Search Results

BLT Dental Implant Systems are intended to be placed in the upper and lower jaw to support prosthetic devices and to restore a patient's chewing function. BLT Dental Implant systems are also indicated for immediate or early implantation following extraction or loss of natural teeth. Implants can be placed with immediate function on single-tooth and/or multiple tooth applications when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading to restore chewing function. The prosthetic restorations used are single crowns, bridges and partial or full dentures, which are connected to the implants through the corresponding components (abutments). In cases of fully edentulous patients, 4 or more implants must be used in immediately loaded cases.

The proposed devices, BLT Dental Implant Systems, are indicated for oral endosteal implantation in the upper and lower jaw and for the functional and esthetic oral rehabilitation of edentulous and partially dentate patients. The proposed devices can also be used for immediate or early implantation following extraction or loss of natural teeth. The proposed device contains dental implant, healing cap and abutment. The dental implant system is available in two types, NC type and RC type.

The request asks for acceptance criteria and details of the study proving these criteria are met. The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for a dental implant system. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, primarily through non-clinical testing and comparison of characteristics, rather than a clinical study with detailed acceptance criteria and performance metrics typically found for AI/ML devices. Therefore, much of the requested information (like effect size, ground truth, sample size for training/test sets, expert qualifications, and adjudication methods) is not applicable or unavailable from this document.

However, I can extract information related to the device's performance based on non-clinical testing and the acceptance criteria implicitly defined by compliance with recognized standards and demonstrated equivalence to the predicate device.

Here's the summary based on the provided document:

Acceptance Criteria and Study Details for BLT Dental Implant System (K212364)

The "acceptance criteria" for this device are implicitly defined by its compliance with various ISO and ASTM standards, and its demonstrated substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device (K150388) and several reference devices. The "study" proving these criteria is a series of non-clinical tests and a comparison of technological characteristics.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for specific non-clinical tests. Non-clinical tests like mechanical testing (ISO 14801) typically involve a specific number of samples for destructive testing, but the exact count isn't provided in the summary.
• Data Provenance: The tests were conducted by the manufacturer, Bio Concept Co., Ltd. and leverage data from previously cleared devices where materials or processes are identical. The document does not specify the country of origin of the raw test data (e.g., where the mechanical tests were physically performed) beyond the manufacturer's location in China. The data is retrospective in the sense that prior clearance data (K192274, K150388) is referenced for aspects like biocompatibility and surface analysis.

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

• This is not applicable as this is a non-clinical submission for a physical medical device (dental implant system), not an AI/ML device relying on expert-annotated ground truth. The "ground truth" for non-clinical tests comes from physical measurements against established standards.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable as this is a non-clinical submission for a physical medical 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

• Not applicable. This device is a physical dental implant system, not an AI/ML device, so no MRMC study was performed.

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

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

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• The "ground truth" for establishing device performance in this context is derived from:
  • Scientific Standards: Compliance with recognized international and national standards (ISO 14801 for mechanical properties, ISO 10993 for biocompatibility, ISO 11137-2 for sterilization, ASTM standards for materials and packaging).
  • Predicate Device Equivalence: Direct comparison of technological characteristics, materials, and intended use to an existing legally marketed device (K150388) and numerous reference devices.
  • Laboratory Testing: Results from mechanical tests, sterilization validation, bacterial endotoxin tests, and packaging integrity tests.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This is a physical device, not an AI/ML model that requires a training set.

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

• Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Implanova® Bone Level implants are intended for endosseous implantation in the mandible and maxilla for use as an artificial root structure. These root form implants can be used to replace single or multiple missing teeth and/or to support a fixed or removable prosthesis in partially or completely edentulous upper and lower dental arches. All devices in the Implanova® Bone Level system, including implant fixtures, abutments, healing caps, cover screws, and retention screws are intended for use by prescription only. Implanova® Bone Level implants are intended for immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading.

Implanova® All-in-One3.0mm implants are indicated for the support and retention of fixed single tooth and fixed partial denture restorations in the mandibular central incisor and maxillary lateral incisor regions of partially edentulous jaws. The Implanova® All-in-One 3.0mm implant must be splinted if two or more are used adjacent to each other. Implanova® All-in-One 3.0mm implant are intended for immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading.

All Implanova® Bone Level implant fixtures are compatible with the straight type restorative components listed in the table below, including straight type abutments, straight type abutment screws and straight type temporary abutments that are intended to be on Astra Tech's OsseoSpeed 11 TX 3.5S and OsseoSpeed "M TX 4.0S implant fixtures.

All bone fixtures within Inplanova® system are endosseous dental implants and are available in Bone Level and All-In-One implants types. Fixtures are available in the following sizes.

· IMPLANOVA® BONE LEVEL IMPLANTS Narrow Medium: 3.5mm Diameter x 10mm Length Narrow Long: 3.5mm Diameter x 12mm Length Narrow XLong (Extra Long): 3.5mm Diameter x 14mm Length

Standard Short: 4.5mm Diameter x 8mm Length Standard Medium: 4.5mm Diameter x 10mm Length Standard Long: 4.5mm Diameter x 12mm Length Standard XLong: 4.5mm Diameter x 14mm Length

Wide Short: 5.5mm Diameter x 8mm Length Wide Medium: 5.5mm Diameter x 10mm Length Wide Long: 5.5mm Diameter x 12mm Length

· IMPLANOVA® ALL-IN-ONE IMPLANTS Slender Medium: 3.0mm Diameter x 10mm Length Slender Long: 3.0mm Diameter x 12mm Length Slender XLong (Extra Long): 3.0mm Diameter x 14mm Length

The material constituents of the all implant fixtures within the Implanova® system is Grade 23 Titanium Alloy per ASTM F136 Standard Specification for Wrought Titanium-6Aluminum-4Vnadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) Alloy for Surgical Implant Applications (UNS R56401). In order to promote osseointegration, a variable portion of the implant surface, depending on the implant's overall length, is surface treated and passivated per ASTM F86 standard.

Abutments for bone level implants are utilized for cement retained restoration. Bone level abutments are available in straight and angled types as well as platform sizes ranging from 4.2mm to 6.5mm. All bone level angled abutments will utilize their respective abutment screw for installation. The material constituents of all Implanova® abutments is grade 23titanium alloy per ASTM F136 Standard Specification for Wrought Titanium 6Aluminum-4Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) Alloy for Surgical Implant Applications (UNS R56401).

Implanova® Bone Level Abutments offer the following models.

· IMPLANOVA® BONE LEVEL ABUTMENTS

Narrow Platform - Straight: 4.2 mm Platform Diameter x 5.7 mm Post Height Narrow Platform – 15 Degrees: 4.2 mm Platform Diameter x 7.3 mm Post Height Narrow Platform – 20 Degrees: 4.2 mm Platform Diameter x 7.3 mm Post Height

Standard Platform - Straight: 4.8 mm Platform Diameter x 5.7 mm Post Height StandardPlatform – 15 Degrees: 4.8 mm Platform Diameter x 7.3 mm Post Height StandardPlatform – 20 Degrees: 4.8 mm Platform Diameter x 7.3 mm Post Height

Wide Platform - Straight: 6.5 mm Platform Diameter x 5.7 mm Post Height WidePlatform - 15 Degrees: 6.5 mm Platform Diameter x 7.3 mm Post Height WidePlatform - 20 Degrees: 6.5 mm Platform Diameter x 7.3 mm Post Height

The system also offers Healing Caps and Cover Screws.

This document is a 510(k) Pre-market Notification for the Implanova® Dental Implant System. It aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices. The document does not describe acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets specific performance criteria with numerical results for the device itself (Implanova®). Instead, it relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through comparisons of design, materials, intended use, and non-clinical testing for safety and appropriate material and manufacturing characteristics.

Here’s a breakdown of the information that is available within the provided text, and what is not present based on your request:

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

This information is not explicitly provided in the format requested. The document asserts that "the fatiguetest result of the subject device supports that the subject device is substantially equivalent to the predicate devices" (Pages 11 and 12), and that non-clinical testing "supported that the subject device is substantially equivalent to the predicate devices and it is in conformance with the FDA guidance document: Root-form Endosseous Dental Implants and Endosseous Dental Abutments" (Page 17). However, the specific acceptance criteria for these tests (e.g., minimum fatigue strength in MPa or N) and the numerical results achieved by the Implanova® device are not listed. The document focuses on similarity to predicate devices rather than meeting discrete performance metrics presented in a table.

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. The document lists types of non-clinical tests but does not specify the sample sizes used for these tests, nor the data provenance. These are typically details found in the full test reports, which are not included here.

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/provided. The document describes non-clinical, laboratory-based testing (e.g., fatigue, sterilization, cytotoxicity, SEM/EDS) rather than clinical studies requiring expert review of data for ground truth establishment.

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

This information is not applicable/provided. As above, this pertains to clinical study design and human interpretation of results, which is not described here.

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/provided. This document describes an endosseous dental implant system, which is a physical medical device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic or decision support system that would involve human readers or AI improvement metrics.

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

This information is not applicable/provided. This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

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

This information is not applicable/provided in the context of clinical "ground truth." The ground truth for the non-clinical tests would be the established scientific methods and standards (e.g., ISO 14801 for fatigue testing, ISO 11137-1 for sterilization).

8. The sample size for the training set:

This information is not applicable/provided. As this is a physical medical device, there is no "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI models.

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

This information is not applicable/provided. As above, there is no "training set."

Summary of available information related to performance and predicate devices:

The document primarily demonstrates substantial equivalence by comparing the Implanova® device to several predicate devices.

Key similarities highlighted for Implanova® Bone Level Implants (compared to BioHorizons Tapered Internal Plus, BioHorizons Internal Implants, U fit Dental Implant System):

• Intended Use: Same intended use (endosseous implantation in mandible and maxilla for artificial root structure, single/multiple missing teeth, support prosthesis, immediate loading when primary stability achieved).
• Operating Principle: Same.
• Basic Design: Incorporates same basic design (self-tapping, bone-level type implant, micro-threaded implant collar, tapered implant body).
• Material: Titanium Alloy grade 23 (Ti6Al4V ELI).
• Surface Treatment: Resorbable Blast Texture Media (calcium phosphate), partial surface treatment.
• Sterile: Yes.
• Sterilization Method: Gamma Radiation.
• Size Range: Similar (e.g., Diameter: 3.5mm, 4.5mm, 5.5mm; Length: 8mm, 10mm, 12mm, 14mm).

Key differences and justification for substantial equivalence despite differences:

• Micro-machined grooves vs. Micro threads: Laser-Lok® micro-machined grooves on predicates vs. micro threads on Implanova®. Justification: "functionally identical" as osteocytes cannot differentiate microscopic differences for osseointegration.
• Flute Lengths: Implanova® has longer flute lengths. Justification: "more tapping edges simply ease the tapping processes but functions the same."
• Twist Direction of Vertical Flutes: Implanova® has a minor left-hand twist (18mm pitch) vs. straight or slight right-hand twist on predicates. Justification: "only slightly increases the sharpness of the edges... and passively guides the swarf materials to consolidate... should not render the device NSE."
• Partial Surface Treatment: Implanova® has partial surface treatment (apical 5mm untreated) vs. modified throughout the implant body on predicates. Justification: Untreated apical area maintains sharpness for cutting bone; surface treatment is not a requirement for osseointegration.
• Fatigue Test Result: The document states that "the fatiguetest result of the subject device supports that the subject device is substantially equivalent to the predicate devices." (No numerical results are provided in the excerpt).

Key similarities highlighted for Implanova® All-in-One 3.0mm Implants (compared to Zimmer One-Piece Implant System, NobelDirect 3.0):

• Intended Use: Similar indications for support and retention of fixed single tooth and fixed partial dentures in specific mandibular/maxillary incisor regions, with immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved and appropriate occlusal loading.
• Design & Size: 3.0mm diameter.
• Connection Type: N/A (one-piece design).
• Basic Design: Self-tapping, tissue-level type implant, micro-threaded implant collar, tapered implant body.
• Material: Titanium Alloy grade 23 (Ti6Al4V ELI) (NobelDirect uses CP Titanium grade 4).
• Surface Treatment: Resorbable Blast Texture Media (calcium phosphate), partial surface treatment (Zimmer uses Hydroxyapatite blast media, NobelDirect uses TiUnite).
• Sterile: Yes.
• Sterilization Method: Gamma Radiation.

Key differences and justification for substantial equivalence despite differences:

• Microthreads: Implanova® has microthreads vs. lack of microthreads on predicates. Justification: "only slightly increase the surface area... insignificant deviation... does not render the subject device NSE."
• Flute Lengths, Twist Direction, Partial Surface Treatment: Similar justifications to the bone-level implants regarding these differences.
• Surface Treatment Material: Implanova® uses calcium phosphate blast media; predicates use Hydroxyapatite or TiUnite. Justification: "chemical analysis data... supports that the blast media used for the subject device does not alter surface chemical compositions."

Non-Clinical Testing Performed (Page 17):

• Fatigue Testing (ISO 14801)
• 3rd Party Compatibility
• Sterilization Validation (ISO 11137-1, ISO 11137-2, ISO11737-1, ISO11737-2, ISO 17665-1 and ISO 17665-2)
• Shelf-life Validation (ASTM F1980, ISO 11607-1, ISO 11607-2, ASTM F88, and ASTM F 1929)
• Cytotoxicity Testing (ISO 10993-5)
• SEM/EDS Chemical Surface Analysis

These tests are stated to have "supported that the subject device is substantially equivalent to the predicate devices and it is in conformance with the FDA guidance document: Root-form Endosseous Dental Implants and Endosseous Dental Abutments."

Ask a specific question about this device

The Klockner Essential implant system is especially designed for surgical insertion into the bone using additional material to replace the root of the teeth, acting as the support for the dental implants formed by implant accessories.

The Essential Solid implants are fitted with an internal octagonal conical connection combined with an external octagonal connection measuring 1.2 mm in height.

The Essential Cone implants are fitted with an internal octagonal conical connection.

The Essential ECK implants are fitted with a larger internal octagonal conical connection than that of the Essential Cone implants.

Immediate loading is appropriate for the Essential Cone and Essential Cone and Essential ECK implants when good primary stability is achieved with appropriate occlusal loading. Abutments can be used in single tooth replacements and multiple tooth restorations.

8mm Implants are not indicated for use as unitary implants and for immediate load.

The Klockner Essential implant system consists of a group of implants, implant accessories and additional material to restore the mastication system. The different EC, ES and ECK models are available in three different diameters: 3.5mm, 4.0mm and the range of lengths varies between 8mm and 16mm. They are internally connected.

This document (K080224) is a 510(k) premarket notification for the Klockner Essential Dental Implants System. It aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices. Based on the provided text, the submission focuses on asserting equivalence based on intended use, composition, endosseous surface treatment, and design principles, rather than presenting a study with acceptance criteria and performance data in the way a diagnostic AI device would.

Therefore, a table of acceptance criteria and device performance, as well as details about sample sizes, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, standalone performance, training data, and ground truth for a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria, cannot be extracted from this document. These types of studies are typically not required or presented for dental implant submissions that demonstrate substantial equivalence through comparison to predicate devices, especially concerning their physical and material properties.

The relevant sections of the document are primarily focused on:

• Device Identification: Name, manufacturer, contact.
• Device Description: Physical characteristics (diameters, lengths, connection types) of the Klockner Essential implant system (EC, ES, ECK models).
• Intended Use: Surgical insertion into bone to replace tooth roots, acting as support for dental implants, with specific indications for different diameters and bone types, and considerations for immediate loading.
• Predicate Devices: Listing of previously cleared Klockner dental implants and other manufacturers' implants used for comparison.
• Basis for Substantial Equivalence: Stating that "the intended use, the composition and the endosseous surface treatment are identical to the Klockner predicate devices. The design principles are the same as the Klockner predicate devices."

In summary, this document does not contain the information requested in your prompt regarding acceptance criteria and a study demonstrating performance against those criteria because it's a 510(k) submission based on substantial equivalence to predicate devices, not a performance study of a novel diagnostic or AI-based device.

Ask a specific question about this device