Search Results

The T3® Pro Implants are intended for surgical placement in the upper or lower jaw to provide a means for prosthetic attachment in single tooth restorations and in partially or fully edentulous spans with multiple single teeth utilizing delayed loading, or with a terminal or intermediary abutment for fixed or removable bridgework, and to retain overdentures.

The T3® Pro Implants may also utilize immediate loading for these indications. The T3® Pro Implants are intended for immediate function on single tooth and/or multiple tooth applications when good primary stability is achieved, with appropriate occlusal loading, in order to restore chewing function.

The T3® Pro Implants with the new ZimVie Implant Packaging System. The material and design of the subject device is identical to the primary predicate device T3® Pro Implants cleared in K213672.

The ZimVie Implant Packaging System configuration, similarly to the primary predicate device, consists of a titanium sleeve that is inserted into a polypropylene inner tray, covered with a Tyvek lid and heat-sealed. This assembly is then placed in a heat-sealed outer tray, covered with a Tyvek® lid. The outer tray is placed inside a cardboard box, and gamma sterilized. The new ZimVie Packaging System has been standardized to align the packaging across all ZimVie implant families. The subject device in the new ZimVie Packaging System has a shelf-life of two (2) years.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and associated documentation for the "T3 Pro Implants- ZimVie Packaging System" (K251660) do not describe acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria in the context of an AI/human reader performance study.

Instead, this submission is for a medical device (endosseous dental implant) and its new packaging system. The "performance data" section explicitly states that no clinical data was included in the submission for the substantial equivalence determination. The focus of the provided document is to demonstrate equivalence to a previously cleared predicate device for the dental implant itself, with the primary change being the packaging system.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request to create a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance related to an AI-assisted or standalone AI system, nor can I provide details on sample size, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, or ground truth establishment, as these concepts are not discussed or relevant to the provided documentation for this specific 510(k) clearance.

The information provided describes non-clinical performance data related to the physical device and its packaging:

• Sterilization validation: Gamma irradiation sterilization to a sterility assurance level of 10^-6 according to ISO 13004 and ISO 11137.
• Aging studies: Demonstrating a shelf life of two (2) years for the implants, with packaging sterile barrier testing per ASTM F1980.
• Packaging studies: Simulated distribution and environmental conditioning per ISTA 3A and ASTM D4169.
• Biological evaluation: Leveraged from the primary predicate device, demonstrating no increased risks regarding biocompatibility. The material is Commercially Pure Titanium conforming to ASTM F67.
• MR Safety testing: Conducted according to ASTM F2503-13 on the primary predicate device (identical to the subject device) for MR Conditional determination.
• Bacterial Endotoxin Testing: Routinely performed using LAL assay in accordance with ISO 11737-3.

The acceptance criteria for this submission would primarily revolve around demonstrating that the new packaging system maintains the sterility, integrity, and safety of the dental implant for its stated shelf life, and that the dental implant itself remains identical to the previously cleared predicate device in all other aspects (materials, design, intended use, operating principle).

In summary, your request pertains to an AI/Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) study, while the provided document describes the 510(k) clearance process for a physical dental implant device and its new packaging.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Spiraltech Dental Implants are endosseous implants intended to be surgically placed in the upper or lower jaw arches to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as an artificial tooth, in order to restore patients esthetics and chewing function. Spiraltech implants are intended for single or multiple unit restorations on splinted or non-splinted applications. The implants ESi Dynamic and Ultimate are intended for immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved, and with appropriate occlusive loading. These implants [along with Premium and One Piece] can also be used for loading after a conventional healing period.

Solo One Piece 3.0 and 3.3 implants, Ultimate (conical) 3.0 implants, and ESi (conical) 3.0 implants are intended to replace a lateral incisor in the maxilla and/or a central or lateral incisor in the mandible. Mandibular central and lateral incisors must be splinted if using two or more 3.0 and/or 3.3 implants adjacent to one another.

The SpiralTech implant system is a comprehensive product line that includes implants, corresponding abutments, and closure screws. SpiralTech dental implants are grade 5 titanium (Ti 6Al-4V ELI, conforms to ASTM F136) implants that come in 2 different surface treatments - SLA, and RBM.

SpiralTech dental implants come in five product lines with four based on their thread designs. The ESi has sharp, square, and rounded threads. The Ultimate and Dynamic lines also have sharp threads with the Dynamic having a reverse buttress thread design. The Premium line features square and sharper threads in a more conventional design. The implants have diameters ranging from 3.0 mm, and the lengths from 8mm to 15 mm. ESi, Ultimate, and Dynamic are intended to be used for immediate loading. The fifth implant type is the One Piece which comes with an abutment which cannot be used with low mechanical stability cases.

Abutments are available in various types including straight, shoulder, angulated, ball attachments, multiunit, temporary and healing. All abutments come in both hex and conical connections. Temporary abutments come in PEEK and zirconia. Healing abutments come in titanium alloy and zirconia. Abutments come in titanium alloy and as a titanium base with zirconia abutments and multi-units are titanium alloy. No SpiralTech abutments are intended to be modified.

The SpiralTech Dental Implant System's acceptance criteria and studies are focused on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than establishing direct clinical performance metrics against a defined standard. Therefore, the device performance is reported in terms of equivalence to established devices and compliance with relevant standards.

Here's an breakdown based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

This section is derived from the "Non-Clinical Testing" and "Substantial Equivalence" sections, as well as the comparison tables. The acceptance criteria essentially reflect conformance to established standards and similarity to predicate devices.

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

The document describes non-clinical laboratory testing, not clinical studies involving patient data. Therefore, there isn't a "test set" in the sense of patient data.

• Sample Size for Testing: The specific sample sizes for fatigue testing, sterilization validation, SEM/EDS analysis, and biocompatibility testing are not explicitly stated in the provided text. They are implied to be sufficient for compliance with the referenced ISO and ASTM standards.
• Data Provenance: The studies are non-clinical, laboratory-based tests conducted following international standards (ISO, ASTM, USP). There is no country of origin for "data" in the context of patient information, nor is it retrospective or prospective. The data originates from the manufacturer's testing or contracted laboratories.

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

Not applicable. This device's approval is based on substantial equivalence through non-clinical testing and comparison to predicate devices, not on interpretation of patient data by a panel of human experts.

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

Not applicable, as there is no "test set" requiring expert 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 document pertains to a dental implant system, which is a physical medical device, not an AI-powered diagnostic or decision support system.

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

Not applicable, as this is not an algorithm-based device.

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

The "ground truth" in this context is the established performance and safety requirements outlined in international standards (ISO, ASTM, USP) for dental implants and materials, as well as the documented characteristics of the predicate and reference devices. For example:

• Sterility: Demonstrated by meeting specified sterility assurance levels (SAL) according to ISO standards.
• Mechanical Strength: Demonstrated by meeting fatigue resistance criteria according to ISO 14801.
• Biocompatibility: Demonstrated by passing cytotoxicity tests (MEM elution) and material characterization (SEM, EDS) in accordance with relevant standards.
• Design & Materials: Comparison to the known, established designs and materials of legally marketed predicate devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. There is no "training set" as this is not an AI/machine learning device.

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

Not applicable. There is no "training set."

Ask a specific question about this device