Search Results

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

Inclusive® Titanium Abutments are premanufactured prosthetic components connected to endosseous dental implants in edentulous or partially edentulous maxilla or mandible to provide support for cement-retained prosthetic restorations. All digitally designed abutments for use with Inclusive® Titanium Abutments for CAD/CAM are intended to be sent to a Prismatik Dentalcraft validated milling center for manufacture.

Compatible Implant System: Neoss® ProActive® Narrow, Neoss® ProActive® Standard, MIS® SEVEN®, Zimmer® Eztetic®

Inclusive® Titanium Abutments are premanufactured prosthetic components directly connected to endosseous dental implants and are intended for use as an aid in prosthetic rehabilitation. Inclusive® Titanium Abutments are designed and fabricated to be compatible with Neoss® ProActive® Narrow Implant System, Neoss® ProActive® Standard Implant System, MIS® SEVEN® Implant System, and Zimmer® Eztetic® Implant System. The products are made from titanium alloy Ti-6A1-4V ELI, which meets ASTM standard F136. They include Inclusive® Titanium Abutment Blanks intended to be used to fabricate one-piece, all-titanium, patient-specific abutments using CAD/CAM technology and Inclusive® Titanium Abutments 4.5mmH intended to be used for support of fabricated crowns/bridges or a zirconia coping to complete the two-piece abutment. Inclusive® Titanium Abutments are a two-piece abutment with a titanium base and a ceramic top-half which when cemented together (Shofu MonoCem K020481) constitutes the final finished abutment. Each patient-specific abutment is prescribed by a clinician and manufactured by an authorized milling center validated by Prismatik Dentalcraft Inc. Inclusive® Titanium Abutments are provided non-sterile and intended for single use and prescription use.

Inclusive® Multi-Unit Coping is manufactured from titanium alloy, Ti-6A1-4V ELI conforming to ASTM F136 and used in conjunction with the Neoss® ProActive® Standard and MIS® SEVEN® multi-unit abutment. Inclusive® Multi-Unit Coping is bonded with the dental restoration prior to being seated on the multi-unit abutment via a multi-unit prosthetic screw. The non-engaging configuration of the multi-unit coping does not have an internal connection feature and seats onto the flat mating surface of the multi-unit abutment. The multi-unit coping is used in combination with screw-retained multi-unit dental prosthetics, e.g. bridges and bars, which are used to reconstruct the function and aesthetics of lost teeth. The multi-unit coping is straight with no angle correction and provided non-sterile. The device is intended for singe use and prescription use.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for Inclusive® Titanium Abutments. It describes the device, its intended use, and provides a comparison to a predicate device to demonstrate substantial equivalence, rather than standalone performance criteria. Therefore, the information typically requested in your prompt regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving device meeting those criteria (especially for AI/software devices) is not directly applicable to this submission.

This is a submission for a physical medical device (dental abutments), and the "acceptance criteria" here refer to demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than the performance metrics of a diagnostic or AI algorithm.

However, I can extract the relevant information regarding the performance data and the aspects that were tested to demonstrate substantial equivalence, which serves a similar purpose in this context:

Summary of Performance Data (to demonstrate Substantial Equivalence):

Additional Information based on the provided text:

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

   • Biocompatibility: The text does not specify a separate "test set" sample size for dedicated biocompatibility testing on this specific device, as it leverages existing data. It states, "additional biocompatibility testing was not conducted" due to identical materials, manufacturing, and facility as the predicate (K191222) and reference device (K160979). Cytotoxicity testing (ISO 10993-5) was referenced from K160979.
   • Mechanical Properties: The document states that static load and fatigue testing was performed "with the worst-case scenario." It does not specify the number of samples tested for this specific submission, but it would have been a sufficient number to meet the requirements of ISO 14801:2016. Data provenance is implied to be internal testing by Prismatik Dentalcraft, Inc.
   • Sterilization: No sample size is specified, as "additional sterilization was not conducted" for this submission due to identical materials, manufacturing, and parameters as predicate and reference devices. Validation was referenced from K083192 and K160979.
   • Packaging: "A packaging validation according to ASTM D4169-16 was conducted" but no specific sample size is mentioned.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. This is a physical device submission relying on established engineering standards and material properties, not an AI or diagnostic device that requires expert-established ground truth for its performance assessment.

3. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable for a physical device submission for dental abutments.

4. 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/software performance, not a physical dental implant component.

5. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This pertains to AI/software performance.

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

   • "Ground truth" in this context is based on established engineering standards (e.g., ISO 14801:2016 for dynamic loading, ISO 10993-1 for biocompatibility, ISO 17665-1/2 for sterilization, ASTM D4169-16 for packaging), material specifications (e.g., ASTM F136 for Ti-6Al-4V ELI), and dimensional analysis / reverse engineering for compatibility with OEM implant systems. Biocompatibility also referenced cytotoxicity testing (ISO 10993-5) from a previous submission.

7. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device.

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

Ask a specific question about this device

The DSP Implant System is intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, to restore chewing function. It may be used with single stage or two-stage procedures, for single or multiple unit restorations, and may be loaded immediately when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading.

DSP Implant System is composed of the External Hex (HE) implant line is composed of implants and related prosthetic components available in multiple designs. DSP implants are made of commercially pure titanium (ASTM F67). DSP prosthetic components are made of commercially pure titanium or cobalt-molybdenum alloy (ASTM F1537). DSP implant system screws (abutment and prosthetic screws) are made of titanium alloy (ASTM F136). The HE implant line is named after the External Hex implant-to-abutment interface. It is subdivided in External Hex SLIM (HE SLIM), External Hex BIOFIT), External Hex SOULFIT (HE SOULFIT), External Hex PROPFIT (HE PROPFIT) and External Hex WAYFIT). The HE implants are bone-level implants. The subject device abutments components mate exclusively with the subject implants of the same line.

This is a 510(k) summary for the DSP Implant System, a dental implant device. It establishes substantial equivalence to various predicate devices rather than providing performance data against specific acceptance criteria for the new device. Therefore, it does not present a typical study design with acceptance criteria and results in the way a clinical trial or device performance study would.

However, based on the provided text, we can infer the approach taken by the manufacturer to demonstrate substantial equivalence, which serves as their "proof" that the device meets regulatory requirements.

Here's an interpretation of the requested information based on the 510(k) summary:

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

Since this is a 510(k) submission focusing on substantial equivalence, there isn't a table of discrete acceptance criteria and reported device performance in terms of clinical outcomes or specific quantitative measures as one might find in a standalone performance study. Instead, the "acceptance criteria" are implied by the characteristics of the legally marketed predicate devices, and the "reported device performance" is the demonstration that the subject device shares these characteristics or has equivalent performance as validated through non-clinical testing.

The acceptance is based on demonstrating that the DSP Implant System is substantially equivalent to the predicate devices in terms of:

• Intended Use: The indications for use statement of the subject device is equivalent to the primary predicate device K101207, and within the scope of reference devices.
• Technological Characteristics: The subject device's design features, materials (CPTi Gr4, CoCr, POM, Ti6Al4V-ELI), sterilization methods (irradiation), and surface treatments (grit-blasted and acid-etched, machined collar) are compared to the predicate and reference devices. Minor differences are justified as not raising new questions of safety or effectiveness.
• Performance: Non-clinical testing demonstrates that the device performs comparably to the predicate devices in relevant areas for dental implants.

Implicit Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (based on substantial equivalence justification):

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 for a typical clinical or performance study as presented in this 510(k). The "testing" referred to is non-clinical bench testing (sterilization, biocompatibility, pyrogenicity, material analysis). These tests typically use a representative sample size specified by the relevant standard (e.g., a certain number of devices for sterility testing). The document does not specify these individual sample sizes.
• Data Provenance: The data is non-clinical (bench testing) and generated by the manufacturer to support device characteristics. The 510(k) is submitted by a Brazilian manufacturer (D.S.P. Industrial Eireli) and prepared by a Brazilian regulatory affairs specialist (PR Servicos Regulatorios Administrarivos Ltda). The location of the actual testing labs is not specified. The studies are not clinical, so concepts like "retrospective" or "prospective" do not apply.

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 non-clinical submission. Ground truth, in the sense of expert opinion on clinical data, is not established. The "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests is established by the specifications of the referenced international and national standards (ISO, ASTM, USP, AAMI/ANSI).

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

• Not applicable. Adjudication methods are typically for evaluation of conflicting expert opinions or clinical outcomes, which is not the nature of this non-clinical 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

• No. This is a submission for a dental implant system (hardware), not an AI/software device. An MRMC study is not relevant.

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

• No. This is a physical medical device. Not an algorithm.

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

• For the non-clinical performance data, the "ground truth" is defined by the requirements and test methodologies of the referenced industry standards (e.g., ISO 11137 for sterilization, ISO 10993-5 for biocompatibility, AAMI/ANSI ST72 and USP for pyrogenicity, SEM/EDS for material analysis). The demonstration is that the device conforms to these standards and shares equivalent characteristics with legally marketed predicate devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an AI/software device that requires a training set.

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

• Not applicable, as there is no training set for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device

Membrane Tacks and Membrane Screws are intended for fastening membranes during bone regenerative treatment. These membrane fastening means are in direct body contact, intended for temporary use only. Membrane fastening means are submerged and clinically implanted more than 30 days with an expected duration of three to nine months or until bone regeneration is complete taking into account which membrane and bone grafting materials are being used.

Membrane Tacks and Membrane Screws are regenerative membrane fastening devices available in 3mm length. The Membrane Tack is used in conjunction with a Tack Positioning Instrument, while the Membrane Screw is applied with the Neoss Implant Inserter. Regenerative membranes are designed to prevent ingrowth of gingival soft tissue into bony defects, in order to facilitate the bone formation during the repair process of the defect. Membrane Tacks and Screws are made of titanium while related instruments are made in stainless steel. The Membrane fastening devices are single-use only while the instruments are for multiple use.

I am sorry, but the provided text does not contain information about the acceptance criteria and the study that proves a device meets the acceptance criteria in the context of AI or machine learning models.

The document is a 510(k) premarket notification for "Membrane Screws and Membrane Tacks," which are physical medical devices used in bone regenerative treatment. The content focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on material composition, dimensions, intended use, and general performance characteristics (sterilization, shelf life, biocompatibility, instrument cleaning, and insertion/removal forces).

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information, which includes details about:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance for an AI/ML device.
• Sample size and data provenance for test sets.
• Number and qualifications of experts for ground truth.
• Adjudication methods.
• MRMC studies and effect sizes.
• Standalone algorithm performance.
• Type of ground truth used (pathology, outcomes data, etc.).
• Training set sample size and ground truth establishment.

The document explicitly states that "Clinical data is not required to establish substantial equivalence in this submission," further indicating a lack of clinical study data relevant to AI/ML performance evaluation.

Ask a specific question about this device

The TruAbutment DS is a patient-specific CAD/CAM abutment, directly connected to endosseous dental implants and is intended for use as an aid in prosthetic rehabilitation.

It is compatible with the following systems:

• · Biomet 3i Certain® (K130949) 3.25, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0 mm
• · DIO UF(II) Internal Submerged (K161987, K170608, K173975) 3.3, 3.8, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, 5.5, 6.0, 6.5, 7.0 mm
• Megagen AnyRidge® (K140091) 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, 5.5, 6.0, 6.5, 7.0, 7.5, 8.0 mm
• · Neoss ProActive® (K083561) 3.25, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, 5.5, 6.0 mm

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

The TruAbutment DS system includes custom abutments which are placed into the dental implant to provide support for a prosthetic restoration. The subject abutments are indicated for screwretained restorations. The custom abutment and abutment screw are made of Titanium grade Ti-6A1-4V ELI (meets ASTM Standard F-136). Each patient-specific abutment is supplied with two identical screws which are used for:

• (1) For fixing into the endosseous implant
• (2) For dental laboratory use during construction of related restoration.

The abutment is placed over the implant shoulder and mounted into the implant with the provided screw. The design and manufacturing of the custom abutments take into consideration the shape of 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 and provided to the authorized end-user as a final patient-specific abutment.

The proposed abutments are available in internal hex connection, and are compatible with Biomet 3i Certain® Implant/DIO UF(II) Internal Submerged Implant/Megagen AnyRidge® Implant/Neoss ProActive® Implant.

The device being discussed is "TruAbutment DS", a patient-specific CAD/CAM abutment for dental implants.

The acceptance criteria for this device are established by demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (TruAbutment DS K170259) through non-clinical testing, primarily mechanical performance (fatigue) testing, and biocompatibility assessments. The study described focuses on non-clinical testing to meet these acceptance criteria rather than a clinical study.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance
The document does not explicitly state the exact sample size (number of abutments or implants) used for the non-clinical mechanical and dimensional tests. It mentions "worst-case constructs" for fatigue testing.
Data provenance: The testing was conducted by the manufacturer (TruAbutment Inc.) as part of their 510(k) submission to the FDA, presumably in the USA (where the company is based). The data is retrospective as it was generated specifically for this submission.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
This information is not applicable. The "ground truth" for this device's performance is established by meeting recognized international and national standards (ISO, FDA guidance) through non-clinical laboratory testing, not by expert consensus on clinical cases.

4. Adjudication method for the test set
This is not applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are typically used in clinical studies or studies involving human interpretation of medical images. The studies performed for this device were non-clinical laboratory tests.

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance
No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is a physical dental implant abutment, not an AI or imaging diagnostic tool that would involve human readers.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
This is not applicable. This device is a physical medical device, not an algorithm. The "standalone" performance is assessed by its mechanical integrity and biocompatibility when used as intended.

7. The type of ground truth used
The "ground truth" used for this device is based on established engineering and materials science principles and validated standards:

• Mechanical Performance: Defined by the specified fatigue limits and static load capabilities as per ISO 14801 and FDA guidance thresholds for dental implant abutments.
• Biocompatibility: Defined by the absence of adverse biological reactions as per ISO 10993 series standards.
• Dimensional Accuracy: Defined by precise measurements confirming compatibility with target implant systems.

8. The sample size for the training set
This is not applicable. This device is not an AI model that requires a training set. The CAD/CAM design process for patient-specific abutments involves individual patient data rather than a large training dataset for device development in the AI sense.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
This is not applicable as there is no "training set" in the context of an AI device. The design principles for the TruAbutment DS are based on established dental implantology, engineering design, and manufacturing standards for patient-specific CAD/CAM abutments.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Neoss Tapered Implant is for single-stage or two-stage surgical procedure and cement or screw retained restorations. The Neoss Tapered Implant is intended for immediate placement and function on single tooth and /or multiple tooth applications recognizing sufficient bone stability and appropriate occlusal loading, to restore chewing function. Multiple tooth applications may be splinted with a bar.

The Neoss Tapered Implant is a threaded, internal abutment connection, root-form titanium dental implant. The Neoss Tapered Implant consists of a number of implants with a diameter of Ø3.5 to Ø5.5 mm and lengths between 7.0 – 17.0 mm; all sizes have the same internal abutment connection dimension independent of implant diameter. The internal connection is equipped with interlocking elements for an insertion tool and the non-rotational locking of the abutment. The Neoss ProActive Tapered Implant System is intended for surgical placement into the bone of upper /lower jaw arches as a permanent anchorage for prosthetic devices, which can restore chewing function and aesthetic appearance. Supplied sterile. The Neoss Implant System has specific design characteristics for mating Neoss components such as implants, abutments and prosthetic components. Combining components that are not configured or dimensioned for correct mating can lead to mechanical failure of components, damage to tissue, or unsatisfactory esthetic results. Abutment screws made in gold alloy, titanium or Ti with TiN/Au are available. Screw driver connection is compatible with screwdrivers supplied by Neoss. The abutment screws are supplied non-sterile.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the Neoss Tapered Implant (K113376) and its acceptance criteria and supporting studies.

It's important to note that the provided document is a 510(k) summary, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device. Therefore, it does not contain the detailed, standalone study results and acceptance criteria typically found in a full scientific publication or comprehensive device validation report.

Based on the information given, here's what can be extracted and what is not available:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Critique on "Acceptance Criteria": The document doesn't explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria (e.g., "minimum fatigue limit of X N"). Instead, it references the predicate device's performance and general "requirements" as the benchmark. The "reported device performance" for the Neoss Tapered Implant is often a statement of equivalence or enhanced performance compared to previous designs or the predicate, rather than a raw data point against a predefined threshold. The core of this 510(k) is the argument of substantial equivalence, not necessarily meeting new, specific acceptance thresholds for this novel device.

Study Details

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

   • Fatigue Tests: Not specified how many implants were tested. The reference is to "Performed fatigue tests of ProActive implants (K083561)". For the new Tapered Implant, the conclusion of equivalence is based on design similarity, implying reliance on the predicate's testing rather than extensive new fatigue testing for the Tapered Implant itself.
   • Clinical Feedback: Refers to "only one fracture related complaint" for the ProActive Implant (K083561), not specifically for the new Tapered Implant. This is retrospective data from post-market surveillance.
   • Primary Stability: No specific sample size is mentioned for the in vitro tests (insertion, displacement, theoretical implant-bone contact analysis).
   • Osseointegration (Animal Testing): "In animal testing..." No specific sample size or animal model details are provided. This would be prospective animal data.
   • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated for all tests. Clinical feedback is retrospective. Animal testing and in vitro primary stability tests would likely be prospective, but no country of origin is mentioned.

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

   • This information is not provided in the 510(k) summary. The document focuses on physical and biological testing, not on subjective expert evaluation for "ground truth" in the way an AI/CAD study would.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:

   • Not applicable / Not provided. Since this is focused on physical device performance and animal studies, "adjudication" in the context of expert consensus for ground truth determination is not relevant here.

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

   • No, this was not done. This is a dental implant, not an imaging device with AI assistance for human readers. This type of study is completely irrelevant to the device being described.

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

   • Not applicable / No. The device is a physical dental implant. There is no algorithm involved in its direct function.

6. The type of ground truth used:

   • Fatigue Testing: Mechanical failure (fracture) or meeting engineering specifications.
   • Primary Stability: Measured mechanical parameters (insertion torque, displacement, theoretical contact area).
   • Osseointegration: Histomorphometric analysis (e.g., bone-to-implant contact percentages, push-out/pull-out strength) from animal studies.
   • Clinical Feedback: Real-world adverse event reporting (fractures).

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable / Not provided. There is no "training set" in the context of a machine learning or AI algorithm for this physical device.

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

   • Not applicable / Not provided. As there's no AI/ML component, there's no training set or ground truth establishment relevant to that. The "ground truth" for the physical device's performance is established by direct measurement during testing.

Summary of Device and Study:

The K113376 submission for the Neoss Tapered Implant relies heavily on demonstrating substantial equivalence to its predicate, the Neoss ProActive Implant (K083561). The study evidence presented is:

• Reliance on Predicate Fatigue Data: The Tapered Implant's structural integrity is primarily justified by the predicate's "well in line with requirements" fatigue tests and clinical feedback (one fracture complaint for the predicate), combined with an assertion of "design in critical areas shows enough similarity" between the two implant types.
• In Vitro Primary Stability Testing: The Tapered Implant showed "enhanced primary stability" in in vitro tests compared to a "straight Neoss implant" (presumably an earlier or different Neoss design, but not explicitly stated if it's the predicate ProActive). No specific numerical results are provided.
• Animal Testing for Surface Characteristics: General statements about grit-blasted and acid-etched surfaces (which are properties of the implant, not necessarily new research specific to the Tapered Implant) demonstrating increased osseointegration and bone-to-implant contact compared to other surface treatments.

The documentation is a regulatory summary; it is not a detailed scientific report of new studies specific to the Neoss Tapered Implant with comprehensive data, but rather a justification of its equivalence and safety based on existing knowledge and some comparative in vitro testing.

Ask a specific question about this device