Search Results

The K3Pro® Konus New Abutments and Implants are designed to be compatible with the K3Pro® Konus Dental Implant system and are for use in edentulous sites in the maxilla for support of a complete denture prosthesis, a final or intermediate abutment for fixed bridgework or for partial dentures, or as a single tooth replacement. Delayed loading is recommended.

The Ø7, 8, and 9mm implants are intended only for implantation in the maxillary or mandibular molar region where bone exists and the surgeon has determined that the placement of a narrower diameter implant would increase the probability of failure due to poor primary stability, or increased surgical procedures leading to complications.

All digitally designed abutments for use with K3Pro® New Abutments and Implants are intended to be sent to an Argon validated milling center for manufacture.

The K3Pro® Konus New Abutments and Implants are components of the K3Pro® Konus Dental Implant System. The submission includes new implant bodies (7.0mm and 8.0mm diameter, 3.0mm platform, 8.0 to 11.0mm length) made of Grade 4 titanium with Osteo-Active™ surface treatment, and additional Ti-Base abutments (KSA, CG.V, and CS) in 2.0mm and 3.0mm platform diameters made of Grade 5 Ti-6Al 4V-ELI. The abutments are designed to fit and function only on previously cleared K3Pro® Konus Dental Implants (K141159, K160581) and the implants submitted in this submission. They have the same Konus connection and are screw retained. Abutment screws are made of Grade 4 titanium. All devices are for single use only. Digitally designed abutments are intended for fabrication of patient-specific abutments using FDA cleared CAD/CAM technology and manufactured by an Argon Medical Productions validated milling center. Zirconium coping and/or crown for Ti-Base abutments are made of ZrO2 and luted with an FDA cleared cement.

The provided text does not describe acceptance criteria for a device's performance, nor does it detail a study that proves the device meets such criteria.

Instead, the document is a 510(k) premarket notification letter from the FDA regarding the K3Pro® Konus New Abutments and Implants. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices, rather than establishing new performance criteria or conducting studies to meet specific acceptance thresholds.

The document discusses:

• Indications for Use: What the device is intended for.
• Technological Characteristics: How the device is similar to predicate devices in terms of materials, design, and manufacturing.
• Non-Clinical Testing: A list of tests performed (e.g., sterilization validation, biocompatibility, fatigue testing) to show that the new device performs similarly and safely to the predicate devices. These are equivalence tests, not performance tests against specified acceptance criteria.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information as it is not present in the given text. The document explicitly states: "No animal testing or human clinical trials have been conducted." and focuses on "similarities between the predicate and proposed devices" and "non-clinical performance to the predicates listed" to support substantial equivalence.

Ask a specific question about this device

BioHorizons Tapered IM Implants are intended for use in the mandible or maxilla as an artificial root structure for single tooth replacement or for fixed bridgework and dental retention. The implants may be restored immediately (1) with a temporary prosthesis that is not in functional occlusion or (2) when splinted together for multiple tooth replacement or when stabilized with an overdenture supported by multiple implants.

The BioHorizons Tapered IM Implants are machined titanium, screw-form endosseous dental implants supplied in 7.0mm and 8.0mm diameters. Both implants include a 5.7mm prosthetic platform. The implants are provided in 7.5mm, 9.0mm and 10.5mm lengths across both diameters. Implant material is titanium alloy as specified in ASTM F136 Standard Specification for Wrought Titanium-6Aluminum-4Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) Alloy (UNS R56401) for Surqical Implant Applications. The devices are further processed by roughening the threaded surface with Resorbable Blast Texture (RBT) media (hydroxylapatite) and by micro-machining grooves, known as Laser-Loke microchannels, on the implant collar. The product is packaged using materials known in the industry to be appropriate for medical device packaging and is provided with a minimum sterility assurance level of 10°, validated in compliance with ANSI/AAMI/ISO 11137-1 Sterilization of healthcare products -- Radiation -- Part 1: Requirements for development, validation and routine control of a sterilization process for medical devices.

The provided document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from the FDA for a dental implant device. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices, rather than presenting a performance study with acceptance criteria in the typical sense of a human-in-the-loop or standalone AI/software study.

Therefore, many of the requested points regarding acceptance criteria and performance study details (like sample size, number of experts, adjudication, MRMC, standalone performance, training data, etc.) are not applicable to this type of submission. This document describes a medical device (a dental implant), not a diagnostic AI or imaging device that would typically involve such performance metrics and studies.

However, I can extract the relevant information pertaining to the "acceptance criteria" and "study" as presented in the context of this 510(k) submission, which are focused on physical and mechanical properties of the implant and demonstrating its safety and effectiveness through substantial equivalence.

Here's a breakdown based on the provided document:

Relevance of the Document to the Request:

This document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification for a dental implant (a physical medical device). The primary objective of a 510(k) submission is to demonstrate that the new device is substantially equivalent (SE) to a legally marketed predicate device, meaning it is as safe and effective as the predicate. This is different from a clinical trial or performance study typically conducted for AI/software-as-a-medical-device (SaMD) where metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or reader accuracy are paramount.

Therefore, many of the questions asked in the prompt, which are highly relevant to SaMD performance studies, are not directly addressed or applicable in this document about a physical dental implant.

Acceptance Criteria and Study for BioHorizons Tapered IM Implants (based on provided text):

The "acceptance criteria" and "study" in this context refer to the engineering and quality control measures to demonstrate the new implant's mechanical integrity, material compatibility, and manufacturing consistency, primarily by comparing it to already cleared predicate devices.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

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

• Test Set (for dimensional assessment): Not explicitly stated as a numerical sample size. It refers to "the worst-case subject Tapered IM implant device (smallest implant body diameter combined with the shortest implant length)." This implies a single representative sample was chosen for a comparative dimensional analysis, demonstrating a specific design characteristic rather than a statistical test on a batch.
• Test Set (for mechanical fatigue): Not explicitly stated for the subject device. For the predicate devices, which were used to establish equivalence, the test involved the "worst-case 3.8mm x 15mm Tapered Internal Plus implant assembled with a 3.0mm Angled Esthetic Abutment" and "the worst-case 3.8mm x 15mm Tapered Internal implant assembled with a 3.5mm Angled Custom Abutment." The phrase "three consecutive fatigue runouts" suggests at least three samples of the predicate devices were tested to 5 million cycles.
• Data Provenance: The data are from BioHorizons Implant Systems, Inc., a U.S.-based company. The studies referenced (dimensional assessment, retrospective mechanical testing, sterilization validation, endotoxin testing, material conformity) are internal or industry-standard tests; the document implies typical
  • Retrospective for the mechanical testing of the predicate devices (data was already available from previous 510(k)s).
  • Prospective/Current Quality Control for endotoxin testing, sterilization validation, and the dimensional assessment of the subject device.

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

• Not Applicable. This document pertains to the physical and mechanical properties of a dental implant, not a diagnostic task requiring expert human interpretation of data/images to establish ground truth for a test set. Ground truth for these tests is based on engineering measurements, physical endurance testing, chemical analysis, and microbiological validation, conforming to industry standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM, USP).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Not Applicable. As above, no human "adjudication" in the sense of reconciling clinical interpretations is required for physical and mechanical testing of a device. The results are from quantifiable measurements and standard methods.

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 510(k) for a physical dental implant, not an AI/software device that would involve human readers or AI assistance.

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

• Not Applicable. This is not an algorithm or software device. The "standalone performance" here refers to the device's physical performance (e.g., strength, material properties) as demonstrated through engineering tests.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

• The "ground truth" for the device's performance is established through:
  • Engineering Specifications and Measurements: For dimensional assessment (wall thickness).
  • Mechanical Testing Standards: For fatigue testing (meeting ISO 14801 standards and surviving specified cycles).
  • Material Standards and Chemical Analysis: For material composition (ASTM F136).
  • Sterilization Standards and Validation: For sterility (ANSI/AAMI/ISO 11137-1).
  • Microbiological Standards: For endotoxin levels (USP ).
  • Established Predicate Device Performance: The primary "ground truth" for substantial equivalence is the safety and effectiveness of the legally marketed predicate devices, which the new device is demonstrated to be similar to in design, materials, and function, with comparable or superior performance in key engineering metrics.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Not Applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that requires a "training set" in the context of machine learning.

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

• Not Applicable. (See #8)

Ask a specific question about this device

The Zuga™ Dental Implant System is indicated for immediate or delayed implant placement for surgical and restorative applications in maxillary and/or mandibular arches to support prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, crowns, bridges, and overdentures. The Zuga™ Dental Implant System is indicated for immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading.

The Zuga™ Dental Implant System includes endosseous dental implants, sealing caps, healing caps, dental implant abutments, and fixation screws in a variety of sizes to accommodate differing patient anatomy. Implantation is suitable for one-or two-stage procedures. Endosseous implants are bone level, self-tapping, root-form, threaded. The threaded surface is blasted, then passivated. Sizematched anterior and posterior abutments are offered. Thes are fastened to the implant using a fixation screw. Sealing caps and healing caps provide protection to the abutment connection threads during endosseous and gingival healing. The implants are provided sterile, the remaining components must be sterilized prior to use.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the Zuga™ Dental Implant System. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices, rather than proving that the device meets a set of specific acceptance criteria through clinical performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy, as would be common for AI-driven diagnostic devices.

Therefore, the document does not contain the information requested regarding acceptance criteria in terms of performance metrics for an AI/ML device, nor does it detail a study proving the device meets such criteria with respect to AI performance.

Instead, the "Performance Data" section ([15]) focuses on biological and mechanical compatibility/safety testing, which is standard for medical devices like dental implants. These tests are designed to show that the physical device itself is safe and performs as intended, not to evaluate an AI algorithm's diagnostic or predictive capabilities.

Here's an breakdown of the information present and what's missing, based on the prompt's requirements:

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

• Present: The document lists various tests performed and their outcomes which act as "acceptance criteria" for a physical medical device. These are:
  • Static fatigue tests and dynamic fatigue tests (per ISO 14801 and FDA Guidance): "The results show that the Zuga™ Dental Implant System has sufficient mechanical strength for the intended clinical application."
  • Cytotoxicity testing (per ISO 10993-5 and USP ): "The results showed that the Zuga™ Dental Implant System received a passing score and is thus acceptable for clinical application."
  • Sterility tests (per ISO 10993, ISO 11137-1, 11137-2, ISO 17665-1, 17665-2): "yielded no difference in performance between the Zuga™ Dental Implant System and the predicate device."
  • LAL (Limulus Amebocyte Lysate) bacterial endotoxin tests (per ISO 10993 and USP , ): "yielded a EU/Device value that was less than the established acceptance criteria of 20 EU/Device".
  • Shelf life tests (per ISO 11607): "established the shelf life to be five years provided the sterile seal is not breached."
• Missing (for an AI/ML device context): Specific performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, AUC, FROC, etc., and their corresponding acceptance thresholds.

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance:

• Present: For LAL tests, it states: "The sampling plan consists of selecting 3% of the batch up to a maximum of 10 samples to be pooled for testing."
• Missing (for an AI/ML device context): Sample size for a "test set" of patient data (e.g., medical images, clinical records) for an AI algorithm. Data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is not applicable or mentioned for these physical/biological tests.

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

• Missing: This information is not relevant to the mechanical/biological testing of a physical implant. It would be crucial for an AI/ML device based on clinical data.

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

• Missing: Not applicable to the presented data.

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:

• Missing: Not applicable. This device is a physical dental implant, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

• Missing: Not applicable.

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

• Present (for physical device tests): The "ground truth" here is adherence to international standards (ISO, ASTM) and USP guidelines for mechanical strength, biocompatibility, sterilization, and endotoxin levels.
• Missing (for an AI/ML device context): Clinical ground truth established by experts or pathology for diagnostic purposes.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Missing: Not applicable, as this is not an AI/ML device.

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

• Missing: Not applicable.

In summary: The provided document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for a physical dental implant system. Its "acceptance criteria" and "performance data" relate to the mechanical, chemical, and biological safety and efficacy of the implant itself, demonstrated through adherence to various international and US standards. It contains no information relevant to the development, testing, or performance of an AI/ML device.

Ask a specific question about this device