Search Results

INNO SLA Submerged Narrow Implant System is intended for two-stage surgical procedures in the following situations and with the following clinical protocols:

• The intended use for the 3.3mm, 3.5mm diameter INNO Sub Narrow Implant is limited to the replacement of maxillary lateral incisors and mandibular incisors.

• Immediate placement in extraction situations with a partially or completely healed alveolar ridge.

• It is intended for delayed loading.

The INNO SLA Submerged Implant System offers the following components.

1 INNO SLA Submerged Narrow Fixture (Narrow) Ø 3.3 x 8.00, 10.00, 12.00, 14.00 mm Ø 3.5 x 8.00, 10.00, 12.00, 14.00 mm
2 Cover Screw (Narrow) Ø 2.84 x 5.0 mm Ø 3.23 x 6.0 mm Ø 3.62 x 7.0 mm
3 Healing Abutment (Narrow) Type 1 Ø3.5 x 6.7, 7.2, 9.2, 10.2, 11.2 mm
4 Healing Abutment (Narrow) Type 2 Ø 4.5 x 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 mm
5 Cemented Abutment (Narrow) Ø 4.5 x 7.85, 8.85, 9.85, 10.85, 11.85, 12.85, 13.85, 14.85mm Ø 4.5 x 9.35, 10.35, 11.35, 12.35, 13.35 mm Ø 4.5 x 7.65, 8.65, 9.65, 10.65, 11.65, 13.65, 14.65 mm Ø 4.5 x 9.15, 10.15, 11.15, 12.15, 13.15 mm
6 Angulated Abutment (Narrow) Ø 4.5 x 11.85, 12.85, 13.85, 14.85 mm (15°, 25°)
7 Multi S Abutment Ø 4.5 x 5, 5.8, 6mm
8 Multi A Abutment Ø 4.5 x 6.42, 7.42, 8.42, 6.96, 7.96mm (15°,30°) – Hex type Ø 4.5 x 6.23, 7.22, 8.22, 6.76, 7.76mm (15,30°) – Non Hex type
9 Multi Hybrid Ti-Base Cylinder Ø 4.5 x 4.5mm
10 Abutment Screw (Narrow) Ø 2.25 x 10.2 mm Ø 1.95 x 8.7 mm
Ø 1.95 x 9.3 mm
12 Multi Cylinder Screw Ø 2.25 x 5 mm
13 Straight Abutment Ø 3.5 x 13.5, 14, 15, 16, 17 mm
14 Temporary Abutment Ø 4.5 x 10 mm
15 Multi Titanium Cylinder Ø 4.5 x 9 mm

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device (INNO SLA Submerged Narrow Implant System). This type of document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices, not on proving clinical effectiveness or meeting specific performance acceptance criteria through a dedicated study.

Therefore, the document does not contain any information regarding:

• Acceptance criteria in the traditional sense of a clinical or performance study with numerical targets for metrics like sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, etc.
• The study that proves the device meets acceptance criteria (as no such study with performance metrics is presented).
• Sample size used for the test set or data provenance.
• Number of experts used to establish ground truth or their qualifications.
• Adjudication method.
• Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study.
• Standalone (algorithm only) performance.
• Ground truth type for a performance study.
• Sample size for the training set.
• How the ground truth for the training set was established.

Instead, the document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through:

1. Performance Data (Non-Clinical):

The performance testing listed focuses on engineering and material characteristics, leveraging previous clearances and established standards.

• Gamma radiation sterilization and shelf-life: Leveraged from Cowellmedi Co., Ltd.'s previous clearance K132242.
• Steam sterilization of abutments: Leveraged from Cowellmedi Co., Ltd.'s previous clearance K201323.
• Five-year shelf life and packaging: Leveraged from Cowellmedi Co., Ltd's previous clearance K132242.
• SLA surface treatment: Leveraged from Cowellmedi Co., Ltd.'s previous clearance K132242.
• Fatigue test in accordance with ISO 14801: This is an engineering test to ensure the mechanical integrity of the implant system. The document states: "We have performed the fatigue test to make sure the differences do not raise and the test result of the test supported substantial equivalence." However, no specific numerical acceptance criteria or results are provided in the summary.
• Biocompatibility endpoints: Leveraged from Cowellmedi Co., Ltd.'s previous clearance K132242.
• Non-clinical worst-case MRI review: Performed using scientific rationale and published literature to evaluate displacement force and torque.

2. Substantial Equivalence Discussion and Comparison Chart:

This section directly compares the subject device (INNO SLA Submerged Narrow Implant System) with various predicate and reference devices, highlighting similarities in:

• Intended Use
• Material (Titanium Grade 4 or Ti-6Al-4V ELI)
• Principle of Operation
• Design
• Surface Treatment (SLA, TiN Coating)
• Sterility (Gamma Sterilization, Non-sterile with terminal sterilization via moist heat/autoclave, End User Sterilization)
• Shelf Life (5 years)

The document asserts that slight differences, such as in abutment size options or diameter ranges, do not affect substantial equivalence or raise concerns about safety or performance.

In summary, for a traditional clinical or AI/ML performance study as requested, all fields would be "Not Applicable" or "Not Provided" based on the content of this 510(k) summary. The "acceptance criteria" here are implicitly that the device performs equivalently to the listed predicates based on the non-clinical tests and functional comparisons detailed.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Warantec dental abutment is intended to be used with the root-form endosseous dental implant to aid in prosthetic rehabilitation.

The IU Implant System Abutment is a dental implant superstructure made of titanium alloy. It is an abutment used to support or maintain the restoration after the implantation of the fixture in the oral cavity. The abutments are provided non-sterile and should be sterilized before use.

This document is a 510(k) summary for the IU Implant System Abutment, a dental implant superstructure. It describes the device, its intended use, and a comparison to predicate devices to demonstrate substantial equivalence. However, it does not contain the specific acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria in the context of device performance metrics such as sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, or effect size for AI assistance. The document focuses on showing the device's substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices based on design, materials, and non-clinical testing.

Therefore, many of the requested details cannot be extracted from the provided text.

Here is a breakdown of what can and cannot be provided based on the input:

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

• Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated in terms of performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy). The acceptance criteria are implicitly related to demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through comparisons of material, design, intended use, and non-clinical testing results (fatigue, biocompatibility, sterilization, MRI safety).
• Reported Device Performance: Performance is reported in terms of meeting specific standards and showing substantial equivalence in non-clinical tests, rather than clinical performance metrics.

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

• Not applicable for performance metrics. The "tests" mentioned are non-clinical (sterilization, biocompatibility, fatigue, MRI review). These typically involve a specific number of samples for mechanical or material testing, but not a "test set" from patients or images.
• Data Provenance: The submission is from Warantec Co., Ltd. in the Republic of Korea. The testing itself (e.g., ISO standards) does not specify "data provenance" in the way clinical studies would.

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 information is relevant for clinical studies or studies using expert readers for image interpretation, which were not conducted for this submission ("No clinical data were included in this submission.").

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

• Not applicable. This relates to clinical or expert-read studies, which were not performed.

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 is a dental implant abutment, not an AI-powered diagnostic device. The submission explicitly states, "No clinical data were included in this submission."

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

• Not applicable. This is not an AI algorithm; it's a physical medical device.

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

• For the non-clinical tests:
  • Sterilization: Ground truth is defined by the objective measurement of sterility (SAL) and adherence to ISO standards.
  • Biocompatibility: Ground truth is established by chemical composition and biological response testing, adhering to material standards (ASTM F136) and prior submissions.
  • Fatigue: Ground truth is based on physical endurance under simulated physiological loads according to ISO standards.
  • MRI Safety: Ground truth is based on existing scientific literature and physics principles related to magnetic forces and materials.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This is not an AI device that requires a training set.

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

• Not applicable. No training set was used.

Ask a specific question about this device

URIS OMNI Narrow System is indicated for use in the treatment of missing maxillary lateral incisors or the mandbular central and lateral incisors, in support of single or multiple-unit restorations including: cemented retained, or overdenture restorations, and final or temporary abutment support for fixed bridgework. It is intended for delayed loading.

The URIS OMNI Prosthetic abutments are intended for use with URIS OMNI dental implants to provide support for prosthetic restorations such as crowns, bridges, or over-dentures.

All digitally designed abutments and/or coping for use with URIS OMNI Prosthetic abutments are intended to be sent to a TruAbutment-validated milling center for manufacture.

URIS OMNI Narrow System fixtures are dental implants made of Unalloyed Titanium, grade 4 (ASTM F67) intended for use in the treatment of missing maxillary lateral incisors or the mandibular central and lateral incisors. The surface is SLA (Sandblasted, Large grit and Acid etched) treated and is provided sterile. It consists of two implant lines, the OMNI Straight and the OMNI Tapered, with corresponding cover screws, healing abutments and prosthetic abutments. The OMNI Tapered implant has a tapered wall with a single thread design. The OMNI Straight implant has straight wall with smaller threading at the coronal end, and bigger threading at the apical end. Both implant lines have Narrow (Ø 3.15 mm) platform sizes. Both implant lines share the following diameters and lengths.

Ø 3.15 x 10, 11.5, 13, 14.5mm (L)

URIS Prosthetic System is made of titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V ELI) intended for use as an aid in prosthetic restoration. It consists of Ball Abutment, Retainer, T LOC Straight Abutment, T Loc Titanium Cap, Multi-Unit Straight Abutment, Multi-Unit Angled Abutment, Multi-Unit Healing Cap, Multi-Unit Ti Cylinder, Multi-unit temporary cylinder, Multi-Unit Cylinder screw, URIS DS, URIS Base. No additional angulation is to be included in the when using a coping or cylinder (i.e., Multi-unit Ti Cylinder, Multi-unit Temporary Cylinder, Multi-unit Base) with any of the Multi-unit Abutments.

URIS Base consists of a two-piece abutment, where the titanium base is a pre-manufactured abutment that will be used to support a CAD/CAM designed superstructure (the second part of the two-piece abutment) that composes the final abutment. URIS Base is made of titanium alloy conforming to ASTM F136 Standard Specification for Wrought Titanium-4Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) Alloy for Surgical Implant Applications.

URIS DS abutment as a patient matched titanium abutment compatible with both URIS OMNI System (K172100) and URIS OMNI Narrow System (subject).

The provided document is a 510(k) Summary for a dental implant system. It discusses the substantial equivalence of the "URIS OMNI Narrow System & Prosthetic" to predicate devices based on non-clinical testing. The document does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria in the context of human reader performance or a standalone algorithm performance for AI/ML-driven devices.

The document states: "No clinical data were included in this submission." and focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through comparisons of technological characteristics and non-clinical test data.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information for an AI/ML device related to acceptance criteria, detailed study design, sample sizes, expert ground truth, adjudication methods, or MRMC comparative effectiveness studies, as these types of studies are not discussed in this 510(k) summary for this device.

The "acceptance criteria" presented in this document are primarily related to the successful completion and results of non-clinical tests to demonstrate equivalence to predicate devices. These are not performance metrics for an AI/ML algorithm.

Here's an analysis of what is provided regarding acceptance criteria in the context of this traditional medical device:

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

The document implicitly defines acceptance criteria by listing the standards to which tests were performed and stating that "the results have met the criteria of the standards." The "reported device performance" is that it successfully met these standards, thereby demonstrating substantial equivalence.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:
Not applicable for this type of non-clinical, non-AI device study. The document refers to testing on the device itself (e.g., fatigue testing, sterilization testing, biocompatibility).

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 as typically understood for AI/ML performance is not relevant here. The "ground truth" for these tests would be the accepted parameters and methods defined by the referenced ISO/ASTM standards and FDA guidance.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
Not applicable. This is not a human reader or AI performance study.

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. This is not an AI/ML device.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
No. This is not an AI/ML device.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert concensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc):
Not applicable in the context of AI/ML device performance. For the described non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" is defined by the specific parameters and requirements of the referenced ISO/ASTM standards. For example, for biocompatibility, the ground truth is whether the materials meet the criteria specified in ISO 10993-1.

8. The sample size for the training set:
Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.

Ask a specific question about this device

URIS OMNI System is indicated for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae, in support of single or multiple-unit restorations including; cemented retained, or overdenture restorations, and final or temporary abutment support for fixed bridgework. It is intended for delayed loading.

URIS OMNI System fixtures are dental implants made of Unalloyed Titanium, grade 4 (ASTM F67) intended for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae, in support of single or multiple-unit restorations. The surface is SLA (Sandblasted, Large grit and Acid etched) treated and is provided sterile. It consists of two implant lines, the OMNI and the OMNI Tapered, with corresponding cover screws, healing abutments and prosthetic abutments. The OMN Tapered implant has a tapered wall with a single thread design. The OMN is straight walled with smaller threading at the coronal end, and bigger threading at the apical end. Both implant lines have two platform sizes, Narrow (Ø 3.5 mm) and Regular (Ø 4.0 - Ø 6.5 mm). Both implant lines share the following diameters and lengths:

Ø 3.5 x 8.5, 10, 11.5, 13, 14.5mm (L) Ø 4.0 x 7. 8.5. 10. 11.5. 13. 14.5mm (L) Ø 4.5 x 7, 8.5, 10, 11.5, 13, 14.5mm (L) Ø 5.0 x 7, 8.5, 10, 11.5, 13, 14.5mm (L) Ø 5.5 x 7. 8.5. 10. 11.5. 13. 14.5mm (L) Ø 6.0 x 7, 8.5, 10mm (L) Ø 6.5 x 7, 8.5, 10mm (L).

URIS Prosthetic System is made of titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V ELI) intended for use as an aid in prosthetic restoration. It consists of Cover screw, Healing abutment-direct type, D-basis abutmentcemented type, Angled abutment, Milling abutment, Temporary abutment screw. The surface of cover screw and healing abutment are anodized in yellow and green.

The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for the URIS OMNI System, a dental implant device. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on technological characteristics and non-clinical test data for mechanical properties and biocompatibility.

Crucially, this document explicitly states: "No clinical data were included in this submission."

Therefore, the information required to answer your request regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets those criteria, specifically concerning human performance with or without AI, multi-reader multi-case studies, standalone algorithm performance, or ground truth derived from expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data, cannot be found in this document.

The acceptance criteria mentioned in this 510(k) summary are for non-clinical tests to demonstrate the device's physical and biological properties.

Here's the relevant information that can be extracted, interpreting "acceptance criteria" in the context of this regulatory submission:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (Non-Clinical)

The "acceptance criteria" for this submission are not expressed as performance metrics for an AI/CADe device, but rather as meeting established standards for dental implants and abutments. The "reported device performance" is a statement that the device met these criteria.

Since "No clinical data were included in this submission," the following requested information cannot be provided from this document:

2. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable, as no clinical test data is provided.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable.
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.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Not applicable to device performance in a clinical context.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable (refers to AI/machine learning data, not present here).
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device