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

TruAbutment DS is a patient-specific CAD/CAM abutment, which is directly connected to endosseous dental implants and is intended to be used as an aid in prosthetic rehabilitation. It is compatible with the following systems: Astra OsseoSpeed EV (K130999, K120414), Biomet 3i Full OSSEOTITE Tapered Certain (K130949), DIO UF (II) Internal Submerged (K161987, K170608, K173975), Neoss ProActive® (K083561), Osstem TS (K161604), Camlog Screw-Line (K083496), Conelog Screw-Line (K113779), Implant Direct Legacy2 (K192221), BioHorizons Internal Implant System (K093321, K143022, K071638), MegaGen AnyRidge Internal Implant (K140091). All digitally designed abutments and/or copings for use with the TruAbutments are intended to be sent to a TruAbutment-validated milling center for manufacture.

TruBase is a titanium component that is directly connected to endosseous dental implants to provide support for patient-specific prosthetic restorations, such as copings or crowns. It is indicated for a screw-retained single tooth or cement-retained single tooth and bridge restorations. It is compatible with the following systems: Astra OsseoSpeed EV (K130999), Biomet 3i Full OSSEOTITE Tapered Certain (K130949), DIO UF(II) Internal Submerged (K161987, K170608, K173975), Neoss ProActive® (K083561), Camlog Screw-Line (K083496), Conelog Screw-Line (K113779), Implant Direct Legacy2 (K192221). All digitally designed abutments and/or copings for use with the TruAbutment are intended to be sent to a TruAbutment-validated milling center for manufacture.

TruAbutment DS, TruBase and abutment screw are made of Titanium grade Ti-6A1-4V ELI (meets ASTM Standard F136). TruAbutment DS, TruBase are supplied with two identical screws which are used: (1) For fixing the abutment into the endosseous implant. (2) For dental laboratory use during construction of related restoration. TruAbutment DS, TruBase are provided non-sterile. Therefore, it must be sterilized before use. TruAbutment DS, TruBase are devices that can only be sold, distributed, or used upon the order of an authorized healthcare provider, generally referred to as prescription (Rx) devices.

TruAbutment DS system includes patient-specific abutments that are placed into the dental implant to provide support for the prosthetic restoration. The subject abutments are indicated for serew-retained restorations. The design and manufacturing of the patient-specific abutments take into consideration the shape of the final prosthesis based on the patient's intra-oral indications using CAD/CAM system during the manufacturing. All manufacturing processes of TruAbutment DS are conducted at the TruAbutment milling center.

TruBase is a two-piece abutment. The base component is premanufactured and is used to support a cemented CAD/CAM zirconia superstructure. The base and the zirconia superstructure together form the final abutment. CAD/CAM customized superstructure that composes the final abutment is intended to be sent to a TruAbutment-validated milling center to be designed and milled, according to the prosthetic planning and patient clinical situation. The superstructure is cemented to the TruBase in the lab. Use "RelyX Unicem 2Automix" as an adhesive extra orally to connect.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the TruAbutment DS and TruBase devices. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (TruAbutment DS, K203649) and does not detail an acceptance criteria table with reported device performance in the manner of a clinical study. The text describes non-clinical testing performed, but not a study designed to prove the device meets acceptance criteria related to a specific clinical outcome or diagnostic accuracy.

Therefore, many of the requested items (acceptance criteria table, sample size for test/training sets, data provenance, expert ground truth, adjudication, MRMC studies, standalone performance, type of ground truth) are not applicable based on the content of this 510(k) summary, which is a premarket notification for a medical device primarily based on demonstrating substantial equivalence through engineering and mechanical testing, not clinical performance or AI algorithm validation studies.

However, I can extract the information provided regarding non-clinical testing for the devices.

Acceptance Criteria and Study for TruAbutment DS & TruBase

Based on the provided 510(k) summary, the "acceptance criteria" and "study" described are focused on non-clinical mechanical performance testing and demonstration of substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than a clinical study proving performance against specific clinical or diagnostic accuracy metrics with human or AI components.

Here's the relevant information extracted and presented based on the document:

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

The document does not provide a table with specific quantitative acceptance criteria alongside actual reported numerical performance results for the new devices in the context of a comparative study proving their performance against such criteria. Instead, it states that "The results of the above tests have met the criteria of the standard and demonstrated substantial equivalence with the reference devices." This implies a qualitative "met standard" outcome rather than specific numerical performance data.

The tables provided describe the design limits of the devices and compare them to the predicate device, not performance data from a test:

TruAbutment DS Design Parameters (Acceptance Criteria are implied by meeting these limits)

TruBase Design Parameters (Acceptance Criteria are implied by meeting these limits)

For mechanical performance, the document states:
"Mechanical performance testing was performed according to ISO 14801. For compatible OEM implant line, worst-case constructs were subjected to static compression and compression fatigue testing. The fatigue limit data for all other implant lines demonstrated the construct strengths to be sufficient for their intended use."

This confirms that the acceptance criteria for mechanical performance were "sufficient for their intended use" as defined by ISO 14801 and worst-case testing, but quantitative results are not provided.

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: The document mentions "worst-case constructs" were tested for mechanical performance, and "the entire system including all variations (all compatible implant bodies, dental abutments, and fixation screws)" was evaluated for MRI environment conditions. However, specific numerical sample sizes for these tests are not provided.
• Data Provenance: The data comes from non-clinical laboratory testing following international standards (ISO 14801, ISO 17665-1/2, ISO 10993 series). The country of origin and retrospective/prospective nature are not applicable as it's not a clinical data study.

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 is not applicable. The "ground truth" for this type of device (dental abutments) is established through adherence to engineering design specifications, material standards (ASTM F136), and performance under mechanical stress tests (ISO 14801), as well as compliance with sterilization and biocompatibility standards. It does not involve expert interpretation of images or clinical outcomes in the same way an AI diagnostic device would.

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

• This is not applicable as there is no human interpretation or subjective assessment of data requiring adjudication. Testing is based on objective measurements against engineering standards.

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. The device is an endosseous dental implant abutment, not an AI diagnostic tool.

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

• This is not applicable. The device is a physical dental component, not an algorithm.

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

• The "ground truth" for validating these devices is adherence to engineering specifications, material properties, and performance standards (e.g., passing specific load-bearing and fatigue tests per ISO 14801, meeting biocompatibility requirements, maintaining dimensional accuracy). "Dimensional analysis and reverse engineering" were used to confirm compatibility.

8. The sample size for the training set

• This is not applicable. There is no "training set" as this is a physical medical device, not an AI/machine learning algorithm.

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

• This is not applicable for the reason above.

Summary of the Study Proving Device Meets Criteria (Based on Provided Text):

The "study" conducted was primarily non-clinical laboratory testing to demonstrate the mechanical performance, sterilization efficacy, and biocompatibility of the TruAbutment DS and TruBase devices. The objective was to show substantial equivalence to an existing legally marketed device (TruAbutment DS, K203649) by proving that the new devices meet established design limits and performance standards relevant to dental implant abutments.

• Mechanical Testing: Performed on "worst-case constructs" according to ISO 14801 for static compression and compression fatigue. The outcome was that "construct strengths [were] sufficient for their intended use."
• Sterilization Testing: Performed per ISO 17665-1:2006, 17665-2:2009 and ANSI/AAMI ST79:2010.
• Biocompatibility Testing: Performed per ISO 10993-1:2009, ISO 10993-5:2009, and ISO 10993-10:2010.
• MRI Environment Evaluation: A non-clinical worst-case MRI review was done using scientific rationale and published literature to assess magnetically induced displacement force and torque.
• Dimensional Analysis and Reverse Engineering: Conducted on the implant-to-abutment connection platform to assess critical design aspects and tolerances, confirming compatibility.

The overall conclusion was that the devices "met the criteria of the standard and demonstrated substantial equivalence with the reference devices," thus indicating they met their implied acceptance criteria for safety and performance as medical devices. Clinical testing was explicitly stated as "not necessary."

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

CEREC Cercon 4D™ Abutment System is intended for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae in support of single cement-retained restorations.

The system comprises three parts:

• CEREC Cercon 4D™ Abutment Block
• TiBase
• CAD/CAM system

The CEREC Cercon 4D™ ceramic structure cemented to the TiBase is recommended for two-piece hybrid abutments for single tooth restorations and hybrid abutment crowns, used in conjunction with endosseous dental implants.

The CEREC Cercon 4D Abutment Blocks, which are used for fabrication of a ceramic structure, two-piece hybrid abutments (meso-structure and crown) and abutment crowns, that are cemented to a TiBase (titanium base) used with dental implant systems. The CEREC Cercon 4D Abutment Blocks are not provided as the finished, fully assembled dental implant medical devices. The abutment blocks are materials supplied to dental professionals that must be further processed/manufactured using CAD/CAM technology and they are not intended to be reused as in the context of direct patient-applied devices and materials.

CEREC Cercon 4D™ Abutment Block are Yttria-doped zirconia blocks suitable for chairside and lab side use in fabrication of single cement-retained restorations. CEREC Ceron 4D™ Abutment Block are designed with a pre-drilled screw access channel and anti-rotation feature. The design allows for fabrication of a ceramic structure, two-piece hybrid abutments (mesostructure and crown) and abutment crowns, that are cemented to theBase (Titanium base) used with dental implant systems.

The provided document describes the substantial equivalence of the CEREC Cercon 4D™ Abutment Blocks and System, primarily focusing on non-clinical performance and material characteristics, rather than an AI/ML-based device. Therefore, many of the requested elements pertaining to AI/ML device studies (e.g., sample size for test set, data provenance, number of experts for ground truth, adjudication method, MRMC studies, standalone performance, training set details) are not applicable or cannot be extracted from this document.

However, I can extract information related to the acceptance criteria and study that proves the device meets those criteria from the perspective of a medical device (specifically, a dental abutment system), even without AI elements.

Here's the information based on the provided text, with Not Applicable (N/A) for fields that relate to AI/ML studies and are not covered in this document.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for CEREC Cercon 4D™ Abutment Blocks, CEREC Cercon 4D™ Abutment System

The device under review is primarily a dental abutment system, and its performance is evaluated based on material properties, mechanical strength, and software integration, not on diagnostic accuracy or AI assistance.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and the Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample Size for Test Set:
  • For Flexural Strength (Table 8.1): Not explicitly stated, but typically involves a certain number of samples to ensure statistical significance as per ISO 6872.
  • For Fatigue Testing (Table 8.2): "New fatigue testing was conducted on the worst-case combinations relating to the greatest angulation, the platform size and the gingival height for the proposed Dentsply Sirona TiBase/Dentsply Sirona Implant Systems and Third Party TiBase/Third Party Implant Systems (Camlog) combinations." The exact number of samples per test condition is not specified in the document, but standardized tests like ISO 14801 would stipulate a minimum.
  • For Sterilization Validation, Biocompatibility, and Software Validation: Not explicitly specified in terms of sample count in this summary.
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin of the data. The tests are described as "non-clinical tests" and "performance bench testing," indicating laboratory-based studies. The document does not mention if the data is retrospective or prospective, as this distinction is more relevant for clinical studies.

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

Not applicable. This device is not an AI/ML diagnostic tool requiring expert ground truth for image interpretation or similar. The "ground truth" (or more accurately, established performance standards) for this device is based on mechanical properties and ISO standards, which are objective and do not require expert human interpretation in the way an AI diagnostic system would.

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

Not applicable, as no human expert interpretation or consensus review is involved in the performance testing of this device (e.g., physical strength, material composition).

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 device; therefore, MRMC studies are irrelevant.

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

Not applicable. This is not an algorithm-based device. Its "system" aspect refers to the combination of the abutment block, TiBase, and CAD/CAM system for fabrication, not an AI algorithm. The performance described is of the physical components and the software's ability to constrain design parameters.

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

The "ground truth" for this device's performance is established by international consensus standards (e.g., ISO 6872, ISO 14801, ISO 10993, ISO 17665-1) for dental materials and implants, along with internal software integration requirements. These are objective, quantitative measures rather than subjective human interpretations or clinical outcomes data in the context of diagnostic accuracy.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This device does not have a "training set" in the context of machine learning.

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

Not applicable. This device does not have a "training set" in the context of machine learning.

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 by a change in sterilization status to provide products sterile to the end user that were previously cleared to be provided non-sterile. The subject device abutments and abutment screws were cleared previously to be provided non-sterile to the end user in K170588, K191986, K212628, and K22288. All subject device components will now be provided sterile.

The subject device components include Healing Abutments, Multi-Unit Abutments (0, 17°, and 30°), and abutment screws.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the DESS Dental Smart Solutions, an endosseous dental implant abutment. It details the device, its intended use, and its substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate and reference devices. However, this document does not contain the acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria in the context of an AI/ML medical device.

The 510(k) submission for this dental abutment focuses on establishing substantial equivalence based on:

• Design and Material: The subject device components are identical in design, material (Ti-6Al-4V alloy, DLC coating), and technological characteristics to previously cleared devices.
• Manufacturing: The manufacturing process is consistent with previously cleared devices.
• Biocompatibility: Referenced from previous K-clearances.
• Sterilization: The main change in this submission is expanding the system to provide products sterile to the end-user via gamma irradiation, which was validated by referencing a previous K-clearance (K212538).
• MR Environment Testing: Non-clinical analysis was performed to evaluate the subject devices in the MR environment, referencing published literature and FDA guidance.
• Shelf Life Testing: Referenced from a previous K-clearance (K212538) for samples after accelerated aging.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request to describe the acceptance criteria and a study proving an AI/ML device meets them based on the provided text, as this document is not about an AI/ML medical device. It's about dental implant abutments and establishes substantial equivalence through non-clinical performance data and comparison to predicate devices, not through AI/ML performance metrics.

To provide the information you requested, I would need a document detailing the validation of an AI/ML medical device, which would include definitions of acceptance criteria (e.g., accuracy, sensitivity, specificity), details of training and test datasets, ground truth establishment, and potentially clinical effectiveness studies if applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

CAMLOG®/CONELOG® PROGRESSIVE-LINE implants are intended for the restoration of edentulous and partially edentulous jaws with prosthetic restorations such as implant-supported single crowns, bridges and full dentures. Specifically for:

• · single-tooth gaps,
• · partially edentulous jaws with several missing teeth or
• · edentulous jaws.

CAMLOG®/CONELOG® PROGRESSIVE-LINE implants are suitable for oral endosseous implantation in the maxillary and/or mandibular bone and are intended for immediate or delayed implantation. They are indicated for transgingival healing (one-stage, using healing caps or abutments) or subgingival healing (two-stage, using cover screws). If single-phase healing is intended, the implants can be loaded immediately if the primary stability achieved is adequate for functional loading. In conjunction with the corresponding abutments, the implants can be used for screw-retained or cemented restorations such as single crowns, bridges and full dentures.

CAMLOG®/CONELOG® PROGRESSIVE-LINE Implants with a diameter of 3.3 mm have the following additional specific indications:

Implants with a diameter of 3.3 mm are indicated as an alternative in cases where the alveolar ridge width is only 5-6 mm. Because of their lower tensile strength compared with larger diameter implants, they should only be used under the following conditions:

• As single implants, they should be used only to replace mandibular incisors and/or . maxillary lateral incisors.
• . An edentulous arch can only be restored with a bar retained superstructure with at least four implants of 3.3 mm diameter without distal extensions.
• . Implants of Ø 3.3 mm are suitable for a partially edentulous arch when combined with implants of larger diameter for splinted superstructures. However, the limited strength of the implants with Ø 3.3 mm must be taken into account.
• . Avoid excessive mechanical stressing of the implants when using ball abutments in combination with Ø 3.3 mm implants.
• . The healing time for diameter 3.3 mm implants is at least 12 weeks.

CONELOG® implants with 7 mm length have the following additional specific indications:

These Implants should only be used when there is not enough space for a longer implant. Delayed loading in single tooth replacement is indicated with these implants. If the ratio of crown length to implant length is unfavorable the biomechanical risk factors have to be considered and appropriate measures have to be taken by the dental professional.

The CONELOG® PROGRESSIVE-LINE Implants and the CAMLOG® PROGRESSIVE-LINE Implants represent an extension of the range of implants which are based on the welldocumented technology used for implants offered by CAMLOG Biotechnologies GmbH / Altatec GmbH.

Altatec GmbH CAMLOG®CONELOG® PROGRESSIVE-LINE Implants are titanium (CPTi Grade 4), screw-form endosseous dental implants and have a conical outer geometry in the apical area. The outer implant surface is abrasive-blasted and acid-etched - medium rough surface (Promote® surface structure). The implant shoulder of the CONELOG®/CAMLOG® PROGRESSIVE-LINE implants is machined. CAMLOG®/CONELOG® PROGRESSIVE-LINE Implants are supplied in different diameters and lengths (See Table 1. below).

The Altatec GmbH CAMLOG®/CONELOG® PROGRESSIVE-LINE Implants are placed surgically in the maxillary and/or mandibular bone and serve as anchors for functional and esthetic oral rehabilitations in partially and fully edentulous patients. The prosthetic rehabilitation is carried out with single crowns, bridges, or full arch prostheses, which are fastened to the implants by corresponding secondary parts (i.e. abutments).

The implant-abutment connection consists either of a Tube-in-Tube™ configuration with three cams for abutment positioning and rotational stability (CAMLOG® PROGRESSIVE-LINE) or an inner conical section and an indexing section with three cams for abutment positioning and as an antirotational mechanism (CONELOG® PROGRESSIVE-LINE). This means that the respective implant-abutment connections are identical to the connections of the respective equivalent systems (i.e. CONELOG®/CAMLOG® prosthetic product lines).

CAMLOG® CONELOG® PROGRESSIVE-LINE Implants are intended for one stage (transgingival / non-submerged) or two stage (submerged) protocols. The CONELOG® PROGRESSIVE-LINE implants are placed at bone level (epicrestally) and the CAMLOG® PROGRESSIVE-LINE implants are placed 0.4mm supracrestally. The CAMLOG®CONELOG® PROGRESSIVE-LINE Implants are made of the same implant grade material as the predicate devices (commercially pure titanium. CPTi Grade 4. meeting the requirements of ASTM F67-13. Standard Specification for Unalloyed Titanium for Surgical Implant Applications).

The product is packaged using materials known in the industry to be appropriate for medical device packaging and is provided with a minimum sterility assurance level of 10°, validated in compliance with ISO 11137-1 Sterilization of healthcare products - Radiation - Part 1: Requirements for development, validation and routine control of a sterilization process for medical devices.

The provided text is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from the FDA for dental implants. It does not describe an AI medical device or a study that uses a test set, expert ground truth, or addresses human-in-the-loop performance. Therefore, I cannot generate the requested information about acceptance criteria and study details for an AI medical device.

The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence of the "Altatec GmbH CAMLOG®/CONELOG® PROGRESSIVE-LINE Implants" to existing legally marketed predicate devices. The "Summary of Testing" section (page 7-8) details mechanical fatigue testing, sterilization validation, endotoxin testing, and accelerated aging for shelf-life, which are relevant to the physical and biological properties of the dental implants, not AI performance.

To provide the requested information, I would need a document describing an AI medical device and its performance study.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Sirona Dental CAD/CAM System with CEREC Chairside Software is intended for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae in support of single or multiple-unit cement retained restorations. For the AT TX 3.0 S, BH 3.0 S, SSO 3.5 L, and SBL 3.3 L titanium bases, the indication is restricted to the replacement of single lateral incisors in the maxilla and lateral and central incisors in the mandible. The system consists of three major parts: TiBase, inCoris mesostructure and CAD/CAM software. Specifically, the inCoris mesostructure and TiBase components make up a two- piece abutment which is used in conjunction with endosseous dental implants to restore the function and aesthetics in the oral cavity. The inCoris mesostructure may also be used in conjunction with the Camlog Titanium base CAD/CAM (types K2244.XXXX) (K083496) in the Camlog Implant System. The CAD/CAM software is intended to design and fabricate the inCoris mesostructure. The inCoris mesostructure and TiBase two-piece abutment is compatible with the following implant systems: (list of compatible implant systems follows in the document)

The Sirona Dental CAD/CAM System with CEREC Chairside Software which is the subject of this premarket notification is a modification to the Sirona Dental CAD/CAM System as previously cleared under K181520. The modified Sirona Dental CAD/CAM System with CEREC Chairside Software that is the subject of this premarket notification includes a line extension to the existing offerings. These additional TiBase variants facilitate compatibility with currently marketed dental implant systems.

The modified Sirona Dental CAD/CAM System with CEREC Chairside Software which is the subject of this premarket notification consists of:

• CEREC SW "chairside" CAD/CAM software
• CEREC AC digital acquisition unit
• CEREC AC Connect digital acquisition unit
• CEREC Omnicam 3D digital intraoral scanner
• CEREC MCXL product family of CAM milling units
• Additional Sirona TiBase titanium base components (line extension subject to this submission) compatible with Dentsply Sirona Osseospeed TX 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, and 5.0 implants.
• inCoris ZI zirconium mesostructure blocks

As subject to this premarket notification, the Sirona Dental CAD/CAM System with CEREC Chairside Software is utilized to digitally acquire and record the topographical characteristics of teeth, dental impressions, or physical stone models in order to facilitate the computer aided design (CAD) and computer aided manufacturing (CAM) of two-piece "CAD/CAM" abutments. The patient-specific two-piece abutments consist of prefabricated "TiBase" components which are designed with interface geometry to facilitate compatibility and connection with currently marketed dental implant system.

As subject to this premarket notification, the subject Sirona Dental CAD/CAM System with CEREC Chairside Software is modified to include a line extension to the existing TiBase offerings by introducing TiBases which are compatible with the Dentsply Sirona Osseospeed TX 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, and 5.0 dental implants.

The CEREC SW CAD/CAM software is utilized to drive the specified acquisition unit hardware to acquire the intraoral dental scans and to design the mesostructure component of the CAD/CAM abutments. Following the completion of the design, the CEREC SW drives the CAM fabrication of the mesostructure component in the "chairside" workflow by utilizing the CEREC MCXL milling equipment and the defined zirconium/zirconia block materials.

The Sirona Dental CAD/CAM System with CEREC Chairside Software is intended for the design and fabrication of two-piece, CAD/CAM dental abutments.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study information for the Sirona Dental CAD/CAM System with CEREC Chairside Software, based on the provided text:

Preamble: This 510(k) submission, K193408, is for a modification to an existing device (Sirona Dental CAD/CAM System, K181520), specifically a line extension for additional TiBase variants to facilitate compatibility with more dental implant systems. Therefore, the "study" described is primarily focused on demonstrating that the new variants perform comparably to the previously cleared predicate, rather than a de novo clinical trial.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not explicitly stated in terms of a specific number for each test. The dynamic fatigue testing mentions "test sample constructs," implying multiple items were tested, but a precise number is not provided.
• Data Provenance: This is non-clinical performance data. The location of the testing is not specified, but it would have been generated by Dentsply Sirona or a contracted testing lab. It is inherently prospective data, generated specifically for this submission to demonstrate the performance of the new TiBase variants.

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

• Not Applicable. This submission is for a medical device (dental CAD/CAM system components), not an AI/imaging diagnostic device that requires expert review for ground truth establishment. The "ground truth" here is based on engineering specifications, material properties, and standardized performance tests (e.g., ISO 14801).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not Applicable. As this is non-clinical performance testing of physical components and software functionality, there is no expert adjudication process involved in the same way as for diagnostic AI outcomes. The performance is assessed against established engineering standards and design specifications.

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 performed. This device is a CAD/CAM system for fabricating dental abutments, not an AI diagnostic tool used by human readers to interpret medical images.

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

• Yes, indirectly. The performance tests described (geometric compatibility, dynamic fatigue, biocompatibility, sterilization validation, software integration) evaluate the device's performance in a standalone manner, separate from its use by a human operator in a clinical setting for diagnosis. The software component, specifically, underwent system integration testing to validate its requirements and functionality for designing the mesostructure, which is a standalone algorithm function.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Engineering Specifications and Standardized Test Results:
  • Geometric compatibility: Original manufacturer's implant geometry specifications.
  • Dynamic fatigue: Adherence to ISO 14801 standards for dental implants.
  • Biocompatibility: Previous clearance (K181520) and established material properties.
  • Sterilization: Adherence to ISO 17665-1 and ANSI/AAMI ST79 standards.
  • Software integration: System requirements and design controls.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not Applicable (or not provided in the document). This device is a CAD/CAM system modification, not an AI model that requires a training set in the typical machine learning sense. The software component is likely developed using traditional software engineering principles and validated through integration testing.

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

• Not Applicable. See point #8.

Ask a specific question about this device

The ST Internal Implant System is intended to be placed in the upper or lower jaw to support prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, and to restore a patient's chewing function. This may be accomplished using either a two stage surgical procedure or a single stage surgical procedure. The ST Internal Implant System is intended for use for immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading.

The ST Internal Implant System are made with Grade 4 titanium and surface treatment is done with SLA (Sand-blasted, Large grit, Acid-etched). The systems consist of one-stage and two-stage root form dental implants, associated with abutment systems, which provide the dentist with screw and cement retained restoration options. The devices covered by this system are ST internal implant, screw and abutment. The implants in this system are provided in lengths from 7.0-15.0 and in diameters from 3.7-5.1. The 3.7 diameter implant is not provided in the 7.0 length. The ST implants have two types, one is mini and the other is regular. The mini type diameters of ST implants are 3.7 mm and the lengths are 8.5 mm, 10.0 mm, 11.5 mm, 13.0 mm, and 15.0 mm. The regular type diameters of ST implants are 4.2 mm, 4.6 mm, and 5.1 mm, and the lengths are 7.0 mm, 8.5 mm, 10.0 mm, 11.5 mm, 13.0 mm, and 15.0 mm. EZ Post abutments, solid abutments, Cylinder abutments, angled abutments, mount screws, cover screws, abutment screws and fixture mounts are included in the system.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device, the "ST Internal Implant System." The approval is based on a determination of substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices, rather than a de novo clinical study with specific acceptance criteria based on human performance.

Therefore, many of the requested details about acceptance criteria, study design with human readers, and ground truth establishment (especially for AI or image analysis devices) are not applicable (N/A) to this 510(k) submission. The performance testing focuses on mechanical and biological properties of the dental implant itself, not on an algorithm's ability to interpret data.

Here's a breakdown of the available information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document describes non-clinical testing performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices, but does not provide a specific table of quantitative acceptance criteria for all performance parameters and their corresponding reported values in a standardized format. Instead, it states:

• Sterilization Test: "leveraged from own K132992 predicate" - implies meeting standards leveraged from prior approval.
• Shelf Life Test: "leveraged from own K132992 and K152787 predicate" - implies meeting standards leveraged from prior approval.
• Biocompatibility testing:
  • Cytotoxicity Test
  • Intracutaneous Reactivity Test
  • Maximization Sensitization Test
  • Systemic Injection Test (Intravenous Injection)
  • Pyrogen Test
  • "All the test results demonstrate that ST Internal Implant System meets the requirements of its pre-defined acceptance criteria and intended use." (General statement, no specific values given).
• 90-Day Bone Implantation Study: Listed as performed.
• Fatigue test:
  • Acceptance Criteria Statement: "A fatigue test is required to evaluate the stability of implant system in oral cavity. The fatigue testing has been conducted on the proposed device in accordance with ISO 14801."
  • Reported Performance: "Test results comply with ISO14801." (No specific numerical values or pass/fail thresholds are explicitly provided in the document, only a statement of compliance).
• SLA surface treatment (cleaning validation and SEM/EDX analysis):
  • Acceptance Criteria Statement: "to verify that any particles or chemicals used to remove particles have been washed from the surface."
  • Reported Performance: "The SEM/EDX analysis verifies that there were no elements besides titanium found on the surface of the implant."

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified for any of the non-clinical tests (e.g., number of implants tested for fatigue). These are typically lab-based tests, not human data.
• Data Provenance: The device manufacturer, T-Plus Implant Tech. Co., Ltd., is located in Taiwan. The tests are "non-clinical testing," implying laboratory or animal studies, not human data from a specific country.
• Retrospective or Prospective: N/A for these non-clinical tests.

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

• N/A. The testing described is for the physical and biological properties of a dental implant, not for an algorithm where expert radiologist ground truth would be established. The ground truth for mechanical and biocompatibility tests are defined industry standards (e.g., ISO 14801) and established laboratory protocols.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• N/A. Not relevant for non-clinical, lab-based performance tests of a physical device.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done

• No, N/A. This type of study is relevant for diagnostic imaging AI systems and not for a dental implant's mechanical or biological performance.

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

• N/A. The device is a dental implant, not an algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• For mechanical testing (e.g., fatigue), the ground truth is compliance with international standards (ISO 14801).
• For biocompatibility, the ground truth is compliance with established biological safety requirements (e.g., ISO 10993 series through tests like cytotoxicity, sensitization, implantation, etc.).
• For surface analysis, the ground truth is the absence of foreign elements as determined by analytical techniques like SEM/EDX.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• N/A. This device does not involve machine learning or AI, so there is no "training set."

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

• N/A. As there is no training set for an algorithm, this question is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not applicable, as this is for a physical device and involves objective non-clinical tests rather than subjective human interpretation needing adjudication.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. The sample size for the training set

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

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

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

Ask a specific question about this device

CAM Titanium Blanks are intended for the fabrication of abutments and healing caps on CAMLOG® SCREW-LINE and CAMLOG® ROOT-LINE implants in the maxilla and mandible for the purpose of supporting single or multiple tooth prostheses of a partially or fully edentulous patient. Digitally designed abutments fabricated with CAD/CAM techniques for use with CAMLOG® CAM Titanium Blanks are intended to be sent to a CAMLOG validated milling center for manufacture.

CAM Titanium Blanks are intended for the fabrication of abutments and healing caps on CONELOG® SCREW-LINE implants in the maxilla and mandible for the purpose of supporting single ooth prostheses of a partially or fully edentulous patient. Digitally designed abutments fabricated with CAD/CAM techniques for use with CONELOG® CAM Titanium Blanks are intended to be sent to a CAMLOG validated milling center for manufacture.

CAM Titanium Blanks are intended for the fabrication of abutments and healing caps/gingiva former on iSy® implants in the maxilla and mandible for the purpose of supporting single or multiple tooth prostheses of a partially or fully edentulous patient. Digitally designed abutments fabricated with CAD/CAM techniques for use with iSy CAM Titanium Blanks are intended to be sent to a CAMLOG validated milling center for manufacture.

CAM Titanium Blanks are abutments with a prefabricated, precision interface (implant/abutment connection) and a screw channel suitable for the respective implant system. CAM Titanium Blanks are to be used by a CAMLOG validated milling center with CAD/CAM technology to fabricate a final finished customized abutment made of titanium alloy. Each patient-specific abutment is individually prescribed by the clinician as a temporary, permanent, single, or multi-unit abutment. Computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) techniques are used to process the cylinder portion above the implant connection into an individual abutment or healing cap/gingiva former design. The healing cap/gingival former is temporary and used during healing. Permanent abutments have straight and angled designs that can be used for crowns, bridges or overdentures.

CAM Titanium Blanks are available for CAMLOG SCREW-LINE and ROOT-LINE implants fitting five implant diameters (3.3. 3.8. 4.3. 5.0. 6.0 mm), for CONELOG SCREW-LINE implants fitting four implant diameters (3.3. 3.8, 4.3, 5.0 mm), and for the iSy implants with one connection fitting three implant diameters (3.8, 4.4, 5.0 mm).

This document is a 510(k) summary for the "CAM Titanium Blanks" dental device, which is related to endosseous dental implant abutments. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on design, materials, and intended use, rather than presenting a performance study with specific acceptance criteria and detailed quantitative results.

Therefore, much of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria and performance study specifics for an AI/ML device (like sample size for test/training sets, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, MRMC studies, standalone performance) is not applicable or present in this regulatory submission.

However, I can extract the information that is available:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document does not provide specific quantitative acceptance criteria or corresponding reported device performance values in the way one might see for an AI/ML diagnostic or predictive device (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC thresholds). Instead, the "acceptance criteria" are implied by demonstrating substantial equivalence through:

• Non-clinical testing: This includes sterilization validation, biological evaluation, and mechanical testing. The acceptance here is successful completion according to the referenced standards.
• Comparison of Indications for Use: The claim is that the indications are "substantially equivalent."
• Comparison of Technological Characteristics: The claim is that the characteristics are "similar" or "substantially equivalent."

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

• This document is for a mechanical dental device (titanium blanks for abutments), not an AI/ML-driven device that typically uses test sets of data.
• The "test set" here refers to the actual physical devices subjected to non-clinical tests. The sample sizes for these specific non-clinical tests (sterilization, biological, MR, mechanical) are not explicitly stated in this summary, but would be defined by the relevant ISO/ASTM standards referenced.
• Data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is not applicable in the context of this summary 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 as this is a mechanical device, not an AI/ML device relying on expert-labeled ground truth data. The "ground truth" for mechanical properties would be derived from standard test methods and measurements, not expert consensus on interpretations.

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

• Not applicable. This is a mechanical 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

• No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is relevant for AI/ML diagnostic tools that assist human readers, which this device is not.

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

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

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

• The "ground truth" for demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of this mechanical dental device is based on established engineering standards and material properties testing. For example, the "ground truth" for mechanical strength is whether the device withstands specified forces according to ISO 14801. The "ground truth" for biocompatibility is conformance to ISO 10993-1.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This is a mechanical device, not an AI/ML device trained on data.

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

• Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device