Search Results

Simultaneous use of GBR-membrane (MUCOGRAFT®) and implants; covering of implants placed in immediate extraction sockets; covering of implants placed in delayed extraction sockets; localized ridge augmentation for later implantation; alveolar ridge reconstruction for prosthetic treatment; covering of bone defects after root resection; cystectomy, removal of retained teeth; guided bone regeneration in dehiscence defects; guided tissue regeneration procedures in periodontal and recession defects.

MUCOGRAFT® is a pure collagen membrane obtained by a standardized controlled manufacturing process. The membrane is made of collagen type I and type III without further cross-linking or chemical treatment. The collagen is extracted from veterinary certified pigs and is carefully purified to avoid antigenic reactions. MUCOGRAFT® is sterilized in double blisters by gamma irradiation. MUCOGRAFT® has a bilayer structure with one smooth, non-permeable layer and one porous. The "outer," smooth side has a smooth surface which is cell occlusive and prevents cell adhesion and acts as a barrier. It allows tissue adherence favoring wound healing. It is made from the peritoneum of pigs. This side is turned towards the soft tissue. The smooth texture has appropriate elastic properties to accommodate suturing to the host mucosal margins and to protect the graft material from oral trauma during biodegradation and healing. The "inner" porous layer consists of collagen fibers in a loose, porous arrangement to enable cell invasion. This porous layer is made from pig skin. This side is turned toward the bone defect and/or soft tissue to encourage bone-forming cells and tissue growth and to stabilize the blood clot.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the MUCOGRAFT® Collagen Matrix, focusing on establishing substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than presenting a standalone study with specific acceptance criteria and performance data for a new device.

Therefore, many of the requested sections about acceptance criteria, study details, expert consensus, and ground truth establishment cannot be fully answered based on the provided document. The document primarily compares the new MUCOGRAFT® Collagen Matrix to its predicate device (MUCOGRAFT® Resorbable Bilayer Membrane) based on existing characteristics and manufacturing changes, not new performance data.

Here's what can be extracted and what information is missing:

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

The document does not explicitly state acceptance criteria in the context of a performance study for the new MUCOGRAFT® Collagen Matrix beyond maintaining the characteristics of its predicate. Instead, it compares the characteristics of the proposed device to the predicate device.

Note on "Acceptance Criteria": In this context, the "acceptance criteria" are implied by the substantial equivalence argument – the new device must demonstrate similar characteristics to the predicate device to be considered equally safe and effective. The "reported device performance" are the characteristics of the new device that align with or are minor variations of the predicate.

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

Not explicitly provided. The document refers to "all data submitted in the previous notification and clearance of BIO-GIDE® (K042197) and MUCOGRAFT® Resorbable Bilayer Membrane (K061244)." This indicates reliance on previously cleared data, not new, specific performance study data for the new MUCOGRAFT® Collagen Matrix.

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/Not provided. The document does not describe a study involving expert assessment of a test set to establish ground truth for the new device. The substantial equivalence argument relies on the inherent properties and established safety/efficacy of the predicate devices.

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

Not applicable/Not provided. There is no described test set or adjudication method.

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 document describes a medical device (collagen matrix) for guided tissue and bone regeneration, not an AI-assisted diagnostic or interpretive system. Therefore, an MRMC study or AI-related effectiveness is irrelevant.

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

Not applicable. As above, this is not an AI algorithm.

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

Implied ground truth: The "ground truth" for the substantial equivalence claim is the established safety and efficacy of the predicate devices (MUCOGRAFT® and BIO-GIDE®) based on their previous clearances (K012423, K061244, K960724, K042197, K050446). This would have likely involved a combination of biocompatibility testing, mechanical testing, and potentially animal or clinical outcomes data for those predicate devices, but these details are not provided for the current submission.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable/Not provided. This is not an AI system, so there is no training set in that sense. If "training set" refers to data used to initially establish the predicate devices, that is not detailed here.

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

Not applicable/Not provided. As above, this is not an AI system.

Ask a specific question about this device