Search Results

Dentis s-Clean Regular Abutment is indicated for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae, in support of single or multiple unit restorations including; cemented retained, screw retained, or overdenture restorations, and terminal or intermediate abutment support for fixed bridgework. This system is dedicated for one and two stage surgical procedures. This system is intended for delayed loading.

Dentis s-Clean Regular Abutment is intended for use as an aid in prosthetic restoration. It consists of Abutments, components, and Abutment screws.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding acceptance criteria and supporting studies. It's important to note that this document is a 510(k) summary for a dental implant abutment, and as such, it focuses on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to existing cleared devices rather than establishing novel safety and effectiveness criteria from scratch. Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" here are largely implied by the equivalence to predicate devices and adherence to relevant standards.

General Observation: The document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence (SE) based on comparing the subject device's (Dentis s-Clean Regular Abutment) technical characteristics, materials, and intended use to various predicate and reference devices. The "performance" being evaluated is largely through compliance with international standards and leveraging prior testing on similar devices. There isn't a direct "device performance" in terms of clinical outcomes with AI assistance or human reader improvement, as this is a physical medical device (dental abutment).

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

Given the nature of the device (dental abutment) and the submission type (510(k) for substantial equivalence), the "acceptance criteria" are predominantly about meeting material specifications, standardized mechanical testing, and demonstrating equivalence in design and intended use to legally marketed predicate devices. The "reported device performance" is largely the successful completion of these tests or the justification for leveraging prior testing.

• Resistance to fatigue under worst-case scenario. (ISO 14801:2016) | - "Fatigue Testing under the worst-case scenario according to ISO 14801:2016" was performed on the subject device and "results of the above tests have met the criteria of the standards." |
  | Sterilization Efficacy (for SAVE Wide Cap):
• Validation of sterilization process. (ISO 11137-1,2,3) | - "Sterilization Validation Test for SAVE Wide Cap according to ISO 11137-1.2,3" was "performed for predicate devices and leveraged for the subject device." Implied to have met criteria. |
  | Shelf Life (for SAVE Wide Cap):
• Confirmation of product stability over time. (ASTM F1980) | - "Shelf Life Test for SAVE Wide Cap according to ASTM F1980 referenced in K171027" was "performed for predicate devices and leveraged for the subject device." Implied to have met criteria. |
  | End User Sterilization Efficacy (for Abutments):
• Validation of end-user sterilization methods for various materials. (ANSI/AAMI ST79, ISO 17665-1,-2, ISO 11737-1,-2, ISO 11138-1) | - "End User Sterilization Validation Test Report for Abutments made with Ti-6Al-4V ELI according to [standards] referenced in K111364" was "performed for predicate devices and leveraged for the subject device."
• "End User Sterilization Validation Test Report for Abutments made with PEEK, POM and CP Titanium Grade 4 according to [standards]" was performed.
• All implied to have met criteria. |
  | Biocompatibility:
• Safety concerning biological interaction with human tissue. (ISO 10993-1:2009) | - "Biocompatibility testing for subject Abutments according to ISO 10993-1:2009 referenced in K171027, K171694, and K222913" was performed on the "predicate device and leveraged for the subject device because both products are manufactured with same materials and manufacturing process."
• "Demonstrates that the subject device is biocompatible and substantial equivalence with the predicate." |
  | Design and Material Equivalence:
• Comparison of dimensions, materials, and general design to predicate devices. | - Detailed comparison tables are provided for each component of the Dentis s-Clean Regular Abutment against specific predicate/reference devices, showing "same indications for use," similar or same dimensions (with differences justified as not impacting performance), and identical materials where applicable.
• Example for s-Clean Couple Abutment: "Subject Device and Primary Predicate(K171027) have same indications for use, similar sizes...material, and sterilization method. Both devices are substantial equivalent." |
  | Intended Use Equivalence:
• The subject device's intended use matches that of predicate devices. | - "This system has the same intended use and fundamental scientific technology as its predicate devices." The Indications for Use statement is provided and implicitly compared to predicate devices. |
  | Manufacturing Process / Facility Equivalence:
• For leveraged testing, assurance that processes are similar/identical. | - For leveraged end-user sterilization tests: "because the product category, material, manufacturing process, facility, and packaging of the both products are exactly same." |

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

The document specifies "Fatigue Testing under the worst-case scenario according to ISO 14801:2016" was performed on the subject device. However, it does not specify the sample size used for this specific test item.

For the other tests (Sterilization Validation, Shelf Life, End User Sterilization Validation, Biocompatibility), the data provenance is that they were "performed for predicate devices and leveraged for the subject device" or "conducted on the predicate device and leveraged."

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for any of the tests.
• Data Provenance: Retrospective (leveraged from previously cleared predicate/reference devices) and some prospective (Fatigue Testing on the subject device). The country of origin of the data is not specified, but the manufacturer is Dentis Co., Ltd. (Korea) and the US correspondent is Withus Group Inc. (USA). The tests were presumably conducted in facilities capable of meeting the cited international standards.

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

This question is not applicable to this type of device submission. This is a physical dental implant component, not an AI/software device that requires expert adjudication for ground truth establishment. The "ground truth" here is compliance with engineering standards and material specifications, verified through laboratory testing.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

This question is not applicable. There is no human adjudication process described for the engineering tests performed on a physical dental abutment. The outcome of the tests (e.g., fatigue strength, material composition) is objectively measured against a standard.

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

This question is not applicable. This device is a physical dental abutment, not an imaging or diagnostic AI 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

This question is not applicable. This device is a physical dental abutment, not an algorithm or software.

7. The type of ground truth used

The "ground truth" for the performance of this dental abutment is based on:

• Engineering Standards and Specifications: Adherence to international standards like ISO 14801 (fatigue), ISO 11137 (sterilization), ASTM F1980 (shelf life), ISO 10993-1 (biocompatibility), and material specifications (e.g., ASTM F136 for Ti-6Al-4V ELI).
• Material Composition Analysis: Ensuring materials match specified standards (e.g., Ti-6Al-4V ELI, Pure Titanium Gr4, PEEK, POM).
• Dimensional Accuracy: Ensuring dimensions are within acceptable tolerances.
• Demonstrated Performance of Predicate Devices: Relying on the established safety and effectiveness of legally marketed predicate devices through showing substantial equivalence in design, materials, and intended use.

8. The sample size for the training set

This question is not applicable. This is a physical device, not an AI/machine learning model, so there is no "training set."

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

This question is not applicable. Since there is no training set, there is no ground truth established for it.

Ask a specific question about this device

Dentis s-Clean s-Line is indicated for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae, in support of single or multiple unit restorations including; cemented retained, screw retained, or overdenture restorations, and terminal or intermediate abutment support for fixed bridgework. This system is dedicated for one and two stage surgical procedures. This system is intended for delayed loading.

Dentis s-Clean s-Line is composed of Fixture and Abutments. s-Clean SQ-SL Fixture is a thread type implant made of Pure titanium according to ASTM F67 which will be placed in the alveolar bone to replace the function of the missing tooth. This device has connection between the upper prosthesis and the internal Hex. The surface of fixture is treated with SLA (Sandblasted with Large-grit and Acidetching). The device includes various abutments made from Ti-6A1-4V (ASTM F136) and Chrome-cobalt-molybdenum (CCM) alloy material (ASTM F1537). Some abutments have a TiN coating. Some components are provided sterile, while others are non-sterilized.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a dental implant system (Dentis s-Clean s-Line). This document primarily focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices. Therefore, it does not present a typical device performance study with specific acceptance criteria and reported numerical performance metrics.

Instead, the "acceptance criteria" can be inferred as demonstration of substantial equivalence to predicate devices through various tests and comparisons, particularly in terms of:

• Indications for Use
• Design and dimensions
• Materials
• Surface treatments
• Sterilization methods
• Biocompatibility
• Dynamic fatigue and static strength

The "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" is fundamentally the comparative analysis against the predicate and reference devices, along with performance testing (dynamic fatigue, static strength) and biological assessment (biocompatibility).

Here's an attempt to structure the information based on your request, acknowledging that the format of a 510(k) summary is different from a clinical study report.

Implied Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Since this is a 510(k) submission, the primary "acceptance criterion" is demonstrating substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices. The performance data presented is in comparison to these predicates rather than against pre-defined numerical thresholds for novel performance.

• Dynamic Fatigue Strength
• Static Strength | Tests conducted according to FDA guidance and ISO 14801:2016 for worst-case scenario. Results are implied to be equivalent to predicate (as no significant differences were cited to impact performance). |
  | Material Characteristics:
• Adherence to ASTM standards (F67, F136, F1537)
• Surface characteristics (SLA, TiN coating) | Fixtures made of CP Titanium Gr4 (ASTM F67). Abutments from Ti-6Al-4V (ASTM F136) and Chrome-cobalt-molybdenum (ASTM F1537).
  SLA surface identical to K153639. TiN coating identical to K171694. EDX, SEM, surface roughness, coating thickness, porosity, adhesion leveraged from predicates. |
  | Biocompatibility:
• Non-cytotoxic, non-sensitizing, non-irritating | Biological assessment performed according to ISO 10993-1:2009 and FDA Guidance. Device has equivalent nature of body contact, duration, material formulation, and sterilization methods compared to predicates, thus no new issues raised. |
  | Sterilization:
• Sterility Assurance Level (SAL) of 10^-6
• Shelf Life Validation
• Pyrogenicity | Validated in accordance with ISO 11137-1:2006.
  Shelf life of 8 years for sterile devices, validated per ASTM F1980.
  LAL Endotoxin Analysis (testing limit 20 EU/device) meets pyrogen limit specifications. |
  | Dimensional Tolerance:
• Fixtures and Abutments | Stated tolerance of ± 1% range for dimensions. The dimensions of the subject device are stated to be "in range" or "similar" to the predicate devices and not to impact device performance. |

Detailed Information as Requested:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: (See table above).

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

   • The document does not specify a "test set" in the context of a clinical study or human subject data. The samples for mechanical testing (dynamic fatigue, static strength) and biocompatibility are laboratory samples/implants, not patient data.
   • The document does not provide details on the number of samples used for these specific tests.
   • Data Provenance: The mechanical and surface characteristic data were leveraged from previous clearances (K153639, K171694, K082843, K150344, K171027), indicating prior existing test results. It is prospective testing for the elements that are different or new, but retrospective use of data for elements deemed identical to predicates. Country of origin for testing is not specified.

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

   • This question is not applicable to a 510(k) submission based on mechanical and biocompatibility testing. There is no "ground truth" established by experts in the clinical sense for this type of submission. The "ground truth" for material properties and mechanical performance would be the universally accepted standards (ASTM, ISO) and the empirical results of the tests themselves, interpreted by qualified engineers/scientists.

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

   • Not applicable. This type of adjudication method is used in clinical trials or diagnostic accuracy studies involving expert panel reviews, which are not part of this 510(k) submission for mechanical equivalence.

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 pertains to AI/CAD devices, not dental implants. No MRMC study was conducted or relevant to this submission.

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

   • Not applicable. This pertains to AI/CAD devices, not dental implants.

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

   • For the mechanical and material aspects, the "ground truth" is defined by international standards (ISO, ASTM) and regulatory guidance (FDA Guidance Documents) for dental implants. The device components are compared against these established specifications and the validated characteristics of the predicate devices.
   • For biocompatibility, the ground truth is established by recognized biological evaluation standards (ISO 10993-1).

8. The sample size for the training set:

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

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

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

Ask a specific question about this device

The s-Clean TiN Coating Abutments is an endosseous dental implant that is indicated for surgical placement in the upper and lower jaw arches, to provide a root for single or multiple-units prosthetic appliance attachment to restore a patient's chewing function. Implants can be placed with a conventional two stage surgical process with an option for transmucosal healing or they can be placed in a single stage surgical process for immediate loading when good primary stability has been achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading.

The s-Clean TiN Coating Abutments are device made of pure titanium and titanium alloy intended for use as an aid in prosthetic restoration. The system consists of s-Clean TiN Half Coating Angled Abutment, s-Clean TiN Half and partial Coating Couple Abutment, s-Clean TiN Half Coating Free Abutment, s-Clean TiN Half Coating FreeMill Abutment, s-Clean TiN Half Coating MOA Abutment, s-Clean TiN Partial Sub-Octa Abutment, s-Clean TiN Partial Coating Sole Abutment, s-Clean DOA Ball Abutment, s-Clean DOA Snap Abutment, and s-Clean Sole Abutment Healing Cap. The surface of the abutments is partially or half TiN Coated by using PVD (Physical Vapor Deposition). The subject device is provided non-sterile and should be sterilized before use (End user sterilization).

This document is a 510(k) summary for a dental implant abutment, and as such, it focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices rather than proving the device meets acceptance criteria through a standalone clinical study with detailed performance metrics.

Therefore, many of the requested sections (e.g., sample size for test set, number of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, training set details) are not applicable to this type of submission. The information provided heavily relies on non-clinical testing and comparison to predicates.

Here's a breakdown of the available information based on your request:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria here are based on meeting the requirements of specific international and FDA guidance standards for medical devices, particularly for dental abutments. The reported device performance is that these tests were met.

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

• Not Applicable (N/A) for clinical data. This submission relies on non-clinical (laboratory) testing, not a clinical test set with patient data.
• The non-clinical tests (biocompatibility, fatigue, sterilization) are laboratory-based and would use a sample size appropriate for those specific engineering and biological tests, but this detail is not provided. The data provenance for these tests would be internal laboratory testing by the manufacturer or a contracted lab.

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

• N/A. As mentioned, this is a non-clinical submission. Ground truth, in the context of clinical studies and expert consensus, is not relevant here. Decisions are made based on adherence to engineering and biocompatibility standards.

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

• N/A. No clinical test set requiring expert adjudication was conducted or 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

• N/A. This is a dental implant abutment, not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive device. MRMC studies are not relevant here.

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

• N/A. This is a physical medical device (dental abutment), not an algorithm or AI system.

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

• For the non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" is defined by the validated and accepted international standards (e.g., ISO, ANSI/AAMI) for mechanical performance and biocompatibility. Passing these tests according to the established metrics within the standards constitutes meeting the "ground truth" of safety and performance.

8. The sample size for the training set

• N/A. There is no "training set" as this is not a machine learning or AI product.

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

• N/A. There is no "training set" as this is not a machine learning or AI product.

Ask a specific question about this device

The OneQ-SL s-Clean Implant System is indicated for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae, in support of single or multiple-unit restorations including; cemented retained, screw retained, or overdenture restorations, and terminal or intermediate abutment support for fixed bridgework. This system is dedicated for one and two stage surgical procedures. This system is intended for delayed loading.

The OneQ-SL s-Clean Implant System is a dental implant made of titanium metal intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw arches. This implant system has internal hex connection, tapered with straight body, bone level and submerged type that are similar to other commercial available products based on the intended use, technology used, the claims, the material composition employed and performance characteristics. This implant system is supplied sterile. The OneQ-SL s-Clean Implant system is substantially equivalent in connection structure, similar design, function and intended use to the predicate device, OneQ-SL s-Clean Implant System (K153639). This subject device is compatible with the abutments of K073486, K082843, K111364 and K150344. The fixture is made of Ti-6A1-4V ELI and Pure Titanium Grade 4. The Cover screw was cleared in K073486. The surface is treated by Sand -blasting (Large grit) and acid etching method (SLA). This system only contains the implant bodies with cover screw and are provided as set-packing. The purpose of this submission is to add new fixtures.

This appears to be a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device, specifically an endosseous dental implant system. The document states that the device, "OneQ-SL s-Clean Implant System," is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices, and therefore no new clinical studies are presented within this document to prove acceptance criteria through device performance.

The document does not describe acceptance criteria for a new device's performance through a clinical or non-clinical study directly comparing it to defined metrics. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices based on technological features, materials, and existing non-clinical test data.

Therefore, many of the requested elements about acceptance criteria and device performance based on a new study (like sample size for test set, number of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, ground truth establishment for a new training set) are not applicable or available in this kind of regulatory submission. The "acceptance criteria" here is primarily about meeting the requirements for substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

Let's break down what can be extracted and what cannot:

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

This document doesn't provide a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance for the new device that would typically come from a specific study designed to show such performance. Instead, it leverages test results from predicate devices and applies them to the current device to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

The acceptance criteria here would implicitly be that the subject device's performance in mechanical properties, sterilization, biocompatibility, and shelf life is equivalent to or better than the predicate devices, as demonstrated by meeting established standards.

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for each test (e.g., number of implants tested for fatigue). The document indicates that "Below tests were performed for predicate devices and leveraged for the subject device."
• Data Provenance: The tests were performed for predicate devices (K153639, K161244, K150344). No information regarding the country of origin of the data is provided, nor whether it was retrospective or prospective. It is non-clinical lab testing data.

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

This is not applicable as the document relies on non-clinical testing against recognized standards (ISO, ASTM, USP) for demonstrating substantial equivalence, not expert ground truth for a clinical dataset.

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

This is not applicable as there is no clinical test set requiring adjudication in this submission.

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

This is not applicable. This is a submission for an endosseous dental implant, which is a physical medical device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

This is not applicable. This refers to AI/algorithm performance, which is not relevant for this device.

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

For the non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" or reference for acceptance is the specified performance criteria within the referenced international standards (ISO, ASTM, USP) which determine if the device (or its predicate) performed adequately.

8. The sample size for the training set:

This is not applicable as this is not a submission for an AI/machine learning device that would require a training set.

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

This is not applicable as there is no training set for an AI/machine learning device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The OneQ-SL s-Clean Implant System is in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae, in support of single or multiple unit restorations including; cemented, or overdenture restorations, and terminal or intermediate abutment support for fixed bridgework. This system is dedicated for one and two stage surgical procedures. This system is intended for delayed loading.

The OneO-SL s-Clean Implant System is a dental implant made of titanium metal intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw arches. This implant system has internal hex connection, tapered with straight body, bone level and submerged type that are similar to other commercial available products based on the intended use, technology used, the claims, the material composition employed and performance characteristics. This implant system is supplied by gamma sterilized that is same with almost all dental implant. The OneQ-SL s-Clean Implant system is substantially equivalent in connection structure, similar design, function and intended use to the Dentis dental implant system (K073486) of DENTIS Co., Ltd., and Dentis dental implant system(K150344) of DENTIS Co., Ltd. The difference between the subject and the predicate device are slightly different shape and surface treatment. This subject device is compatible with the abutments of K073486, K082843, K111364 and K150344.

This document describes the OneQ-SL s-Clean Implant System, an endosseous dental implant. The purpose of the submission is to demonstrate its substantial equivalence to predicate devices, thus no clinical testing was performed.

Here's an analysis of the provided text in relation to your questions:

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

Since this is a 510(k) submission demonstrating substantial equivalence rather than a clinical trial with specific performance metrics defined by acceptance criteria for a novel device, the concept of "acceptance criteria" and "reported device performance" are framed differently. The acceptance criteria here are adherence to relevant standards and demonstration of equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices. The "reported device performance" is the successful completion of non-clinical tests meeting these standards and showing similarity to predicates.

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 for Test Set: Not applicable in the context of this 510(k) submission. The "test set" here refers to the non-clinical tests performed on the device itself and its components. These tests typically involve a specific number of samples required by the particular testing standard (e.g., a certain number of parts for fatigue testing). The document does not specify these exact numbers for each test but indicates tests were "performed to evaluate its substantial equivalence."
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin for the non-clinical test data. However, the manufacturer is Dentis Co., Ltd. located in Daegu, South Korea. It's highly probable the non-clinical testing was conducted there or arranged by them, adhering to international standards. The tests were prospective in the sense that they were performed specifically to support this regulatory submission, but they are non-clinical tests on the device materials and design, not human subject data.

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

Not applicable. This is a 510(k) submission for a physical medical device (dental implant), not an AI algorithm or diagnostic tool that requires expert human interpretation to establish ground truth for a test set. The "ground truth" for this device's performance is established by its adherence to engineering and material strength standards and biocompatibility tests.

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

Not applicable. This type of adjudication method (common in clinical trials or AI studies with expert review) is not relevant for the non-clinical, bench-top integrity and performance tests described for this dental implant.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI-assisted diagnostic or treatment planning tool. It is a dental implant (physical device). No MRMC studies were conducted.

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

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

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

For the non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" is defined by the established international and ASTM standards (e.g., ISO 10993 series for biocompatibility, ISO 11137-1 for sterilization, ISO 11607-1/-2 and ASTM F1980-07 for shelf life, and the FDA's Class II special controls guidance for fatigue testing). The device's performance is compared against the pass/fail criteria specified within these standards.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is a physical device, not an AI model requiring a training set.

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

Not applicable. As noted above, this involves no AI model or training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

The HAPTITE Coating Implant System is indicated for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae, in support of single or multiple-unit restorations including; cemented retained, screw retained, or overdenture restorations, and terminal or intermediate abutment support for fixed bridgework. This system is dedicated for one and two stage surgical procedures and not dedicated for immediate loading. This system is intended for delayed loading.

This product is the operating, dental material as placed dental implant to inner part of maxillary to sustain, maintain prosthetic repair tooth or denture, mainbody (structure of subpart) is made by Titanium (Grade 4), is treated as blasting powder, and RBM at room temperature of CaP type to reduce Bone loss to bottom 1mm of the Machine Collar. Also, screw part of below 1 mm is treated as SHS (Super High Speed) RBM HA (Hydroxyapatite) Coating at room temperature. It is connected to structure of upper part as the type of the internal. HA Thin film coating achieved through the process in which the HA particles impact on the surface of implant with high speed. By passing carrier gas, which comes from nitrogen tank, through the hopper containing HA particles, the HA particle and carrier gas can flow to the vacuum chamber. The vacuum chamber maintaining low pressure thanks to the vacuum pump, enable to spray the HA particles with carrier gas out in high speed(more than 500m/sec) through spray nozzle. As HA particles impact on the surface of implant, it reduced to fragment and those fragment make up thin film coating layer. The implant diameters are 3.7, 4.1, 4.3, 4.8, 5.5, 6.0, 6.5, and 7.0 mm and the implant lengths are 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 16mm in this system. The system consists of 2 fixture systems, i-clean fixture and s-clean fixture, and 2 abutment systems i-clean and s-clean abutment. The i-clean abutment system is composed of healing cap, various abutments (solid, excellent solid, octa, synocta, inocta, temporary, healing, o-ring and free), screws (cover screw, closing screw, abutment screw, cvlinder screw), gold UCLA, gold cylinder. The s-clean abutment system is composed of healing cap, various abutments (sole, couple, hex, temporary, o-ring, free, octa, zero margin, freemill, and MOA), and gold cylinder, and various screws (abutment, cylinder). i-Clean Fixture is Non-submerged type, once surgery and safe structure as having 8° from center of connection part. s-Clean Fixture is Submerged type, twice surgery and safe structure as having 11° from center of connection part. The abutment lengths are 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12mm, and cuff lengths 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5. 4. 4.5. 5.5. 7mm. The i-Clean fixture is available with either tapered, straight, or SAVE body designs. The i-Clean tapered fixture is available in diameters of 3.7, 4.1, 4.3, and 4.7mm and each diameter is available in lengths of 8, 10, 12, or 14mm. The i-Clean straight fixture is available in diameters of 4.05, 4.25, and 4.75mm and each diameter is available in lengths of 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16mm. The i-Clean SAVE fixture is available in diameters of 5.5, 6.0, 6.5, and 7.0mm and each diameter is available in lengths of 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12mm. The i-Clean Tapered II design contains a thread design with differs from the i-Clean Tapered fixture design. The i-Clean Tapered II has no 'micro thread' design. The s-Clean fixture is available with either tapered, straight, or SAVE body designs. The s-Clean tapered fixture is available in diameters of 3.7, 4.1, 4.3, and 4.8mm and each diameter is available in lengths of 8, 10, 12, or 14mm. The s-Clean straight fixture is available in diameters of 4.1, 4.3, and 4.75mm and each diameter is available in lengths of 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16mm. The s-Clean SAVE fixture is available in diameters of 5.5. 6.0. 6.5. and 7.0mm and each diameter is available in lengths of 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12mm. The s-Clean Tapered II design contains a thread design with differs from the s-Clean Tapered fixture design. The s-Clean Tapered II has no 'micro thread' design.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the HAPTITE Coating Implant System, structured as requested:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document is a 510(k) summary, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than setting novel acceptance criteria for a new device type. Therefore, direct "acceptance criteria" for performance are not explicitly stated as they would be for a truly novel device. Instead, the document compares the subject device's performance against the established performance of its predicate devices to demonstrate equivalence. The "acceptance criteria" are implied to be achieving performance comparable to or exceeding the predicate devices in the listed tests.

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

• Sample Size:
  • The document does not explicitly state the sample sizes used for each test (e.g., how many implants were tested for shear strength, how many pig bones were used, etc.). This information is typically found in the full test reports, not always in the 510(k) summary.
• Data Provenance:
  • The tests were described as "Non-clinical Testing data" and performed by Dentis Co., Ltd. (the manufacturer).
  • Country of Origin: South Korea (where Dentis Co., Ltd. is located).
  • Retrospective or Prospective: These are laboratory tests and animal models, which are inherently prospective in their design to evaluate specific device properties.

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

• This information is not applicable to the type of non-clinical, laboratory, and animal model testing described. These tests rely on standardized methods (e.g., ASTM standards) and direct measurements, not expert consensus for "ground truth" in the way clinical studies or diagnostic AI algorithms do. Therefore, no experts were used to establish ground truth in this context.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable. As these are objective, non-clinical tests (e.g., measuring shear strength, evaluating coating uniformity), there is no "adjudication" in the sense of reconciling differing expert opinions. The results are quantitative measurements or direct observations against a standard.

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

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The device in question is an endosseous dental implant, which is a physical medical device, not a diagnostic imaging AI algorithm that would typically be evaluated with MRMC studies or human-in-the-loop performance studies. The evaluation focuses on the physical and material properties of the implant itself.

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

• Not applicable. As stated above, this is a physical medical device, not an algorithm. Therefore, "standalone" performance for an algorithm is not relevant here.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• The "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests was based on objective measurements, adherence to ASTM standards, and direct observation of physical and material properties. For example:
  • Shear and tensile strength: Measured values against established ASTM standards (ASTM F1147, 1044).
  • Coating stability: Evaluation of the coating layer after an in-vivo graft test in pig bone.
  • Surface characteristics: Objective measurements and analyses of roughness, crystallinity, porosity, etc.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. Again, this is a physical medical device, not an AI algorithm that requires a "training set."

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

• Not applicable. See point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device