Search Results

ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic is intended for use with dental implants as a support for single or multiple-unit prosthetic restorations in the maxilla or mandible of partially or fully edentulous patient. It is including; cemented retained, screw-retained, or overdenture restorations.

It is compatible with the following systems:

• · Astra OsseoSpeed EV(K130999) 3.0
• · Astra OsseoSpeed EV(K120414) 3.6, 4.2, 4.8, 5.4 mm
• Tapered Internal Implants (K071638) (K143022) 3.4. 3.8. 4.6. 5.8 mm
• · BioHorizons Laser-Lok Implant System (K093321) 3.0 mm
• · Conelog Screw-Line (K113779) 3.3, 3.8, 4.3, 5.0 mm
• Osstem TSIII SA (K121995) 3.5 (3.7) , 4.0 (4.2) , 4.5 (4.6) , 5.0 (5.1), 6.0 (6.0), 7.0 (6.8) mm (Mini. Regular)
• · Megagen AnyRidge Internal Implant System (K140091) 4.0, 4.4, 4.9, 5.4 (3.1)
• · Neodent Implant System GM Helix (K163194, K180536) 3.5, 3.75, 4.0, 4.3, 5.0 (3.0) 6.0 (3.0)
• · Nobel Active 3.0 (K102436) 3.0
• · Nobel Active Internal Connection Implant (K071370) NP RP
• · Nobelactive Wide Platform (Wp) (K133731) WP
• Straumann BLX Implant (K173961, K181703, K191256) 3.5, 3.75, 4.5, 5.5, 6.5 (RB, WB)
• · Straumann 02.9 mm Bone Level Tapered Implants, SC CARES Abutments (K162890) 2.9 (SC)
• · Straumann® Bone Level Tapered Implants (K140878) 3.3, 4.1, 4.8 (NC, RC)
• · Zimmer 3.1mmD Dental Implant System (K142082) 3.1 (2.9)
• (Ti-base only) Screw Vent® and Tapered Screw Vent® (K013227) 3.7(3.5), 4.7(4.5), 6.0(5.7)

All digitally designed abutments and/or coping for use with the abutments are intended to be sent to a ALLONUS Tech-validated milling center for manufacture.

ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic is made of titanium alloy (Ti-6AI-4V ELI, ASTM F136) intended for use as an aid in prosthetic restoration. It consists of Pre-Milled Blank abutment, Ti-Base Abutment, and Multi-unit Abutment and Components (Multi-unit Healing Cap, Multi-unit Temporary cylinder, Multi-unit Ti-cylinder).

Pre-Milled Blank has a pre-manufactured implant interface connection interface with a customizable cylindrical area-by CAD/CAM- above the implant-abutment interface.

Ti Base consists of a two-piece abutment, where the titanium base is a pre-manufactured component of the abutment that will be used to support a CAD/CAM-designed zirconia superstructure (the second part of the two-piece abutment) that composes the final abutment.

Multi-unit Abutment which are placed into the dental implant to provide support for the prosthetic restoration. The abutments are made of Titanium grade Ti-6A1-4V ELI (meets ASTM Standard F-136). Multi-unit Abutment includes abutments and components (Multi-unit Healing Cap, Multi-unit Temporary cylinder, Multi-unit Ti-cylinder). Multi-unit Abutment - are provided in various gingival cuff height ranging from 1 to 6 mm.

All digitally designed abutments and/or coping for use with the abutments are intended to be sent to a ALLONUS Tech-validated milling center for manufacture.

The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for the ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic, which is an endosseous dental implant abutment. It details the device's technical characteristics and compares it to predicate devices to establish substantial equivalence, rather than describing a study that proves the device meets specific acceptance criteria for a new and novel performance claim.

Therefore, many of the requested categories for acceptance criteria and study details are not directly applicable or available in this type of submission. The information provided primarily focuses on demonstrating equivalence through comparison to existing legally marketed devices, material properties, and standard performance tests for similar devices.

However, I can extract the relevant information that is available from the document for each type of device within the ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic family: Pre-Milled Blank, Ti Base, Multi-Unit Abutment, Multi-Unit Healing Cap, Multi-Unit Temporary Cylinder, and Multi-Unit Ti-Cylinder.

General Information on Acceptance Criteria and Studies for ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic (as inferred from the 510(k) Summary):

The ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic is claiming substantial equivalence to predicate devices, meaning it does not need to establish new performance criteria but rather demonstrate that it is as safe and effective as existing legally marketed devices. The "acceptance criteria" here are largely implied by the performance of the predicate devices and the relevant ISO standards for dental implant abutments. The studies performed are non-clinical bench tests.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria (Inferred from Comparison) and Reported Device Performance:

The document presents comparisons to predicate devices to establish substantial equivalence rather than explicit acceptance criteria and corresponding performance metrics for novel claims. However, the design limits of the subject devices are compared to the design limits of the predicate devices, which act as de facto acceptance criteria in the context of substantial equivalence. The device's performance is demonstrated by meeting the standards in non-clinical testing.

Here's a generalized table summarizing this approach:

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

• Test Set Sample Size:
  • The document does not specify the exact sample sizes used for the non-clinical bench tests (fatigue, sterilization, biocompatibility, or dimensional analysis). It only states that tests were performed "for the subject device" and "of the worst-case scenario through fatigue testing."
• Data Provenance:
  • The 510(k) submission is from ALLONUS Tech Co., LTD. in the REPUBLIC OF KOREA. This implies the testing was likely conducted in or overseen by this entity.
  • The studies were non-clinical bench tests, not clinical studies involving human patients. Therefore, terms like "retrospective" or "prospective" clinical dataProvenance are not applicable here.

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

• This information is not provided in the 510(k) Summary. For non-clinical bench testing, "ground truth" is typically established by recognized international standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM) and engineering principles, rather than expert consensus on clinical cases.
• The document mentions "Dimensional analysis and reverse engineering... were performed" and "assessment of maximum and minimum dimensions... along with cross-sectional images." This suggests engineering expertise, but specific numbers or qualifications of experts are not stated.

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

• This is not applicable as the studies were non-clinical bench tests. Adjudication methods like 2+1 (two readers plus one adjudicator) are used in clinical studies, particularly for diagnostic imaging, to resolve discrepancies in expert interpretations of patient 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:

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study (MRMC) is relevant for diagnostic AI devices that assist human interpretation of medical images or data. The ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic is a physical medical device (dental implant abutment), not an AI diagnostic tool.

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

• No, a standalone (algorithm-only) performance study was not done. This question is also typically relevant for AI/software as a medical device (SaMD). The ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic is a physical device that integrates with human dental procedures.

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

• For the non-clinical tests (fatigue, sterilization, biocompatibility), the "ground truth" is adherence to recognized international standards (ISO, ASTM) and established engineering specifications.
• For implant-to-abutment compatibility, the "ground truth" was based on dimensional analysis and reverse engineering of OEM implant bodies, abutments, and screws, comparing the subject device's design to established OEM specifications.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• This is not applicable. "Training set" refers to data used to train machine learning algorithms. The ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic is a physical medical device, not an AI/ML algorithm.

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

• This is not applicable as there is no training set for a physical medical device.

Ask a specific question about this device

NobelProcera® Titanium ASC Abutments:

NobelProcera® Abutment Titanium is a patient-matched CAD/CAM prosthetic component directly connected to endosseous dental implants and is indicated for use as an aid in prosthetic rehabilitation.

Omnigrip Clinical Screw Titanium:

Clinical and Abutment Screws are indicated for use to secure a dental abutment or framework to a dental implant in the maxilla or mandible for supporting tooth replacements and are indicated as an aid in prosthetic rehabilitation.

The Subject Device NobelProcera® Titanium ASC Abutment is composed of two device lines: NobelProcera® Titanium ASC Abutment and the Clinical Screw Omnigrip Titanium.

NobelProcera® Titanium ASC Abutment is a patient matched CAD/CAM dental prosthesis which is connected to the Nobel Biocare implants featuring an internal conical and/or internal tri-channel connection, is available in the platform sizes NP, RP WP and 6.0 (for internal tri-channel connection only) and is intended for use as an aid in prosthetic rehabilitation to restore chewing function and esthetic appearance.

NobelProcera® Titanium ASC Abutments undergo patient matched customization at a Nobel Biocare production facility for the final, finished abutment device manufacturing.

NobelProcera® Titanium ASC Abutment is connected to the implant with a clinical screw and features an angulated screw channel which can be defined by the customer in an angulation (to the implant's axis) between 0° and 25°, in addition the abutment can be angulated to a maximum of 30°. The clinical screw features the Omnigrip Interface which allows tightening up to 25°.

NobelProcera® Titanium ASC Abutment and Omnigrip Clinical Screw Titanium are composed of titanium vanadium alloy Ti6Al4V ELI (ISO 5832-3, ASTM F136) and the surface of the abutments are provided with and without anodization and the Omnigrip Clinical Screw Titanium are provided with and without DLC coating.

The finished NobelProcera® Titanium ASC Abutment supports the placement of a cement-retained dental prosthesis.

Omnigrip Clinical Screw Titanium is available for the NP, RP, WP and 6.0 (for internal tri-channel connection only) platform, the devices connect the NobelProcera Titanium ASC Abutments to the dental implants. The devices feature an Omnigrip interface.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding acceptance criteria and device performance.

Important Note: The provided document is an FDA 510(k) Premarket Notification letter. This type of document is a submission seeking regulatory clearance, not a standalone study report. As such, it outlines the basis for demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, which includes non-clinical testing. It does not typically contain detailed acceptance criteria and performance data for a study proving a device meets those criteria in the way a clinical trial report or a comprehensive validation study would.

The document primarily focuses on demonstrating that the new device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices, meaning it is as safe and effective. It refers to non-clinical tests that were performed, but does not present the specific acceptance criteria or the numerical results of those tests in a "performance table" format.

Therefore, many of the requested points below cannot be fully extracted from this document, as it's not the type of report that contains that level of detail for acceptance criteria and specific study outcomes. I will highlight what can be inferred or directly stated from the provided text, and what cannot.

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

The document does not explicitly present a table of "acceptance criteria" alongside "reported device performance" in a quantitative manner as one might find in a detailed engineering validation report or a clinical study. Instead, it states that "non-clinical tests demonstrate that the device is substantial equivalent."

The document mentions several tests and standards the device was subjected to:

• Packaging system performance testing: per ASTM D4169. (Specific acceptance criteria and reported performance not detailed.)
• Dynamic loading testing: conducted according to ISO 14801 and FDA Guidance Document ("Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Root-form Endosseous Dental Implants and Endosseous Dental Abutments" (May 12, 2004)). (Specific acceptance criteria and reported performance not detailed.)
• Magnetic Resonance compatibility testing: according to ASTM F2052, ASTM F2213, ASTM F2119, and ASTM F2182. Status: "MR Conditional." (This is a performance outcome, but the specific metrics and acceptance thresholds for each ASTM standard are not detailed.)
• Verification of biocompatibility: in accordance with ISO 10993-1. (The conclusion is that "no new issues regarding biocompatibility were raised," implying acceptance, but specific criteria and test results not detailed.)
• End user cleaning and sterilization validation: in accordance with ISO 17665-1. (Implied acceptance, but specific criteria and results not detailed.)

The "acceptance criteria" here are generally referred to as meeting the requirements of the standards and demonstrating substantial equivalence to the predicate device. The "reported device performance" is summarized as favorable results sufficient for substantial equivalence determination.

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

• Sample sizes: Not specified in the provided text for any of the non-clinical tests mentioned (packaging, dynamic loading, MR compatibility, biocompatibility, sterilization validation).
• Data provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin). The testing is non-clinical/bench testing, not patient data. It is implied to be internal testing by the manufacturer, Nobel Biocare AB (Sweden).
• Retrospective or prospective: N/A, as these are non-clinical/bench tests, not clinical studies involving patient data.

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

• Applicability: This question is not directly applicable to the type of non-clinical, bench testing described for the NobelProcera® Titanium ASC Abutment and Omnigrip Clinical Screw Titanium. "Ground truth" established by experts (e.g., radiologists for image interpretation) is relevant for AI/ML device evaluations, particularly in diagnostics. This document refers to physical device testing (mechanical, biocompatibility, etc.).

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

• Applicability: Not applicable. Adjudication methods are typically used in clinical studies or expert reviews to resolve disagreements in interpretations or diagnoses for establishing "ground truth," which is not the nature of the non-clinical tests 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

• Applicability: Not applicable. This device is a dental abutment and screw, not an AI/ML-enabled diagnostic device for image interpretation. Therefore, no MRMC study or AI assistance evaluation would have been performed.

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

• Applicability: Not applicable. See point 5. This is a physical medical device, not a standalone algorithm.

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

• Applicability: The concept of "ground truth" as typically applied in AI/ML validation (e.g., for diagnostic accuracy) does not directly apply to the non-clinical device testing described. For these tests, the "ground truth" is typically defined by the specified parameters and performance requirements of the relevant international standards (e.g., ISO 14801 for dynamic loading, ISO 10993-1 for biocompatibility). The devices are expected to meet the performance criteria defined by these standards.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Applicability: Not applicable. This refers to the training of an AI/ML algorithm. The document describes a physical medical device.

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

• Applicability: Not applicable. See point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

NobelProcera Zirconia Implant Bridge (previously cleared per K202452) The NobelProcera® Zirconia Implant Bridge are indicated for use as a bridge anatomically shaped and/or framework in the treatment of partially edentulous jaws for the purpose of restoring chewing function.

TiUltra Implants and Xeal Abutments (previously cleared per K202344) NobelActive TiUltra NobelActive TiUltra implants are endosseous implants intended to be surgically placed in the upper or lower jaw bone for anchoring or supporting tooth replacements to restore patient esthetics and chewing function. Nobel Active Tilltra implants are indicated for single or multiple unit restorations in splinted applications. This can be achieved by a 2-stage or 1-stage surgical technique in combination with immediate, early or delayed loading protocols, recognizing sufficient primary stability and appropriate occlusal loading for the selected technique. NobelActive TiUltra 3.0 implants are intended to replace a lateral incisor in the maxilla and/or a central incisor in the mandible. Nobel Active TiUltra 3.0 implants are indicated for single-unit restorations only. NobelReplace CC TiUltra NobelReplace CC TiUltra implants are endosseous dental implants intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw arches to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as an artificial tooth, in order to restore patient esthetics and chewing function. The NobelReplace CC TiUltra implants are indicated for single or multiple unit restorations. The NobelReplace CC Tilltra implants can be used in splinted or non-splications. The NobelReplace CC TiUltra implant may be placed immediately and put into immediate function provided that initial stability requirements detailed in the manual are satisfied. NobelParallel CC TiUltra NobelParallel CC TiUltra implants are endosseous implants intended to be surgically placed in the upper or lower jaw bone for anchoring or supporting replacements to restore patient esthetics and chewing function. NobelParallel CC TiUltra implants are indicated for single or multiple restorations in splinted applications. This can be achieved by a 2-stage or 1-stage surgical techniques in combination with immediate, early of delayed loading protocols, recognizing sufficient primary stability and appropriate occlusal loading for the selected technique. Implants with

Not Found

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification decision letter from the FDA to Nobel Biocare AG regarding their Dental Implant Systems Portfolio - MR Conditional. It explicitly states that the letter covers indications for use and general controls, but does not contain information about acceptance criteria or performance studies for the device itself.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information for the following reasons:

1. Acceptance Criteria and Performance Data: The document is a regulatory clearance letter, not a clinical study report. It does not contain acceptance criteria for device performance, nor does it present any data from studies proving the device meets particular criteria. The letter confirms substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices, which means the FDA has determined the device is as safe and effective as a previously cleared device, not that specific performance metrics were tested and met in a new study.
2. Study Details (Sample size, data provenance, experts, adjudication, MRMC, Standalone, Ground Truth, Training Set): Since no performance study data is included in this FDA 510(k) clearance letter, none of these details can be extracted. The document refers to various previously cleared predicate devices (e.g., K202452, K202344, K181869), but it doesn't describe the studies that led to their clearance.

In summary, the provided text does not contain the information necessary to describe acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Magicore II System is intended to replace missing teeth to restore chewing function. The Magicore II System can be placed in support of single or multiple-unit restorations including; cement retained, or overdenture restorations, and terminal or immediate abutment support for fixed bridgework. This system is for one or two stage surgical procedures. This system is intended for delayed loading.

An endosseous dental implant is a device made of a material such as Ti 6AL 4V Eli (Conforming to ASTM Standard F-136). The Magicore II System consists of dental implants, cylinders, caps and screws for use in one or two-stage dental implant placement and restorations. The implant-abutment connection is tight and precise fitting with internal hex and Morse taper bevel. The surface of the Magicore II implant is treated with SLA (sand-blasted, large-grit, acid-etched). The Fixture diameters are 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, 5.5, 6.0, 6.5mm and threaded lengths are 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13mm in this system. The contained various abutments and screws in the system are Short Abutment, Magic Multi Abutment, Magic Multi Cylinder, Magic Multi Abutment ST, Abutment Screw, Healing Cap, Magicore Angled Abutment.

This document is a 510(k) summary for the Magicore II System, an endosseous dental implant system. The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than presenting a standalone clinical study on device performance. Therefore, many of the requested details regarding clinical study design, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, and ground truth establishment are not present in this document, as they are not typically required for a 510(k) submission for this type of device.

The acceptance criteria provided here are primarily based on non-clinical performance testing (fatigue testing) and comparison to predicate devices in terms of material, design, indications for use, and manufacturing processes, rather than a clinical trial demonstrating specific performance metrics.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for this device are aligned with demonstrating substantial equivalence to its predicate devices through non-clinical testing and comparison of characteristics. The primary performance metric mentioned is fatigue strength.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: This document does not describe a clinical "test set" in the sense of patient data. The "test set" here refers to the physical devices undergoing non-clinical laboratory testing. The sample sizes for these specific non-clinical tests (e.g., how many implants were used for fatigue testing) are not specified in this summary document.
• Data Provenance: The data provenance is primarily from non-clinical laboratory testing (e.g., fatigue, sterilization, biocompatibility tests). Some test results are "leveraged" from previous 510(k) clearances (K152520, K162099, K140806, K173120), implying the data originated from other studies performed by the manufacturer or their affiliates. The country of origin for the data is implicitly where the manufacturer (InnoBioSurg Co., Ltd. - Republic of Korea) and referenced test labs are located. The data is retrospective in the sense that results from previously cleared devices are referenced.

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

• Not applicable. This submission relies on non-clinical engineering and materials testing standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM, USP) rather than a test set requiring expert clinical ground truth establishment.

4. Adjudication Method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the Test Set

• Not applicable. As there is no clinical test set requiring subjective interpretation by experts, no adjudication method is mentioned or required.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and the Effect Size of Human Readers Improve With AI vs. Without AI Assistance

• Not applicable. This device is a dental implant system, not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool. No MRMC study was conducted or relevant.

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

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

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (Expert Consensus, Pathology, Outcomes Data, etc.)

• Ground Truth Type: For the non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" is defined by established international and national standards (e.g., ISO 14801 for fatigue limits, ISO 10993 for biocompatibility thresholds). The device's performance is compared against these engineering and material science standards.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This is not a machine learning or AI device that would require training data.

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

• Not applicable. As above, no training set for an algorithm is involved.

Ask a specific question about this device

The AnyRidge Octa 1 Implant System is intended to be surgically placed in the maxillary or mandibular arches for the purpose of providing prosthetic support for dental restorations (Crown, bridges, and overdentures) in partially or fully edentulous individuals. It is used to restore a patient's chewing function in the following situations and with the clinical protocols:

• Delayed loading.
• Immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading.
  Larger implants are dedicated for the molar region.

The AnyRidge Octa 1 Fixture is a substructure of a dental implant system made of CP Ti Grade 4 with the surface treated by SLA method. The fixture offers two types: Normal Thread Type and Deep Thread Type. As the name indicates the Deep Thread Type has slightly deeper threads than the Normal Thread Type. The abutments are made of Ti-6AI-4V-ELI (ASTM F136-13) except the CCM Abutment. The CCM Abutment is made of Cobalt Chrome Molybdenum (ASTM F1537-11). Also for the Fuse Abutment, the post is covered with provisional restoration that is made of plastic (POM). The system offers various components including the AnyRidge Octa 1 Fixture, EZ Post Abutment, Angled Abutment, Milling Abutment, Octa Abutment, Multi-unit Abutment, Multi-unit Angled Abutment, Meg-Rhein Abutment, CCM Abutment, Cover Screw, Healing Abutment, Temporary Abutment, Fuse Abutment, Abutment Screw, and Multi-unit Abutment Screw, in various sizes.

The provided document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from the FDA for the AnyRidge Octa 1 Implant System. This type of submission is for demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, not for proving a device meets specific performance criteria through a standalone study with acceptance thresholds.

The document discusses non-clinical testing performed to support the substantial equivalence claim. Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria (e.g., minimum accuracy percentages, AUC values) or corresponding device performance results in the context of clinical effectiveness or diagnostic accuracy, as it is a 510(k) submission focusing on substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than novel performance claims.

However, it mentions that fatigue tests were performed on the subject devices in accordance with ISO 14801. The acceptance criterion for this would be that the fatigue test results of the subject device are substantially equivalent to the predicate device. The document states:

• "The fatigue testing demonstrates that the results of the subject devices are substantially equivalent to the predicate device."
  This indicates that the subject device met the implied acceptance criterion of demonstrating comparable mechanical durability to the predicate under the specified test conditions.

Other non-clinical tests mentioned also have implicit acceptance criteria:

• Sterilization validation testing (ISO 11137 and ISO 17665-1, 2): To verify a sterility assurance level (SAL) of 10^-6. The document states this was performed to verify SAL (10^-6), implying it met this standard.
• Shelf life validation testing (ASTM F1980): To validate a 5-year shelf life using accelerated aging. The document states "the test results validated 5 year shelf life," indicating the criterion was met.
• Surface Morphology (EDS), Surface Roughness, GC/LC Analysis, IC Analysis: These tests were done to evaluate SLA treatment. The implicit acceptance would be that the characteristics are consistent with acceptable dental implants and/or comparable to the predicate device's surface treatment.
• Endotoxin testing (USP 39 ): The testing limit is below 0.5 EU/mL. This will be conducted on every batch, implying this is the ongoing acceptance criterion for endotoxin levels.

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

The document does not describe a "test set" in the context of patient data or a clinical study for performance evaluation. The "tests" performed are non-clinical, laboratory-based tests on the device itself. Therefore, information on sample size for patient data or data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is not applicable or provided.

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

Not applicable. This is a non-clinical 510(k) submission, not a clinical study requiring expert ground truth for a test set.

4. Adjudication Method

Not applicable. This is a non-clinical 510(k) submission.

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

Not applicable. This is a non-clinical 510(k) submission for a dental implant system, not a diagnostic device typically evaluated with MRMC studies with human readers and AI assistance.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Study

Not applicable. This product is a physical medical device (dental implant system), not an algorithm or AI system.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

For the non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" refers to established scientific standards and regulatory guidelines.

• Mechanical Fatigue: ISO 14801, and comparison to the performance of legally marketed predicate devices.
• Sterilization: ISO 11137 and ISO 17665-1, 2.
• Shelf Life: ASTM F1980.
• Biocompatibility: Likely established through previous 510(k) submissions for the predicate devices using similar materials.
• Endotoxin: USP 39 .

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This is a physical device, not an AI/algorithm-based product 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

BoneTrust® Dental Implants are medical devices intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the maxillary and/or mandibular arches to provide support for prosthetic restorations (crowns, bridges or overdenture) in edentulous or partially edentulous patients to restore a patients' chewing function.

BoneTrust® implants can also be used for immediate loading when sufficient primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading.

BoneTrust® Short Dental Implants with length 6.5 mm are intended for delayed loading only

BoneTrust® Abutments and Prosthetic parts are intended for use with Bone Trust Dental Implants in the maxillary and/or mandibular arches to provide support for crowns, bridges or overdentulous or partially edentulous patients.

The BoneTrust® Implant System includes various sizes of threaded root-form dental implants and abutments intended to support prosthetic restorations in edentulous or partially edentulous patients.

The BoneTrust® Implants are bone level, root form implants constructed of commercially pure titanium (Grade 4) per ISO 5832-2, with a sand-blasted, acid-etched surface treatment. BoneTrust® Implants are screw- shaped dental implants with a Hexagon or conical torx internal connection.

BoneTrust® Dental Abutments are intended for cement-retained and screw-retained restorations. A cylindrical internal hexagon or conical torx allows connection to the BoneTrust® implant. BoneTrust® Dental Abutments are available in different designs

This document is a 510(k) summary for the BoneTrust® Implant System. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than proving a device meets specific acceptance criteria through a standalone study for novel performance metrics. Therefore, many of the requested sections about acceptance criteria, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, expert adjudication, and MRMC studies are not applicable.

However, I can extract the information provided regarding non-clinical testing used to support substantial equivalence.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

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

The document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria in terms of performance metrics (e.g., accuracy, sensitivity, specificity) for a novel AI device. Instead, it relies on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" through non-clinical testing to legally marketed predicate devices. The "reported device performance" is essentially that the device performed comparably to predicate devices in the described tests.

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

The document does not provide specific sample sizes for the test sets in the non-clinical studies. It mentions "representative samples" for fatigue testing. Data provenance is not specified beyond being non-clinical testing performed to support substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices.

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 a 510(k) submission for a physical medical device (dental implants and abutments), not an AI/software device requiring ground truth establishment by human experts for diagnostic or similar tasks. The "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests would be the measurement results from the tests themselves (e.g., cytotoxicity levels, fatigue limits, physical characteristics).

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

Not applicable, as this is for a physical device and involves objective non-clinical tests rather than subjective human interpretation needing 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 is not an AI-assisted diagnostic or interpretation device.

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 (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

For the non-clinical studies performed, the "ground truth" would be objective measurements obtained through standardized testing methods, such as:

• Biocompatibility: Laboratory results (e.g., cell viability in cytotoxicity tests).
• Fatigue testing: Load cycles to failure or endurance limit under specified conditions, as per ISO 14801.
• Sterilization: Sterility Assurance Level (SAL), microbial ingress testing, package integrity.
• Implant Surface Analysis: Microscopic imagery (SEM, BSE) and elemental composition data (EDX).
• Short Implants Performance: Quantitative measurements from comparative surface area analysis, histological examination for bone-to-implant contact (animal study), and force measurements for pull-out strength tests.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. There is no training set mentioned for this physical device.

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

Not applicable. There is no training set for this physical device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Implant-One™ System is indicated for surgical placement in partially or completely edentulous upper or lower jaws to provide a means for prosthetic attachment to restore a patient's chewing function. The Implant-One™ system is indicated for immediate loading only when primary stability is achieved and with the appropriate occlusal loading.

Endosseous implants are self-tapping and threaded, and offered having root-form or wide thread forms. Root-form implant diameters range from 3.25mm to 5.5mm having lengths from 8mm to 14mm. Wide thread implant diameters are available in 4.1 and 4.5mm (8mm to 14mm lengths), 5.5mm (8mm to 12mm lengths) and 6.5mm (8mm to 10mm lengths). Cover screws and healing caps provide protection to the threads of the abutment connection during endosseous and gingival healing. Cover screws are pre- packaged with each implant. Healing caps are provided as an alternative to the cover screw and are packaged separately. The Implant-One™ dental implants and cover screws are provided sterile. Not all abutments can be used for single-unit restorations. The conical, angled conical, ball, locator and glueless abutments are intended only for multi-unit loaded restorations. The ball, locator and glueless abutments are to be used in fully removable dentures. The conical and angled conical abutments are to be used in screw retained dentures and with the titanium sleeve for screw retention. The final design parameters for the custom blank abutment are as follows: maximum total height, 12.5mm; minimum/maximum gingival height, 0.5mm/6mm; minimum post height, 4mm; maximum angulation, 30°; minimum wall thickness, 0.78 (at 1.5mm above the proximal end); minimum diameter, 3.75 mm for the 300 Series, 4.25 mm for the 300 Series and 4.75 mm for the 500 Series.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Implant-One™ System, a dental implant device. It demonstrates the device's substantial equivalence to existing legally marketed predicate devices through non-clinical performance data.

However, the document does not describe a study involving an algorithm, AI assistance, human readers, or any form of "acceptance criteria" related to diagnostic performance or accuracy as one would expect for an AI/ML medical device.

Instead, the "acceptance criteria" and "study" described in this document pertain to engineering and biocompatibility performance of a physical medical device (dental implants and abutments), not a software or AI-driven system.

Therefore, for each of the requested points, the answer is that the information is not applicable (N/A) in the context of this document, as it describes a physical dental implant system and not an AI/ML device that would have such performance criteria.

Here's how to address each point based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (Based on Device Type - Dental Implants)

Since this is for a physical dental implant system, the "acceptance criteria" are related to mechanical integrity, biocompatibility, sterilization, and packaging/shelf-life, rather than diagnostic accuracy. The "device performance" indicates that the device met these criteria by demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicates.

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

Ask a specific question about this device

Implantswiss Dental Implant System is indicated to use for surgical placement in the upper and lower jaw arches, to provide a root form means for single and multiple units' prosthetic appliance attachment to restore a patient's chewing function. Implantswiss Dental Implant can be placed with a conventional two stage surgical process with an option for transmucosal healing or they can be placed in a single stage surgical process for immediate loading is restricted to the anterior mandible based on four splinted-interforminal placed implantswiss Dental Abutment System is used with a dental implant to provide support to prosthetic restorations such as crown, bridge and overdentures in partially or fully edentulous patients. Octa and Multi-Unit Abutment models that contain an abutment post height less than 4 mm are indicated only for multi-unit loading, such as a bridge or overdenture.

The Implantswiss Dental Implant and Implantswiss Dental Abutment Systems are compatible titanium/titanium alloy dental implants and abutments. The Implantswiss Dental Implants are provided as bone level or tissue level type implants and their surface is modified by a Sandblasted Rough Acid-etched (SRA) process. The Implantswiss Bone Level Implants have diameters of 3.3mm, 3.7mm, 4.3mm and 4.8mm with lengths of 8mm, 12mm and 14mm; and diameter of 5.5mm with lengths of 8mm, 10mm and 12mm. The 3.3mm and 3.7mm diameter Bone Level Implants are composed of Titanium Ti6Al4V ELI – ASTM F136-13. The 4.3mm, 4.8mm and 5.5mm diameter Bone Level Implants are composed of Titanium Grade 4 – ASTM F67-13. The Implantswiss Tissue Level Implants have diameters of 3.7mm, 4.3mm and 4.8mm with lengths of 8mm, 10mm, 12mm and 14mm; and diameter of 5.5mm with lengths of 8mm, 10mm and 12mm. The Tissue Level Implants are composed of Titanium Grade 4 – ASTM F67-13. The Implantswiss Dental Abutment System consists of Couple, Angled, Solid, O-ring, Multi, Octa, Synocta, Healing, Locator and Multi-Unit Abutments.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Implantswiss Dental Implant System and Implantswiss Dental Abutment System. It outlines the regulatory clearance process, device description, indications for use, and a comparison to predicate devices, including performance testing.

However, it does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study that uses a machine learning or AI model. The "acceptance criteria" and "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in this context refer to non-clinical performance testing (biocompatibility, sterilization, mechanical testing) for dental implants and abutments, which are physical medical devices, not AI-driven software.

Therefore, many of the requested items (e.g., sample size for test set, data provenance, number of experts for ground truth, MRMC study, standalone performance, training set details) are not applicable to this type of medical device submission.

I will provide the information that is applicable based on the text provided, highlighting where the requested AI/ML specific details are not relevant.

Acceptance Criteria and Study for Implantswiss Dental Implant System & Abutment System

This device clearance (K181266) is for physical dental implants and abutments, not a software or AI/ML device. Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" and "study" refer to non-clinical performance evaluations relevant to the material properties, design, and intended use of these dental devices.

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

The document does not present specific quantitative "acceptance criteria" in a table format for each test. Instead, it refers to compliance with established international standards and FDA guidance documents. The "reported device performance" is a statement of consistency with these standards.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: This information is not explicitly provided in the summary. For mechanical and biocompatibility testing, it is generally conducted on a sample of devices (e.g., a specific number of implants/abutments) to demonstrate compliance with standards. The summary states "worst-case" testing was performed.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of device performance testing for physical implants. These are lab-based tests of the physical product.

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 this context refers to standard-compliant test methods and material properties, not expert-curated clinical data for an AI/ML model.

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

Not applicable. This is relevant to expert panel consensus for clinical data, not materials and mechanical testing.

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

Not applicable. This device is a physical dental implant and abutment system, not an AI-assisted diagnostic or therapeutic tool.

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

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

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

The "ground truth" for this type of device clearance is established by internationally recognized standards (ISO standards), FDA guidance documents, and validated test methods (e.g., for biocompatibility, mechanical fatigue, sterilization parameters). Material specifications (e.g., ASTM F-67, ASTM F-136) also serve as a form of "ground truth" for material composition.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. There is no AI/ML training set for this physical device.

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

Not applicable. There is no AI/ML training set for this physical device.

Ask a specific question about this device

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

UNIQA Conical Connection Implants: #UCI & #UC7 are to be used only with straight abutments.

Conical Mini implants (Ø3.3mm) are indicated for use in surgical and restorative applications for placement only in the mandibular central, lateral incisor and maxillary lateral incisor regions of partially edentulous jaws, to provide support for prosthetic devices such as artificial teeth, in order to restore the patient chewing function. Mandibular central and lateral incisors must be splinted if using two or more narrow implants adjacent to one another.

UNIQA® Dental Implant System is consist of endosseous form dental implants, internal hex implants, tapered design; cover screws, healing caps and abutment systems; The Dental Implants provided in two types of design:(a) Conical Hex; (b) Internal Hex; Each implant design is available in two options of surface treatment (1) Pure & Porous, P&P which consists of Hydroxyapatite and Calcium Phosphates; or (2) SBA - which consists of sand blast large particles with acid etched;

The provided text describes UNIQA® Dental Implants System and its comparison to predicate devices, but it does not contain information about acceptance criteria for a study or the study details to prove the device meets acceptance criteria related to a diagnostic or AI-assisted product.

The document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device (dental implants and abutments). It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices, primarily through comparison of:

• Intended Use and Indications for Use: The UNIQA® system has the same general indications as its primary predicate, with some specific details for certain implant types (e.g., mini implants for specific jaw regions, use with straight abutments) matching reference devices.
• Technological Characteristics: This includes thread design, measurements (diameter/length), connection type, material (Titanium Alloy Ti6Al4V ELI), surface treatment (Pure & Porous, P&P or SBA), self-tapping feature, sterilization method (Gamma Ray), and packaging (Double packaging).
• Performance Testing: Bench tests like fatigue testing (ISO 14801), sterilization validation (ISO 11137, ISO 17665), shelf life (ASTM F-1980), biocompatibility (ISO 10993-5), and surface cleanliness are mentioned. These tests are performed to ensure the device's safety and effectiveness in relation to its physical and material properties, rather than its diagnostic performance.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information about acceptance criteria and study details for a diagnostic or AI-assisted device, as this information is not present in the provided text.

The document explicitly states: "Clinical Testing - No clinical data is included in this submission." This confirms that no studies involving human subjects were conducted or reported for this submission to establish a clinical performance metric.

To reiterate, the provided text does not contain:

• A table of acceptance criteria for diagnostic performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy).
• Reported device performance values for diagnostic tasks.
• Sample size used for a test set in a diagnostic study.
• Data provenance for a diagnostic study.
• Number of experts or their qualifications for establishing ground truth in a diagnostic study.
• Adjudication methods for ground truth in a diagnostic study.
• Information on a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study or related effect sizes.
• Standalone performance (algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) for a diagnostic algorithm.
• Type of ground truth used for a diagnostic study (expert consensus, pathology, etc.).
• Sample size for a training set of a diagnostic algorithm.
• How ground truth for a training set of a diagnostic algorithm was established.

Ask a specific question about this device

S.I.N. Dental Implant System is intended for placement in the maxillary or mandibular arch to provide support for single-unit or multi-unit restorations. When a one-stage surgical approach is applied, the S.I.N. Dental Implant System is intended for immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading. Implants with lengths less than 7 mm are intended for delayed loading only.

The subject device consists of four Morse taper connection product lines: Unitite, Unitite Compact, and Strong SW CM. All implants are threaded cylindrical root-form designs. The Unitite provided with an acid-etched and HA surface, the Strong SW CM is provided with an acid-etched surface, Each product line has abutments available in multiple designs (temporary, cementable, angled, UCLA, ball, multi-unit). Subject device abutments are straight only.

Unitite implants are available in six implant body diameters (2.9. 3.5. 4.0. 4.3. 5.0 and 6.0 mm) and eight lengths (5, 6, 7, 8.5, 10, 11.5, 13, and 15 mm). Strong SW CM implants are available in four implant diameters (3.5, 3.8, 4.5.5.0 mm) and five lengths (8.5. 10. 11.5. 13. and 15 mm). Unitite abutments are available in five prosthetic platform diameters (3.3, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, and 4.8 mm). Strong SW CM abutments are available in four prosthetic platform diameters (3.3, 3.5, 4.5 and 4.8 mm). Subject Device components are made of commercially pure titanium, titanium alloy, cobalt-chromium, or polycarbonate.

The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for the S.I.N. Dental Implant System (K170392). It details the device, its intended use, and a comparison to predicate devices, but does not contain any information about clinical studies with acceptance criteria, sample sizes, expert ground truth establishment, or multi-reader multi-case studies related to device performance.

The document states: "No clinical data were included in this submission."

Therefore, based on the provided text, I cannot complete the requested information. However, I can extract the information provided about performance data (non-clinical) and the device's characteristics.

Here's what I can provide based on the given text:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
The document does not specify "acceptance criteria" in the traditional sense of performance metrics for a clinical study with a device output. Instead, it describes non-clinical testing performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices.

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance
Not applicable. No clinical test set. Non-clinical tests were conducted; however, specific sample sizes for these tests are not provided in the summary.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
Not applicable. No clinical test set or ground truth established by experts is mentioned.

4. Adjudication method for the test set
Not applicable. No clinical test set or adjudication process is mentioned.

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 study was done. The device is a dental implant system, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done
Not applicable. The device is a physical dental implant system, not an algorithm or AI.

7. The type of ground truth used
Not applicable. No clinical ground truth is mentioned.

8. The sample size for the training set
Not applicable. No training set is mentioned as this device is not an AI/ML algorithm.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
Not applicable. No training set or ground truth for it is mentioned.

Summary of what the document implies about meeting acceptance criteria:

The document demonstrates that the "S.I.N. Dental Implant System" meets the requirements for substantial equivalence to its predicate devices through a series of non-clinical tests. These tests cover aspects like sterilization, shelf-life, biocompatibility, and physical performance (e.g., insertion). The "acceptance criteria" here implicitly refer to the successful completion of these standard tests demonstrating that the device is as safe and effective as the legally marketed predicate devices, and that any differences do not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness. The absence of clinical data in the submission indicates that the FDA deemed the non-clinical evidence sufficient for a finding of substantial equivalence.

Ask a specific question about this device