Search Results

The Neodent 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.

Titamax WS implant is indicated for a delayed loading protocol.

The Facility implant is indicated for replacement of maxillary lateral incisors, mandibular incisors or retention of overdentures.

The Neodent Implant System implants included in this submission are threaded, self-tapping, root form, endosseous dental implants with a Morse taper abutment interface. They are designed to provide support for prosthetic teeth to restore chewing function. They are made of commercially pure titanium or titanium alloy, with a surface that is grit blasted and acid etched. In addition, multiple abutments made of titanium alloy are provided for each implant for both cement-retained and screw-retained prostheses. The CM Drive implant comes in three diameters (3.5, 4.3 and 5.0 mm), each in five lengths (8.0, 10.0, 11.5, 13.0, and 16.0 mm). The Titamax WS implant design comes in three diameters (4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 mm) with corresponding platform diameters. The 4.0 mm diameter Titamax WS implant comes in one length (6.0 mm). The 5.0 and 6.0 mm diameter Titamax WS implants come in two lengths (5.0 and 6.0 mm). The Facility implant design comes in one diameter (2.9 mm), and in five lengths (8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 mm). All abutments included in this submission are straight and have a Morse taper connection.

The provided 510(k) summary for the Neodent Implant System does not contain information related to acceptance criteria or a study proving device performance against such criteria.

The document is a premarket notification for a medical device (dental implants). It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices already on the market, rather than proving performance against specific acceptance criteria through a clinical study or benchmark performance testing with ground truth.

Therefore, many of the requested elements cannot be extracted from this document, as they are not present in a "substantial equivalence" submission for this type of device.

Here's an breakdown of what can be stated based on the provided text, and what cannot:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

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. No clinical or performance test data on a "test set" are presented.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable. The submission explicitly states: "Clinical data were not submitted in this premarket notification." The non-clinical data mentioned (engineering analysis, dimensional analysis, comparative surface area analysis) would not typically involve a "test set" in the sense of patient data.

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

• Not applicable. As no clinical or performance test data are presented, there is no "ground truth" established by experts for a test set in this submission.

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

• Not applicable. No test set requiring adjudication is mentioned.

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 a submission for a physical medical device (dental implants), not an AI diagnostic tool. No MRMC study was done, nor is AI assistance relevant to this device.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an algorithm or AI device.

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

• Not applicable. No performance data requiring ground truth ascertainment is presented. The submission relies on "substantial equivalence" based on design, materials, and non-clinical characteristics (engineering, dimensional analysis) comparing the new device to existing predicate devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. As no machine learning or AI model is involved, there is no "training set."

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

• Not applicable. No machine learning or AI model is involved, so no training set or ground truth for it was established.

Summary based on the provided document:

The 510(k) summary for the Neodent Implant System explicitly states: "Clinical data were not submitted in this premarket notification." The submission focuses on demonstrating that the new components of the Neodent Implant System are "substantially equivalent" to predicate devices already cleared for market. This equivalence is based on:

• Identical intended use.
• Similar design, identical material, and identical surface to a previously cleared Neodent system (K101945).
• Similar indications, design, and dimensions to other predicate devices for the new Titamax WS and Facility implants.
• Non-clinical data including engineering analysis, dimensional analysis, and comparative surface area analysis.

The conclusion drawn is that "The device is safe and effective for its intended use and performs as well as or better than the predicate devices," based on the comparison of an existing cleared device characteristics rather than new performance data against specific acceptance criteria.

Ask a specific question about this device

The ACE Surgical Secure™ Locator® 3.25mm Implant System is is designed to provide intra-bony long term fixation of denture installations in partially or fully edentulous patients.

The ACE Secure™ Locator® 3.25mm Implant System is a set of machined commercially pure (CP) titanium (Grade 4) screws, intended to provide Intra-bony long term fixation of denture installations in partially or fully edentulous patients. The implants are supplied sterlie in 3.25 mm diameter, and in lengths of 8, 10, 11.5, 13, and 15 mm, and with Zest Locator® implant Anchor Abutments and Denture Cap Males (Identical to those cleared under K092594)/n standard tray packaging and include placement instruments.

The screw raw material is Ti (CP-Grade 4) per ASTM F67 standard. The screw Implants, abutments and denture caps are identical In materials and characteristics to that cleared under K092594 and K954513. These screws are supplied sterile in standard Tyveke tray packaging along with applicable instructions for use.

The ACE Secure™ Locatore 3,25mm Implant System Is a comprehensive system using same and similar surgical tools (a Two Step Lag Bur CA is replaced by a Kirschner Pliot Bur, and the optional Parallel Pin/Depth Gauge and 2.8 mm twist drill are now supplied standard) made from high strength corrosive resistant stainless steel (17-4, H-900) and a similar (the predicate tray had holes and markings to accommodate the predicate screw implant sizes, the candidate device will have two trays - one solely for candidate screw implant sizes, and another for the combined predicate and candidate screw implant sizes) polycarbonate sterlization tray accessory as in the predicate ACE Surgical Secure-Mini™ Locator® Implant svstem.

The provided text describes a submission for a 510(k) premarket notification for a dental implant system. The focus of this submission is to demonstrate substantial equivalence to previously marketed predicate devices, rather than conducting a de novo study to establish acceptance criteria based on new performance data.

Therefore, the acceptance criteria and study information typically sought for a new device's performance evaluation (such as those involving AI or diagnostic accuracy) are not present in this document. The "acceptance criteria" here implicitly refer to the demonstration of equivalence to existing, legally marketed devices.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text, addressing your questions where applicable, and highlighting where information is not available:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

Study Details

The provided document describes a bench testing study, not a clinical trial or a study assessing AI performance.

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable in the context of this 510(k) submission. The "test set" here refers to components undergoing bench testing rather than a dataset for an AI model. The document does not specify the number of implants or components tested during bench testing, nor their provenance. The "data provenance" would relate to the manufacturing and testing environment for the physical components.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. For bench testing comparing physical device characteristics and performance, "ground truth" would be established by scientific and engineering measurements against established standards or predicate device specifications, not typically by expert consensus in the way clinical diagnostic ground truth is formed.

3. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used in clinical studies or AI algorithm evaluations to resolve discrepancies in expert opinions for ground truth establishment. This is a bench testing scenario.

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 submission is for a physical medical device (dental implant system), not an AI/ML-driven diagnostic or assistive device.

5. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML algorithm.

6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): For the bench testing described, the "ground truth" implicitly relies on engineering standards (e.g., ASTM F67 for titanium raw material) and direct comparison to the physical and functional characteristics of the predicate devices. The goal was to show identical or similar performance.

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

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

In summary, this 510(k) notification focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through a comparison of device description, materials, intended use, and bench test results. It does not involve the types of studies typically conducted for AI/ML-based devices or devices requiring extensive clinical performance data beyond comparisons to existing, cleared products.

Ask a specific question about this device