, at least 6 MINICONE Implants should be placed.

MINICONE consists of 2 MINICONE tapered implants with an external diameter of 2.6 mm and lengths of 10 and 12 mm, as well as related accessories.

The implants are manufactured utilizing Titanium Grade 5 ELI material (Ti-4Al-6V) and are finished with a roughened surface (sandblasted/acid etched). The implant neck is machined, and the attachment element of the implants is acting as a retention feature for dentures. This retention feature is coated using a Titanium Nitride (TiN) to obtain a more wear resistant surface and has the Optiloc® geometry which is connected to the denture.

MINICONE Implants Ø2.6mm are suitable for oral endosteal implantation in the upper and lower jaw of fully or partially edentulous patients.

The implants can be placed with immediate function when good primary stability is achieved. The MINICONE implants are intended for the stabilization of removable dentures. The removable dentures are connected to the MINICONE implants through the incorporated Optiloc® attachment element.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the MINICONE Implant, a dental device. It does not contain information about a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria related to AI/algorithm performance. The information provided is for a traditional medical device, specifically an endosseous dental implant, and focuses on performance testing for mechanical properties and sterilization.

Therefore, many of the requested categories for AI/algorithm-related studies cannot be answered from the provided text.

Here's a breakdown of the information that can be extracted from the document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

This information is not provided in the document. The document describes the types of engineering and mechanical tests performed (insertion torque, wear, fatigue), but does not specify sample sizes for these tests, nor the "data provenance" in the context of clinical/imaging data as typically asked for AI 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)

This information is not applicable as the document describes performance testing for a physical medical device (dental implant), not an AI algorithm that requires expert ground truth for interpretation of images or other data.

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

This information is not applicable as the document describes performance testing for a physical medical device, not an AI algorithm requiring adjudication of interpretations.

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 information is not applicable as the document describes performance testing for a physical medical device, not an AI algorithm that would be used in conjunction with human readers.

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

This information is not applicable as the document describes performance testing for a physical medical device, not an AI algorithm.

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

This information is not applicable in the context of AI studies. For the engineering tests performed:

• Insertion Torque, Wear, Fatigue: Ground truth is established by measured physical properties against established industry standards (e.g., ISO 14801) and comparison to predicate devices, rather than expert consensus on interpretations of data.
• Biocompatibility: Ground truth is based on the known, previously cleared status of the materials (Titanium Grade 5 ELI and TiN coating).
• Sterilization: Ground truth is established by validated processes against microbiological standards (SAL of 10-6 according to ISO 11137-1 and -2).
• Shelf Life: Ground truth is established by accelerated aging tests projecting real-time performance.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable as the document describes performance testing for a physical medical device, not an AI algorithm that requires a training set.

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

This information is not applicable as the document describes performance testing for a physical medical device, not an AI algorithm that requires a training set with ground truth.

Ask a specific question about this device

Alpha Dent Implants Dental Implants System is intended for surgical placement in the maxillary and/or mandbular arch, to support crowns, bridges, or over dentures, in edentulous patients. It is intended to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, and to restore the patient's chewing function. The System is intended to be used in either single tooth or multiple teeth applications. The prostheses can be screw or cement retained to the abutment. The Alpha Dent Implants Dental Implants System is indicated also for immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading.

The Alpha Dent Implants Dental Implants System consists of one or two stage endosseous form dental implants, internal hexagonal and one piece implants system. Abutments are used in conjunction with an endosseous dental implant fixture to aid in prosthetic rehabilitation. The implantation procedure can be accomplished in a one-stage surgical operation for all implants type beside the INTEGRAL which is for one stage only. The system includes two-piece implant families: Active, Active Plus, and Classic, and a one-piece implant family: Integral. The system also includes prosthetic components such as healing caps, straight and angular abutments, titanium esthetic abutments, multi-unit abutments, ball attachments, and accessories.

The Alpha Dent Implants Dental Implants System has been assessed for acceptance criteria through a series of non-clinical tests.

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

The provided document does not specify exact sample sizes for each of the non-clinical tests (biocompatibility, surface analysis, sterilization validation, pyrogenicity, shelf life, and fatigue testing). It generally refers to "test articles" being used. The data provenance is derived from non-clinical laboratory studies conducted by the manufacturer and an independent testing laboratory. The country of origin of the data is not explicitly stated, but the standards cited are international (ISO, ASTM, ANSI/AAMI).

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

This section is not applicable as the acceptance criteria and study detailed are based on objective non-clinical performance data and adherence to specified international standards, rather than expert judgment or interpretation of medical images or patient outcomes.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This section is not applicable as the acceptance criteria are based on objective measurements and adherence to pre-defined technical standards, not on subjective assessment or adjudication by multiple evaluators.

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

No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not conducted. This is a non-clinical evaluation focusing on the physical and mechanical properties of the dental implant system.

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

This section is not applicable as the device is a dental implant system, not an AI algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests was established through:

• International Standards: Adherence to specific requirements outlined in standards like ASTM F 136 (material), ISO 10993-5 (biocompatibility), ANSI/AAMI/ISO 11137-1, EN ISO 11137-2 (sterilization), USP , (pyrogenicity), ASTM-F-1980, ISO 11607-1 (shelf life), and ISO 14801:07 (fatigue testing).
• Predicate Device Equivalence: Performance was compared to legally marketed predicate devices, demonstrating "substantial equivalence" in terms of design, materials, and performance characteristics.
• Objective Measurements: Laboratory measurements such as microscopy for surface morphology (SEM), elemental analysis (EDS), and force/cycle counts for fatigue testing.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This section is not applicable as the device is a dental implant system, not an AI algorithm that requires a training set.

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

This section is not applicable for the same reason as above.

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 Aurum™ Abutment or Pre-milled Blank are to be sent to a Terrats Medical validated milling center for manufacture.

DESS Dental Smart Solutions subject devices include four abutment design types (Aurum Base, Pre-milled Blank, CoCr Pre-milled Blank, CoCr Abutment) and one screw type (Aurum Base Screw). Abutments are provided in ten abutment connections compatible with eleven implant platform diameters range from 3.3 mm to 6.5 mm. Corresponding implant body diameters range from 3.25 mm to 6.0 mm. All abutments are provided non-sterile.

The document describes the DESS Dental Smart Solutions, which are dental implant abutments. The submission aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices.

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

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria in a typical tabular format with specific numerical targets. Instead, it relies on demonstrating equivalence to predicate devices through various performance tests and comparisons. The "acceptance criteria" are implied by the successful completion of these tests and the determination that the device is "substantially equivalent" to already marketed devices.

However, some design parameters are mentioned as remaining the same or being comparable to the predicate devices, which can be seen as implicit performance criteria:

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

The document states: "Non-clinical testing data submitted to demonstrate substantial equivalence included: sterilization... biological evaluation... and compatibility analysis by reference to K170588."

• The report does not specify sample sizes for the sterilization or biocompatibility tests.
• The data provenance is implied to be from the manufacturer's (Terrats Medical SL) internal testing as part of their submission for regulatory clearance. It's not explicitly stated whether the data is retrospective or prospective, or the country of origin of the raw data, beyond the manufacturer being from Spain. The "compatibility analysis by reference" means using existing data/information from the predicate device (K170588).

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

This type of information – number and qualifications of experts for ground truth – is typically relevant for studies involving subjective assessments, like image interpretation in AI/ML medical devices. This document is for a physical dental implant abutment, and the tests performed are objective, non-clinical tests (sterilization, biocompatibility, mechanical properties based on design parameters). Therefore, this information is not applicable and not provided in the submission.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

As the tests are objective non-clinical tests, an adjudication method for a "test set" (in the context of expert review) is not applicable and not mentioned. The results of the non-clinical tests would either meet or not meet the specified standards (e.g., SAL, non-cytotoxicity).

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 type of study is specifically relevant for AI/ML-driven diagnostic or interpretative devices involving human readers. The device described here is a physical dental implant abutment, not an AI/ML diagnostic tool.

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 not an AI/ML device. The "CAD/CAM process" mentioned refers to computer-aided design and manufacturing for custom abutments, which is a manufacturing process, not an analytical algorithm for diagnosis or interpretation.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

For the non-clinical tests conducted:

• Sterilization: The ground truth is the scientific standard for sterility, defined as a Sterility Assurance Level (SAL) of $10^{-6}$ based on ISO 17665-1 and ISO 17665-2.
• Biocompatibility: The ground truth is the absence of cytotoxicity, determined by adherence to ISO 10993-1 and ISO 10993-5.
• Design Parameters/Mechanical Equivalence: The "ground truth" for design parameters (e.g., wall thickness, post height) is derived from engineering specifications and comparison to the proven safety and effectiveness of the legally marketed predicate devices (K170588 and other reference devices). The ultimate ground truth effectively is that the device performs equivalently to previously approved devices.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This device is a physical medical device, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a "training set" of data.

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

Not applicable. As this is not an AI/ML device, there is no training set or associated ground truth establishment process in that context.

Ask a specific question about this device

Rodo Abutment System is intended to be used in conjunction with compatible implant systems in the maxillary or mandibular arch to provide support for crowns, bridges or overdentures.

The Rodo Abutment System includes the Rodo Abutment, Smileloc Sleeve, Silicone Seal, Titanium Coping, Temporary Cap, abutment screws, and Smileloc Activator (or Smileloc Remover). The Smileloc Sleeve is used to lock and unlock the Titanium Coping for final restoration to or from the abutment. This makes the prosthesis removable.

Rodo Abutment is provided in five series designs (100 F. 200 P. 300 S. 400 M. 500 D) with the 200 P and 500 D series having angled abutments (17°, 30°), for a total of nine designs. The 200 P and 500 D series are designed for multi-unit restorations only, the 300 S series is designed for limited occlusal space, and the 400 M series is designed for large interproximal spaces. Abutments are available in sizes ranging from 0 3.0 mm depending on the compatible implant system in use. Designs are available with engaging and non-engaging implant-abutment interfaces.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the Rodo Abutment System, a dental device. It outlines the device's indications for use, its classification, and a comparison to predicate devices, but does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study designed to prove the device meets specific performance criteria in terms of algorithm-based metrics (like sensitivity, specificity, or AUC) as would be typical for an AI/ML device.

The closest information available that might relate to "acceptance criteria" for a medical device (not specifically an AI/ML device) typically involves demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device through various tests and comparisons.

Here's an analysis based on the provided document, addressing the requested points:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

As this is a 510(k) submission for a physical dental abutment system and not an AI/ML device, there are no specific performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy mentioned as "acceptance criteria" for an algorithm. Instead, the "performance" is demonstrated through various non-clinical and clinical tests to show safety and effectiveness and substantial equivalence to predicate devices.

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

• Sample Size (Clinical Trial): 34 subjects were enrolled, 32 subjects received Rodo Abutments and restorations. Out of these, 3 subjects received 4 abutments each as part of full arch treatment, resulting in a total of 41 Rodo Abutments placed and restored.
• Data Provenance: The document states, "A prospective multi-center clinical trial... was conducted under an Investigational Device Exemption study according to FDA guidelines." This indicates it's prospective data. The document does not explicitly state the country of origin, but given the FDA submission context, it's presumed to be a US-based study or at least data acceptable for US regulatory purposes.

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

This information is not provided in the document. For a physical device like a dental abutment, "ground truth" might refer to clinical outcomes assessed by trained dental professionals, but the study description does not detail the number or qualifications of experts involved in assessing device performance or generating the "ground truth" of safety and effectiveness outcomes beyond the medical staff conducting the trial.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not provided in the document. Adjudication methods (like 2+1 or 3+1) are typically relevant for studies where multiple readers interpret data and discrepancies need to be resolved, which is common in imaging studies for AI/ML devices. For a clinical trial of a physical implant, such a method for "test set" adjudication is not typically described in this manner.

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is specific to evaluating diagnostic performance, often of AI/ML systems or diagnostic tests, comparing multiple readers' interpretations of cases. The Rodo Abutment System is a physical dental device.

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

No, a standalone algorithm performance study was not done. The Rodo Abutment System is a physical dental device, not an algorithm or AI system.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

For the clinical study, the "ground truth" for evaluating the Rodo Abutment System's safety and effectiveness was based on clinical outcomes data from human subjects who received the device. This included:

• Observation of adverse events (e.g., abutment screw loosening, crown separation, non-device related events).
• The overall clinical assessment that the system "provides an appropriate method of attaching prosthetic restorations to dental implant abutments" and "if necessary, it allows repeated removal of the restoration."

For non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" was based on engineering standards and direct measurement/testing results (e.g., SAL for sterility, acceptable ranges for biocompatibility, mechanical strength, corrosion resistance).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This product is a physical medical device, not an AI/ML algorithm. Therefore, there is no "training set" in the context of machine learning. The clinical and non-clinical data collected serve as validation for the device's design and manufacturing rather than training an algorithm.

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

As there is no training set for an AI/ML algorithm, this question is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

NOVA® Dental Implants System is 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. NOVA® Dental Implants System is indicated also for immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading.

NOVA® Dental Implants System consists of internal hex dental implants. cover screws and healing caps; abutments system and superstructures; impression copy system & surgical instruments.

Internal hex implants:-

PSI implants are provided in diameters: 3.3, 3.75, 4.2, 5 & 6 with lengths 8, 10, 11.5, 13, & 16 mm. (16 mm is not provided for 6 mm diameter).

PCI implants are provided in diameters: 3.3, 3.75, 4.2, 5 & 6 with lengths 8, 10, 11.5, 13, & 16 mm. (16 mm is not provided for 6 mm diameter).

NOVA Dental Abutments internal hex system provides:

Healing Caps:

HC Series - Narrow (3.75 mm) - Platform height 2,3,4,5,6,7

HC Series - Standard (4.7 mm) - Platform height 2.3.4.5.6.7

HCW Series - Wide (6.00 mm) - Platform height 3,4,5,6

PMI Series - Premium (3.75, 4.7, 6.0 mm) - Platform height 2,3,4,5,6,7

Straight Abutments (Long, straight, narrow, anatomic, curve):

ST Series: Length 8.5, 9.5, 11.5, 12.5 mm.

STA Series: With Shoulder profile height 1, Length 9 mm; profile height 2, Length 10; profile height 3, Length 11; profile height 4 Length 12.

STN: Narrow length 11 mm.

SLM Series: Anatomic Straight Abutment: profile height 1,2,3 length 9,10,11 mm.

SCM Series: Anatomic Straight Abutment: profile height 1.2.3 length 9.10.11 mm.

Angulated Abutments (standard, anatomic, curve):

Standard Angulated Abutment Length 7,9,11 Angulations 15°, 25°.

Anatomic Angulated Abutments Platform height 1,2,3,4 Angulations 15°, 25°.

Anatomic Angulated Curve Platform height 1,2,3, Angulations 15°, 25° .

Ball Attachments Platform height 1.2.3.4.5.6 and related components covers and caps.

Material:

NOVA® Dental Implants System and Dental Abutments System is made of Titanium alloy (Ti-6AI-4V ELI) that conforms to ASTM F136.

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the NOVA® Dental Implants System. It aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices, rather than establishing new acceptance criteria or proving performance through a clinical study.

Therefore, many of the requested details about acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets those criteria are not available in this document. This submission focuses on demonstrating that the new device is as safe and effective as existing, predicate devices by comparing their characteristics and performance through non-clinical testing.

Here's what can be extracted and inferred from the document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Since this is a substantial equivalence submission, formal "acceptance criteria" for a new, standalone clinical study are not explicitly stated for individual performance metrics in the way you might find in an efficacy trial. Instead, the "acceptance" is based on the new device's performance being comparable to or meeting standards similar to the predicate devices, as demonstrated through various tests.

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

• Sample Size: Not applicable. This submission relies on engineering bench tests and comparisons to predicate devices, not patient-based test sets.
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin for the data used in the biocompatibility, sterilization, or mechanical tests, nor does it refer to retrospective or prospective patient data. This is a non-clinical submission.

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

Not applicable. "Ground truth" in the context of expert consensus or pathology data is used for clinical studies diagnosing a condition. This document is for a dental implant system being cleared via substantial equivalence, which primarily involves engineering, material, and biocompatibility testing.

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

Not applicable. Adjudication methods are typically for clinical performance evaluations, especially for diagnostic devices.

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 premarket notification for a physical medical device (dental implants), not an AI-powered diagnostic tool. No MRMC study was performed.

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

Not applicable. This device is a physical dental implant and abutment system, not an algorithm or software. No standalone algorithm performance was studied.

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

The compliance of the device with established international standards (ISO 7405, ISO 5832-3, ISO 14801, ISO 14971), and the direct comparison of its design, materials, and intended use against already cleared predicate devices, serves as the basis for "truth" in this regulatory context of substantial equivalence. This is primarily engineering and material science compliance with standards, and logical deduction for equivalence to predicate devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

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

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

Not applicable. As there is no training set, there is no ground truth established for one.

Ask a specific question about this device