Search Results

DESS Dental Smart Solutions abutments are intended to be used in conjunction with endosseous dental implants in the maxillary or mandibular arch to provide support for prosthetic restorations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. The sample size for the training set

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

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

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

Ask a specific question about this device

DESS Dental Smart Solutions abutments are intended to be used in conjunction with endosseous dental implants in the maxillary or mandibular arch to provide support for prosthetic restorations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ask a specific question about this device

DESS Dental Smart Solutions abutments are intended to be used in conjunction with endosseous dental implants in the maxillary or mandibular arch to provide support for prosthetic restorations.

All digitally designed custom abutments for use with DESS Ti Base abutments or Pre-Milled Blank abutments are to be sent to a Terrats Medical validated milling center for manufacture.

The purpose of this submission is to add components to the DESS Dental Smart Solutions system, which includes dental implants, abutments, and prosthetic components cleared previously in various submissions. The previously cleared abutments and prosthetic components are compatible with a variety of original equipment manufacturer (OEM) dental implants as well as DESS Dental Smart Solutions dental implants.

This submission adds various abutments to the DESS and OEM implant lines as summarized on the following pages in Table 1 Summary of Subject Device Abutment Designs, and Table 2 Summary of Subject Device Abutment Sizes.

The subject device abutment designs include Cover Screws, Healing Abutments, Temporary Abutments, Ti Base Abutments, AURUM Base Abutments (Ti Base abutments with a screw channel design that allows easier instrument access to the abutment screw), CoCr Base Abutments, Pre-Milled Blank Abutments, Multi-Unit Abutments (straight and angled), DESSLoc Abutments (Locator-type abutments), and abutment screws.

This document is a 510(k) summary for the DESS Dental Smart Solutions, a line of endosseous dental implant abutments. It details the device's characteristics, intended use, and a comparison to predicate devices to establish substantial equivalence.

Based on the provided text, the device itself is a physical medical device (dental implant abutments and associated components), not a software or AI-driven system. Therefore, the questions related to AI acceptance criteria, training/test sets, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, and ground truth establishment for AI would not be directly applicable to this product as described.

The document focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices through:

• Identical Intended Use: The device is intended for "functional and esthetic rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible or maxilla" by providing support for prosthetic restorations, which is the same as the predicate devices.
• Similar Technological Characteristics: The device utilizes similar designs, materials (Ti-6Al-4V, Co-Cr-Mo alloy), manufacturing processes, and sterilization methods as its predicates.
• Performance Data: Non-clinical testing (mechanical testing per ISO 14801, MR environment assessment) and comparison to existing data from predicate devices are used to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Therefore, many of the requested elements for describing AI acceptance criteria and studies are not present or applicable in this document.

However, I can extract information relevant to the device's performance assessment and criteria for its type of submission.

Here's an attempt to answer the questions based solely on the provided text, acknowledging that the nature of the device (a physical implant component) means many AI-specific questions will be answered as "Not Applicable" (N/A):

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

The document does not explicitly state quantifiable "acceptance criteria" in a table format with corresponding "reported device performance" metrics for this specific 510(k) submission. Instead, it relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices.

The underlying "acceptance criteria" for demonstrating substantial equivalence for this device type are primarily through:

• Mechanical Testing (ISO 14801): This is a critical performance standard for dental implants and abutments. The document states that mechanical testing was "conducted according to ISO 14801 to support the performance." The acceptance criteria would be successful completion of these tests, demonstrating the device's mechanical strength and fatigue resistance are comparable to or better than predicate devices. The reported performance is simply that the tests supported the performance.
• Material Conformance: Materials must conform to specific ASTM standards (e.g., ASTM F136 for Ti-6Al-4V, ASTM F1537 for Co-Cr-Mo). The reported performance is that the materials conform to these standards.
• Biocompatibility: While not detailed in this excerpt, the mention of "biocompatibility" in relation to predicates implies conformance to relevant biocompatibility standards (e.g., ISO 10993 series). The reported performance is that it is compatible.
• Sterilization Validation: Demonstrated sterility assurance level (SAL) of 10⁻⁶ via validated methods (moist heat or gamma irradiation). The reported performance is that validation was performed and met this SAL.
• Dimensional Compatibility: The abutments must fit the corresponding OEM implants correctly. The reported performance is that reverse engineering dimensional analysis confirmed compatibility.

Due to the nature of the document being a 510(k) summary focusing on substantial equivalence rather than a full study report, specific numerical performance results for the device tests are not provided in this text.

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

• Sample Size for Mechanical Testing: The document states "mechanical testing conducted according to ISO 14801." For such tests, ISO 14801 typically specifies minimum sample sizes (e.g., 10-11 samples for static strength, typically more for fatigue). The exact number of samples used for this specific submission is not explicitly stated, but it would have followed the standard's requirements.
• Data Provenance: The mechanical testing and material analyses are assumed to be "non-clinical data submitted or referenced" by the manufacturer, Terrats Medical SL, based in Barcelona, Spain. The "reverse engineering dimensional analysis" was done by Terrats Medical SL or through contractual agreement. This is prospective testing performed to support the 510(k). The document itself does not specify the country of origin for the underlying OEM implant data used for reverse engineering, although the OEM companies are listed (e.g., Astra Tech AB, BioHorizons).

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

N/A. This is a physical device. Ground truth, in the context of AI, refers to validated labels for data used to train and test an algorithm. For a physical device, performance is evaluated through engineering and biocompatibility testing against defined standards. There are no "experts" establishing ground truth in the AI sense. Testing would be performed by qualified engineers and technicians.

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

N/A. Adjudication methods are typically used in clinical studies involving interpretation (e.g., by radiologists) to resolve discrepancies. This document describes non-clinical performance testing of a physical device.

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

N/A. This product is a dental implant abutment, not an AI software intended to assist human readers.

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

N/A. This is a physical device, not an algorithm.

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

N/A. For engineering tests of physical devices, the "ground truth" is typically derived from established engineering principles, international standards (e.g., ISO 14801 for mechanical properties, ASTM for materials), and the physical properties of the materials and designs themselves. There isn't "expert consensus" or "pathology" in the AI or clinical trials sense.

8. The sample size for the training set

N/A. This is a physical device; there's no "training set" in the machine learning sense. The device is manufactured based on established engineering designs and material specifications.

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

N/A. No training set for AI. For device manufacturing, the "ground truth" for design and production parameters comes from established engineering best practices, prior successful device designs (predicate devices), and adherence to quality systems regulations (21 CFR Part 820).

Ask a specific question about this device

Medentika abutments are intended for use with dental implants as a support for single or multiple tooth prostheses in the maxilla or mandible of a partially or fully edentulous patient.
Medentika abutments for the Dentsply Sirona Astra Tech OsseoSpeed EV 3.0mm and TX 3.0mm implant bodies are indicated for maxillary lateral and mandibular central/lateral incisors only.
Medentika TiBase CAD/CAM Abutments are intended for use with dental implants as a support for single or multiple tooth prostheses in the maxilla or mandible of a partially or fully edentulous patient. Medentika TiBase is intended for use with the Straumann® CARES® System. All digitally designed copings and/or crowns are intended to be sent to Straumann for manufacture at a validated milling center.
Medentika abutments for the Nobel Biocare Nobel Active®* 3.0mm, Dentsply Sirona Astra Tech OsseoSpeed EV®* 3.0mm and TX®* 3.0mm implant bodies are indicated for maxillary lateral and mandibular central/lateral incisors only.
Medentika PreFace CAD/CAM Abutments are intended for use with dental implants as a support for single or multiple tooth prostheses in the maxilla or mandible of a partially or fully edentulous patient.
Medentika Preface is intended for use with the Straumann® CARES® System. All digitally designed abutments for use with Medentika CAD/CAM Abutments are intended to be manufactured at a Straumann® CARES® validated milling center. The final patient matched form is a MedentiCAD abutment.
Medentika abutments for the Dentsply Sirona Astra Tech OsseoSpeed EV 3.0mm implant bodies are indicated for maxillary lateral and mandibular central/lateral incisors only.
Multi-unit abutments are indicated for use with dental implants as a support for multi-unit screw retained bridges and bars in the maxilla or mandible of a partially or fully edentulous patient.

The Medentika abutments include abutments, abutment screws, caps, and bases which are labelled under a specific Medentika series and are compatible with a specified dental implant system. The abutments include sinqle-unit abutments intended for use with dental implants as a support for single or multiple tooth protheses in the maxilla or mandible of a partially or fully edentulous patient. The abutments also include multi-unit abutments indicated for use with dental implants as a support for multi-unit screw retained bridges and bars in the maxilla or mandible of a partially or fully edentulous patient.
The purpose of this premarket notification is to add additional abutments. The subject abutments include abutments compatible with additional dental implant systems forming a new Medentika series (the OT series). The subject abutments also include abutments compatible with new implant diameters in existing Medentika series (E, EV, F, and S). Lastly, the subject abutments include new abutment designs compatible with existing implant diameters in existing Medentika series (R).

This looks like a 510(k) Summary for a medical device (dental abutments), which means the document is about proving "substantial equivalence" to a predicate device, not about proving clinical effectiveness or performance against pre-defined acceptance criteria in the way one might for a novel AI/software medical device.

Therefore, the information requested in your bullet points (e.g., acceptance criteria table, sample size for test set, number of experts for ground truth, MRMC study, standalone performance, training set details) is not applicable to this type of regulatory submission because the device is a mechanical one, not an AI/software device. The data presented here is focused on demonstrating physical and mechanical compatibility and equivalence to previously cleared devices.

Here's why each point is not applicable and what information is provided:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: This document doesn't provide a typical "acceptance criteria" table as would be seen for an AI/software device measuring diagnostic performance (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC). Instead, it relies on demonstrating that the new abutments perform similarly to existing, cleared abutments through "dynamic fatigue testing" and "dimensional analysis and reverse engineering." The performance is implicitly "accepted" if these tests show equivalence to the predicate.

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective): No "test set" in the context of diagnostic performance is mentioned. The "testing" refers to non-clinical, physical testing (fatigue, dimensional analysis). There is no patient data involved in this type of submission for a mechanical device.

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. Ground truth, in the AI/software sense, is not established for this device. The "truth" is based on engineered specifications and physical testing.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable. No human adjudication of diagnostic output is relevant 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: Not applicable. This is not an AI-assisted device.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This is not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): Not applicable. The "ground truth" is engineering specifications and physical measurements.

8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. There is no AI/machine learning component to "train."

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable for the same reason as above.

What the document does provide regarding device performance and testing:

• Type of Testing:

  • Dynamic fatigue testing according to FDA guidance and ISO 14801 (Dentistry - implants dynamic loading test for endosseous dental implants).
  • Dimensional analysis and reverse engineering of the implant-to-abutment connection platform.
  • Sterilization validation (steam and gamma irradiation) referenced from K191123, ISO 17665-1, ISO/TS 17665-2, ISO 11137-1, ISO 11137-2.
  • Sterile packaging validation referenced from K191123, ISO 11607-1, ISO 11607-2.
  • Biocompatibility evaluations referenced from K142167, K170838, K191123, K150203, K061804 in accordance with ISO 10993-1.
  • MR testing referenced from K180564 in accordance with ASTM F2052-15, ASTM F2213-06 (2011), ASTM F2182-11a, and ASTM F2119-13.

• Conclusion: The tests demonstrated "implant to abutment compatibility" and "established substantial equivalency of the proposed device with predicate devices." This is the "proof" that the device meets the (implicit) acceptance of being substantially equivalent to existing, legally marketed devices.

In summary, this document is for a traditional mechanical medical device, and the regulatory pathway does not involve performance studies in the way you've outlined for AI/software-based devices.

Ask a specific question about this device

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

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

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

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

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

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

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

5. If a Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. The document explicitly states: "No clinical data were included in this submission." This type of study typically involves human readers and is clinical in nature.

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

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

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

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

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

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

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

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

Summary of what the document IS about:

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

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

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

Ask a specific question about this device

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 Panthera Dental Milled Bar is indicated for use as an accessory to an endosseous dental implant to support a prosthetic device in a partially or edentulous patient for purpose of restoring chewing function. It is intended for use to support multiple tooth prostheses in the mandible or maxilla. The prostheses can be screw retained.

The Panthera Dental Milled Bars are indicated for compatibility with:

• · NobelActive: NP Ø3.5; RP Ø4.3 / Ø5.0; WP Ø5.5
• NobelParallel CC: NP Ø3.75: RP Ø4.3 / Ø5.0: WP Ø5.5
• NobelReplace: NP Ø3.5; RP Ø4.0 / Ø4.3 / Ø5.0; WP Ø5.0; 6 Ø6.0
• NobelSpeedy: RP Ø4.0 / Ø5.0; WP Ø5.0 / Ø6.0
• Brånemark: NP Ø3.3; RP Ø3.75 / Ø4.0; WP Ø5.0

The Panthera Dental Milled Bar is a metallic dental restorative device that is intended for attaching by screw retention to dental implants to aid in the treatment of partial and totally edentulous patients for the purpose of restoring chewing function.

The Panthera Dental milled bars for which clearance is requested, are included in one of the following bar types, which have distinct design specifications.

The Type I bars are specific for removable overdenture and include:

• . Panthera Dental Dolder Bar, Hader Bar, Milled Bar, REBourke Bar and Paris Bar.

The Type II bars are specific for fixed prostheses and include:

• Panthera Dental Wrap-around Bar, Montreal Bar, Montreal Bar with metallic lingual, Pin Lingual Bar and Pin Wrap-Around Bar.

The Panthera Dental Milled Bar is designed to match an individual patient. Panthera Dental designs the bar from a three-dimensional optical and/or digital scanner system that scans the patient's impression; the dental professional prepares the model cast beforehand. The designed bar is then machined using a computer-aided design/ computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) software system. The bar is milled from titanium (Ti-6AI-4V grade 5). CAD/CAM fabrication is only performed by Panthera Dental, within our manufacturing control and not by the dental laboratory.

The Panthera Dental Milled Bar is packaged as non-sterile, and delivered to a dental laboratory for completion. Once received at the laboratory, the Panthera Dental Milled Bar is matched to a denture for final placement. The Panthera Dental Milled Bar provides retention and support for a removable or fixed denture made of standard laboratory dental materials such as resin composite.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study information for the Panthera Dental Milled Bars, based on the provided document.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document doesn't explicitly present acceptance criteria in a tabular format with specific numerical targets. Instead, it describes performance through compliance with recognized standards and successful testing outcomes. The "performance" is primarily demonstrated through meeting mechanical strength requirements and biocompatibility standards, and by showing substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: The document does not specify the exact sample size for each test (e.g., how many bars were subjected to fatigue testing). It refers to "the bar itself" and "the bar cylinders" for fatigue testing. For reverse engineering, it mentions "each interface connection" and "each components per size and type" which implies multiple samples were analyzed to determine critical parameters and tolerance limits.
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify country of origin for data. The non-clinical testing was conducted by Panthera Dental Inc., a Canadian company. The tests are framed within the context of a 510(k) submission to the U.S. FDA. The testing conducted was for the primary predicate device (K173466) and determined to be applicable to the proposed device due to identical materials and manufacturing processes. The tests were retrospective in the sense that they were done on manufactured devices/components.

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

• Number of Experts: This information is not explicitly stated. The document refers to compliance with ISO and FDA guidance documents for testing, which implies a standard methodology rather than expert consensus on a subjective test set.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not specified. Testing was performed by Panthera Dental Inc. or their designated testing facilities to meet recognized standards.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. The tests mentioned (fatigue, biocompatibility, sterilization, reverse engineering, process capability) are objective physical, chemical, and mechanical tests, not subjective evaluations requiring adjudication.

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

No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. The Panthera Dental Milled Bars are a physical dental device, not an AI or imaging diagnostic tool that would typically involve a reader study.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm or software. The mention of CAD/CAM refers to the design and manufacturing process, not an independent algorithm performance.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for the device's performance is established through:

• Compliance with recognized standards: ISO 14801 for fatigue testing, ISO 10993 series and USP for biocompatibility, and ANSI/AAMI-ST8 for sterilization.
• Measurement and verification: Reverse engineering to ensure precise fit with implant systems.
• Predicate device equivalence: Performance data for the predicate device (K173466) is directly applied due to identical materials, design principles, and manufacturing processes.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device. There is no "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI. The design and manufacturing processes are established based on engineering principles and validated through testing.

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

Not applicable, as there is no "training set" in the context of this device. The design specifications and manufacturing parameters are established through engineering design, material science, and testing against industry standards, not via a machine learning training process.

Ask a specific question about this device

Reflect™ Dental Implants are indicated for use in partially or fully edentulous patients to support maxillary and mandibular single-unit, multiple-unit, and overdenture dental restorations. Reflect™ Dental Implants are indicated for immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading.

Reflect™ Implant System prosthetic components are compatible with the following implant systems.

| Implant System
Compatibility | Implant Body Diameter
(mm) | Platform Diameter
(mm) |
|---------------------------------|-------------------------------|---------------------------|
| OsseoSpeed™ | 3.5 | 3.5/4.0 |
| | 4.0 | 3.5/4.0 |
| | 5.0 | 4.5/5.0 |
| 3i Certain® | 3.25 | 3.4 |
| | 4.0 | 4.1 |
| | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| NobelActive® | 3.5 | NP |
| | 4.3 | RP |
| | 5.0 | RP |
| NobelReplace Conical | 3.5 | NP |
| | 4.3 | RP |
| | 5.0 | RP |
| Tapered Screw-Vent® | 3.7 | 3.5 |
| | 4.1 | 3.5 |
| | 4.7 | 4.5 |

Reflect™ Implant System implants are root form endosseous dental implants with a tapered body and a grit blasted and acid etched surface intended for bone level placement. The subject device consists of five product lines (Reflect™ Aspire, Reflect™ Certus, Reflect™ Rapid, Reflect™ Recover, and Reflect™ Tapered) and three component designs (Cover Screw, Healing Abutment, and 30° Abutment). The Reflect™ implant sizes are summarized in the following table.

The Reflect™ abutment sizes are summarized in the following table. Note: each abutment is provided in each platform diameter listed.

Subject device implants are made of unalloyed titanium conforming to ASTM F67 Standard Specification for Unalloyed Titanium for Surgical Implant Applications (UNS R50400, UNS R50550, UNS R50700) Grade 4, and subject device abutments are made of titanium alloy conforming to ASTM F 136 Standard Specification for Wrought Titanium-6Aluminum-4Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) Alloy for Surgical Implant Applications (UNS R56401).

The subject device implant surface is produced by blasting with alumina (Al2O3) powder, and etching with hydrochloric acid and sulfuric acid. After etching, the remaining acid is removed by washing with distilled water, followed by cleaning with an alkaline solution using a high temperature and high-pressure hydrothermal method.

The provided document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the Reflect™ Implant System, a dental implant device. This document does NOT contain information about acceptance criteria and device performance as typically expected for diagnostic or AI-powered medical devices (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, F1-score).

Instead, this submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing legally marketed predicate devices. This means the manufacturer is asserting their device is as safe and effective as a device already on the market, by showing similar indications for use, technological characteristics, and materials.

Therefore, the information requested in your prompt regarding acceptance criteria for device performance (like sensitivity, specificity, etc.) and related studies (sample sizes for test/training sets, expert ground truth, MRMC studies) is not present in this document.

The "Performance Data" section (Page 6) explicitly states: "Non-clinical data submitted, referenced, or relied upon to demonstrate substantial equivalence include: sterilization validation according to ISO 11137-1, ISO 11137-2, ISO 17665-1, and 17665-2; biocompatibility according to ISO 10993-1, 10993-5, and 10993-12; dynamic compression-bending testing according to ISO 14801; and engineering and dimensional analysis of the OEM implant bodies, OEM abutments, and OEM fixation screws. No clinical data were included in this submission."

This indicates that the performance data for this type of device (dental implant hardware) is primarily based on bench testing and material science, not clinical accuracy or diagnostic performance evaluated against ground truth in a clinical setting.

To answer your prompt with the available information in the document, I will have to explain why the requested information is not present and what type of "acceptance criteria" and "performance data" are typically used for a 510(k) submission for a non-AI hardware device like this.

Based on the provided document (K180924 for Reflect™ Implant System):

This 510(k) submission demonstrates substantial equivalence for a dental implant system. The "acceptance criteria" and "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in this context are related to non-clinical performance benchmarks and comparisons to predicate devices, rather than diagnostic performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity) typically associated with AI or diagnostic imaging devices.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on what is and is not available in the document:

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

The document does not present acceptance criteria or reported performance in a table format for diagnostic accuracy or similar metrics. Instead, the "acceptance criteria" for this type of device (dental implant hardware) are implicit in demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicates, meaning the device must perform comparably in terms of:

• Materials: Conforming to recognized standards (e.g., ASTM F67 for unalloyed titanium, ASTM F136 for titanium alloy).
• Mechanical Strength: Meeting or exceeding benchmarks from standards like ISO 14801 for dynamic compression-bending.
• Biocompatibility: Conforming to ISO 10993 series.
• Sterilization: Validation according to ISO 11137 series and ISO 17665 series, and bacterial endotoxin testing per ANSI/AAMI ST72.
• Packaging Integrity: Meeting ASTM standards for sterile barrier shelf testing (F88, F1140, F2096, F1929, F1608).
• Dimensional & Engineering Analysis: Demonstrating compatibility with existing implant systems and consistency with predicate device dimensions.
• Surface Characteristics: Confirmation of no residual material from manufacturing processes (via SEM with EDS).

Reported Device Performance (as described for non-clinical testing):
The document states that tests were "performed according to" or "conforming to" these standards, implying successful completion. For example:

• "sterilization validation according to ISO 11137-1, ISO 11137-2, ISO 17665-1, and 17665-2;"
• "biocompatibility according to ISO 10993-1, 10993-5, and 10993-12;"
• "dynamic compression-bending testing according to ISO 14801;"
• "engineering and dimensional analysis of the OEM implant bodies, OEM abutments, and OEM fixation screws."
• "bacterial endotoxin testing was performed according to ANSI/AAMI ST72."
• "Sterile barrier shelf testing was performed according to ASTM standards F88. F1140. F2096, F1929, and F1608."
• "Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) with energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) was performed on the implant endosseous threaded surface to confirm there was no residual material from the blasting or cleaning operations present on the final devices."

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

• Sample Size: Not specified in terms of clinical patient data, as "No clinical data were included in this submission." For non-clinical validation (e.g., mechanical testing, biocompatibility), sample sizes would be determined by the specific ISO/ASTM standards referenced, but these are not enumerated in the summary.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable for clinical data. The non-clinical testing data provenance is not specified (e.g., where the testing labs were located).

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 submission focuses on hardware components, materials, and mechanical integrity, not diagnostic or AI performance requiring expert truth-labeling of medical images or patient outcomes.

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

• Not applicable. No clinical test set or ground truth labeling requiring adjudication is described.

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, not an AI or diagnostic imaging 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 a hardware device, not an algorithm.

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

• Not applicable for clinical ground truth. The "ground truth" for this device lies in its adherence to material specifications, mechanical performance standards, and biological compatibility, as demonstrated through non-clinical testing and comparison to legally marketed predicate devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This is a hardware device; there is no AI training set.

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

• Not applicable. There is no AI training set.

In summary, the provided FDA 510(k) document for the Reflect™ Implant System is for a physical medical device (dental implant hardware), not a diagnostic or AI-powered device. Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" and "performance data" presented are based on non-clinical engineering, materials science, and successful demonstration of substantial equivalence to already-cleared predicate devices, rather than clinical efficacy or diagnostic accuracy metrics.

Ask a specific question about this device

DESS Dental Smart Solutions abutments are intended to be used in conjunction with endosseous dental implants in the maxillary or mandibular arch to provide support for prosthetic restorations.

All digitally designed custom abutments for use with Aurum™ Abutment or Pre-milled Blank are to be sent to a Terrats Medical validated milling center for manufacture.

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

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

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

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

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

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

No MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done. This type of study is specifically relevant for AI/ML-driven diagnostic or interpretative devices involving human readers. The device described here is a physical dental implant abutment, not an AI/ML diagnostic tool.

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

No standalone algorithm performance study was done. This is not an AI/ML device. The "CAD/CAM process" mentioned refers to computer-aided design and manufacturing for custom abutments, which is a manufacturing process, not an analytical algorithm for diagnosis or interpretation.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

For the non-clinical tests conducted:

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

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

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

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

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

Ask a specific question about this device

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

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

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

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

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

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

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

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

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

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

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

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

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

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

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

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

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

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

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

Ask a specific question about this device