Search Results

ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic is intended for use with dental implants as a support for single or multiple-unit prosthetic restorations in the maxilla or mandible of partially or fully edentulous patient. It is including; cemented retained, screw-retained, or overdenture restorations.

It is compatible with the following systems:

• · Astra OsseoSpeed EV(K130999) 3.0
• · Astra OsseoSpeed EV(K120414) 3.6, 4.2, 4.8, 5.4 mm
• Tapered Internal Implants (K071638) (K143022) 3.4. 3.8. 4.6. 5.8 mm
• · BioHorizons Laser-Lok Implant System (K093321) 3.0 mm
• · Conelog Screw-Line (K113779) 3.3, 3.8, 4.3, 5.0 mm
• Osstem TSIII SA (K121995) 3.5 (3.7) , 4.0 (4.2) , 4.5 (4.6) , 5.0 (5.1), 6.0 (6.0), 7.0 (6.8) mm (Mini. Regular)
• · Megagen AnyRidge Internal Implant System (K140091) 4.0, 4.4, 4.9, 5.4 (3.1)
• · Neodent Implant System GM Helix (K163194, K180536) 3.5, 3.75, 4.0, 4.3, 5.0 (3.0) 6.0 (3.0)
• · Nobel Active 3.0 (K102436) 3.0
• · Nobel Active Internal Connection Implant (K071370) NP RP
• · Nobelactive Wide Platform (Wp) (K133731) WP
• Straumann BLX Implant (K173961, K181703, K191256) 3.5, 3.75, 4.5, 5.5, 6.5 (RB, WB)
• · Straumann 02.9 mm Bone Level Tapered Implants, SC CARES Abutments (K162890) 2.9 (SC)
• · Straumann® Bone Level Tapered Implants (K140878) 3.3, 4.1, 4.8 (NC, RC)
• · Zimmer 3.1mmD Dental Implant System (K142082) 3.1 (2.9)
• (Ti-base only) Screw Vent® and Tapered Screw Vent® (K013227) 3.7(3.5), 4.7(4.5), 6.0(5.7)

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

ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic is made of titanium alloy (Ti-6AI-4V ELI, ASTM F136) intended for use as an aid in prosthetic restoration. It consists of Pre-Milled Blank abutment, Ti-Base Abutment, and Multi-unit Abutment and Components (Multi-unit Healing Cap, Multi-unit Temporary cylinder, Multi-unit Ti-cylinder).

Pre-Milled Blank has a pre-manufactured implant interface connection interface with a customizable cylindrical area-by CAD/CAM- above the implant-abutment interface.

Ti Base consists of a two-piece abutment, where the titanium base is a pre-manufactured component of the abutment that will be used to support a CAD/CAM-designed zirconia superstructure (the second part of the two-piece abutment) that composes the final abutment.

Multi-unit Abutment which are placed into the dental implant to provide support for the prosthetic restoration. The abutments are made of Titanium grade Ti-6A1-4V ELI (meets ASTM Standard F-136). Multi-unit Abutment includes abutments and components (Multi-unit Healing Cap, Multi-unit Temporary cylinder, Multi-unit Ti-cylinder). Multi-unit Abutment - are provided in various gingival cuff height ranging from 1 to 6 mm.

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

The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for the ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic, which is an endosseous dental implant abutment. It details the device's technical characteristics and compares it to predicate devices to establish substantial equivalence, rather than describing a study that proves the device meets specific acceptance criteria for a new and novel performance claim.

Therefore, many of the requested categories for acceptance criteria and study details are not directly applicable or available in this type of submission. The information provided primarily focuses on demonstrating equivalence through comparison to existing legally marketed devices, material properties, and standard performance tests for similar devices.

However, I can extract the relevant information that is available from the document for each type of device within the ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic family: Pre-Milled Blank, Ti Base, Multi-Unit Abutment, Multi-Unit Healing Cap, Multi-Unit Temporary Cylinder, and Multi-Unit Ti-Cylinder.

General Information on Acceptance Criteria and Studies for ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic (as inferred from the 510(k) Summary):

The ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic is claiming substantial equivalence to predicate devices, meaning it does not need to establish new performance criteria but rather demonstrate that it is as safe and effective as existing legally marketed devices. The "acceptance criteria" here are largely implied by the performance of the predicate devices and the relevant ISO standards for dental implant abutments. The studies performed are non-clinical bench tests.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria (Inferred from Comparison) and Reported Device Performance:

The document presents comparisons to predicate devices to establish substantial equivalence rather than explicit acceptance criteria and corresponding performance metrics for novel claims. However, the design limits of the subject devices are compared to the design limits of the predicate devices, which act as de facto acceptance criteria in the context of substantial equivalence. The device's performance is demonstrated by meeting the standards in non-clinical testing.

Here's a generalized table summarizing this approach:

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

• Test Set Sample Size:
  • The document does not specify the exact sample sizes used for the non-clinical bench tests (fatigue, sterilization, biocompatibility, or dimensional analysis). It only states that tests were performed "for the subject device" and "of the worst-case scenario through fatigue testing."
• Data Provenance:
  • The 510(k) submission is from ALLONUS Tech Co., LTD. in the REPUBLIC OF KOREA. This implies the testing was likely conducted in or overseen by this entity.
  • The studies were non-clinical bench tests, not clinical studies involving human patients. Therefore, terms like "retrospective" or "prospective" clinical dataProvenance are not applicable here.

3. 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. For non-clinical bench testing, "ground truth" is typically established by recognized international standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM) and engineering principles, rather than expert consensus on clinical cases.
• The document mentions "Dimensional analysis and reverse engineering... were performed" and "assessment of maximum and minimum dimensions... along with cross-sectional images." This suggests engineering expertise, but specific numbers or qualifications of experts are not stated.

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

• This is not applicable as the studies were non-clinical bench tests. Adjudication methods like 2+1 (two readers plus one adjudicator) are used in clinical studies, particularly for diagnostic imaging, to resolve discrepancies in expert interpretations of patient data.

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 type of study (MRMC) is relevant for diagnostic AI devices that assist human interpretation of medical images or data. The ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic is a physical medical device (dental implant abutment), not an AI diagnostic tool.

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

• No, a standalone (algorithm-only) performance study was not done. This question is also typically relevant for AI/software as a medical device (SaMD). The ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic is a physical device that integrates with human dental procedures.

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

• For the non-clinical tests (fatigue, sterilization, biocompatibility), the "ground truth" is adherence to recognized international standards (ISO, ASTM) and established engineering specifications.
• For implant-to-abutment compatibility, the "ground truth" was based on dimensional analysis and reverse engineering of OEM implant bodies, abutments, and screws, comparing the subject device's design to established OEM specifications.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• This is not applicable. "Training set" refers to data used to train machine learning algorithms. The ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic is a physical medical device, not an AI/ML algorithm.

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

• This is not applicable as there is no training set for a physical medical device.

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

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.

All digitally designed custom abutments for use with DESS Ti Base abutments or Pre-Milled Blank abutments are to be sent to a Terrats Medical validated milling center for manufacture.

The purpose of this submission is to add components to the DESS Dental Smart Solutions system, which includes dental implants, abutments, and prosthetic components cleared previously in various submissions. The previously cleared abutments and prosthetic components are compatible with a variety of original equipment manufacturer (OEM) dental implants as well as DESS Dental Smart Solutions dental implants.

This submission adds various abutments to the DESS and OEM implant lines as summarized on the following pages in Table 1 Summary of Subject Device Abutment Designs, and Table 2 Summary of Subject Device Abutment Sizes.

The subject device abutment designs include Cover Screws, Healing Abutments, Temporary Abutments, Ti Base Abutments, AURUM Base Abutments (Ti Base abutments with a screw channel design that allows easier instrument access to the abutment screw), CoCr Base Abutments, Pre-Milled Blank Abutments, Multi-Unit Abutments (straight and angled), DESSLoc Abutments (Locator-type abutments), and abutment screws.

This document is a 510(k) summary for the DESS Dental Smart Solutions, a line of endosseous dental implant abutments. It details the device's characteristics, intended use, and a comparison to predicate devices to establish substantial equivalence.

Based on the provided text, the device itself is a physical medical device (dental implant abutments and associated components), not a software or AI-driven system. Therefore, the questions related to AI acceptance criteria, training/test sets, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, and ground truth establishment for AI would not be directly applicable to this product as described.

The document focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices through:

• Identical Intended Use: The device is intended for "functional and esthetic rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible or maxilla" by providing support for prosthetic restorations, which is the same as the predicate devices.
• Similar Technological Characteristics: The device utilizes similar designs, materials (Ti-6Al-4V, Co-Cr-Mo alloy), manufacturing processes, and sterilization methods as its predicates.
• Performance Data: Non-clinical testing (mechanical testing per ISO 14801, MR environment assessment) and comparison to existing data from predicate devices are used to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Therefore, many of the requested elements for describing AI acceptance criteria and studies are not present or applicable in this document.

However, I can extract information relevant to the device's performance assessment and criteria for its type of submission.

Here's an attempt to answer the questions based solely on the provided text, acknowledging that the nature of the device (a physical implant component) means many AI-specific questions will be answered as "Not Applicable" (N/A):

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

The document does not explicitly state quantifiable "acceptance criteria" in a table format with corresponding "reported device performance" metrics for this specific 510(k) submission. Instead, it relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices.

The underlying "acceptance criteria" for demonstrating substantial equivalence for this device type are primarily through:

• Mechanical Testing (ISO 14801): This is a critical performance standard for dental implants and abutments. The document states that mechanical testing was "conducted according to ISO 14801 to support the performance." The acceptance criteria would be successful completion of these tests, demonstrating the device's mechanical strength and fatigue resistance are comparable to or better than predicate devices. The reported performance is simply that the tests supported the performance.
• Material Conformance: Materials must conform to specific ASTM standards (e.g., ASTM F136 for Ti-6Al-4V, ASTM F1537 for Co-Cr-Mo). The reported performance is that the materials conform to these standards.
• Biocompatibility: While not detailed in this excerpt, the mention of "biocompatibility" in relation to predicates implies conformance to relevant biocompatibility standards (e.g., ISO 10993 series). The reported performance is that it is compatible.
• Sterilization Validation: Demonstrated sterility assurance level (SAL) of 10⁻⁶ via validated methods (moist heat or gamma irradiation). The reported performance is that validation was performed and met this SAL.
• Dimensional Compatibility: The abutments must fit the corresponding OEM implants correctly. The reported performance is that reverse engineering dimensional analysis confirmed compatibility.

Due to the nature of the document being a 510(k) summary focusing on substantial equivalence rather than a full study report, specific numerical performance results for the device tests are not provided in this text.

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

• Sample Size for Mechanical Testing: The document states "mechanical testing conducted according to ISO 14801." For such tests, ISO 14801 typically specifies minimum sample sizes (e.g., 10-11 samples for static strength, typically more for fatigue). The exact number of samples used for this specific submission is not explicitly stated, but it would have followed the standard's requirements.
• Data Provenance: The mechanical testing and material analyses are assumed to be "non-clinical data submitted or referenced" by the manufacturer, Terrats Medical SL, based in Barcelona, Spain. The "reverse engineering dimensional analysis" was done by Terrats Medical SL or through contractual agreement. This is prospective testing performed to support the 510(k). The document itself does not specify the country of origin for the underlying OEM implant data used for reverse engineering, although the OEM companies are listed (e.g., Astra Tech AB, BioHorizons).

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

N/A. This is a physical device. Ground truth, in the context of AI, refers to validated labels for data used to train and test an algorithm. For a physical device, performance is evaluated through engineering and biocompatibility testing against defined standards. There are no "experts" establishing ground truth in the AI sense. Testing would be performed by qualified engineers and technicians.

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

N/A. Adjudication methods are typically used in clinical studies involving interpretation (e.g., by radiologists) to resolve discrepancies. This document describes non-clinical performance testing of a physical 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

N/A. This product is a dental implant abutment, not an AI software intended to assist human readers.

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

N/A. This is a physical device, not an algorithm.

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

N/A. For engineering tests of physical devices, the "ground truth" is typically derived from established engineering principles, international standards (e.g., ISO 14801 for mechanical properties, ASTM for materials), and the physical properties of the materials and designs themselves. There isn't "expert consensus" or "pathology" in the AI or clinical trials sense.

8. The sample size for the training set

N/A. This is a physical device; there's no "training set" in the machine learning sense. The device is manufactured based on established engineering designs and material specifications.

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

N/A. No training set for AI. For device manufacturing, the "ground truth" for design and production parameters comes from established engineering best practices, prior successful device designs (predicate devices), and adherence to quality systems regulations (21 CFR Part 820).

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

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 or screw-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 Systems: Straumann® Bone Level SC, BioHorizons® Tapered Internal, MIS® C1

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 Straumann® Bone Level SC Implant System, BioHorizons® Tapered Internal Implant System and MIS® C1 Implant System. The products are made from titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V ELI, which meets ASTM standard F136. They include Inclusive® Titanium Abutment Blanks intended to fabricate one-piece, alltitanium, patient-specific abutments using CAD/CAM technology and Inclusive® Titanium Abutments 4.5mmH and 6mmH intended to be used for support of fabricated crowns/bridges or zirconia copings. Inclusive® Titanium Abutments are a two-piece abutment with a titanium base and a ceramic top half. Each patient-specific abutment is prescribed by a clinician and manufactured by Prismatik Dentalcraft, Inc. or a qualified validated milling center. 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-6Al-4V ELI conforming to ASTM F136 and used in conjunction with the OEM BioHorizons® Tapered Internal and OEM MIS® C1 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.

The provided text describes a medical device called "Inclusive® Titanium Abutments" and details its substantial equivalence to a predicate device. However, it does not include information about acceptance criteria or a study that proves the device meets those criteria in the context of an AI/ML powered medical device.

The document is a 510(k) summary for a dental implant abutment, which is a physical component, not a software device or an AI/ML powered device. The "performance data" section focuses on physical and material properties (Biocompatibility Evaluation, Mechanical Properties, Sterilization Validation, Shelf Life and Packaging Validation, Use in MR Environment) to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device, as opposed to functional performance metrics for an AI/ML algorithm.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information as it is not present in the provided text.

Specifically, the following information is not available:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance (for an AI/ML device): The document discusses performance related to physical properties and material compatibility, not AI/ML metrics.
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable to this type of device.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable.
4. Adjudication method: Not applicable.
5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, and the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance: Not applicable.
6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable.
7. The type of ground truth used: Not applicable in the AI/ML sense. "Ground truth" here relates to established standards for material science and dental mechanics.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Magicore Narrow System (3.0, 3.5mm) may be used as an artificial root structure for single tooth replacement of mandibular central and lateral incisors and maxillary lateral incisors.
The implants may be restored immediately

1. with a temporary prosthesis that is not in functional occlusion,
2. when splinted together as an artificial root structure for multiple tooth replacement of mandibular incisors, or
3. for denture stabilization using multiple implants in the anterior mandible and maxilla.
   The implants may be placed in immediate function when good primary stability has been achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading.

The Magicore Narrow System consists of dental implants, cylinders, caps and screws for use in one or two-stage dental implant placement and restorations. The implant-Abutment connection is tight and precise fitting with internal hex and Morse taper bevel. The surface of the Magicore Narrow implant is treated with RBM (Resorbable Blasted media) or SLA(sand-blasted, large-grit, acid-etched).

This document is a 510(k) summary, which is a premarket submission made to FDA to demonstrate that the device to be marketed is at least as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device. For dental implants, substantial equivalency is typically demonstrated through engineering and material characteristic comparisons to predicate devices, and performance testing, rather than clinical studies with patient outcomes. Therefore, the questions typically associated with clinical studies (like sample size for test sets, number of experts for ground truth, MRMC studies, training set details, etc.) are not directly applicable in the context of this 510(k) summary.

The manufacturer is demonstrating substantial equivalence by comparing the "Magicore Narrow System" to several predicate and reference devices. The acceptance criteria and the "study" proving the device meets these criteria are primarily based on comparative technical characteristics and non-clinical performance testing, rather than a clinical trial with human subjects.

Here's a breakdown based on the provided document, addressing the closest equivalents to your questions:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The term "acceptance criteria" here refers to demonstrating that the new device's characteristics and performance are substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices, meaning they do not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness. The performance is "reported" by showing that the subject device's features align with or are within acceptable ranges of the predicate devices, and by outlining non-clinical tests performed.

• Inner Connection: Internal hex, non-submerged (similar to predicates).
• Endosseous Implant: Tapered, macro threads (similar to predicates).
• Platform Diameters: Ø 4.0.
• Fixture Diameters: Ø 3.0, Ø 3.5 (similar to predicates, with Ø 3.3 for one predicate and Ø 3.0 for another).
• Implantable Lengths: 11.0, 13.0, 15.0 mm (longer lengths supported by reference device K093321).
• Modified Surface: RBM & SLA (Primary predicate K161244 uses SLA; reference device K093321 uses RBM. Differences justified).
• Surgical Technique: 1 and 2 stage, self-tapping (similar to predicates).
  Abutments: Various abutments (Closing Screw, Short Abutment, Magic Abutment, Magicore Solid Abutment, Magicore Solid Abutment Cap, Magicore Healing Cap, Healing Cap Screw, Abutment Screw) are compared to various reference devices (K152520, K192197, K212517, K201981, K173120). Differences in dimensions (diameters, lengths) are noted but justified as not affecting fundamental functions or safety due to similarity in intended use, fundamental scientific technology, principle of operation, general design, technology, functions, and materials. |
  | Sterilization | Device must be sterile or sterilizable, and sterilization methods must be validated and equivalent to predicate devices. | Fixtures are provided sterile via Gamma sterilization (similar to predicates). Closing Screw and Magicore Healing Cap also Gamma sterilized. Other abutments are provided non-sterile for end-user sterilization, with validation tested to ANSVAAMI ST79, ISO 17665-1/2, ISO 11737-1/2, ISO 11138-1 (leveraged from predicate K202479 and K140806). |
  | Biocompatibility | Device materials must be biocompatible. | Biocompatibility testing for fixtures (ISO 10993-1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11) and abutments made of Titanium ELI (ISO 10993-1, 5, 6, 10) was leveraged from predicates (K140806 & K162099), demonstrating equivalence with same materials and manufacturing processes. |
  | Non-Clinical Performance | Mechanical and packaging integrity must be demonstrated as safe and effective. | Shelf Life: Tested for subject fixtures according to ASTM F1980 (results met criteria).
  LAL Testing: Performed for subject fixtures according to USP (referenced in K140806 & K162099, results met criteria).
  Surface Modification Analysis: Surface roughness, surface composition analysis, and SEM imaging compared between subject (RBM and SLA surfaces) and predicate devices (K152520 and K192197) to demonstrate substantial equivalence.
  MR Environment Condition: Non-clinical worst-case MRI review performed using scientific rationale and published literature, addressing magnetically induced displacement force and torque based on FDA guidance.
  Fixture Packaging Performance: Human Factors testing (usability evaluation for aseptic presentation per ISO 11607-1:2019 and FDA guidance), low and high magnification imaging after removal from packaging to check for damage, and Quality System plan for packaging acceptance activities were provided. Results indicated devices conform to product specifications with packaging design. |

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

This document is a 510(k) summary for a dental implant, which does not typically involve a "test set" or "training set" of patient data in the way an AI/ML device would. Instead, substantial equivalence is demonstrated through comparative engineering data and non-clinical performance testing.

• Sample Size for Testing: The document refers to various standards (e.g., ASTM F1980, ISO 11137-1/2, USP , ANSV/AAMI ST79 series, ISO 17665-1/2, ISO 11737-1/2, ISO 11138-1, ISO 10993 series) for non-clinical performance tests. The specific sample sizes for these engineering tests are not detailed in this summary but would be part of the full test reports. For example, biomechanical tests (fatigue, static strength) are typically conducted with small sample sizes (e.g., n=5 or n=10 per group, as per ISO standards for implants).
• Data Provenance: The data comes from non-clinical laboratory testing performed by the manufacturer (InnoBioSurg Co., Ltd.) or leveraged from testing performed for predicate devices from other manufacturers. Data is implicitly prospective in the sense that the manufacturer conducted these tests for this specific submission or leveraged existing valid test data from similar devices. The country of origin for the non-clinical data is not specified but the manufacturer is based in the Republic of Korea.

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

Not applicable. "Ground truth" in the context of clinical expert consensus for image-based diagnostic or prognostic devices is not relevant for this type of medical device (dental implant). Substantial equivalence is based on engineering and material standards, and comparison to already-cleared predicate devices. The "experts" would be the engineers and quality assurance professionals who conducted and reviewed the non-clinical tests.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. There is no "adjudication method" in the sense of reconciling differences in expert annotations or diagnoses, as this is not a diagnostic device relying on human interpretation of complex data.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

No. An MRMC comparative effectiveness study is not performed for dental implants. These studies are typically conducted for AI/ML-driven diagnostic or screening devices to assess how the AI assists human readers.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

Not applicable. This is not an algorithm-based diagnostic device.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for this device's acceptance is based on:

• Engineering Standards: Compliance with recognized international and national standards for medical devices and dental implants (e.g., ASTM, ISO standards for materials, sterilization, biocompatibility, mechanical properties).
• Predicate Device Equivalence: The established safety and effectiveness of legally marketed predicate devices. The "ground truth" is that if the new device is sufficiently similar to a predicate device in termsally relevant characteristics (and any differences do not raise new safety/performance questions), then it is considered safe and effective.
• Non-Clinical Test Results: Data from physical, chemical, mechanical, and biological (biocompatibility) tests proving that the device meets specified performance requirements outlined in the relevant standards.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. There is no "training set" as this is not an AI/ML device requiring data to learn patterns.

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

Not applicable, as there is no training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

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:
• Straumann Tissue Level Implant (K122855, K202942): 4.1(RN), 4.8(RN), 6.5(WN) 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.

TruBase is a titanium component that is directly connected to endosseous dental implants to patientspecific prosthetic restorations, such as copings or crowns. It is indicated for a screw-retained single tooth or cementretained single tooth and bridge restorations. It is compatible with the following systems:

• · Osstem TSIII SA (K121995) 3.5 (3.7) , 4.0 (4.2) , 4.5 (4.6) , 5.0 (5.1) , 6.0 (6.0) , 7.0 (6.8) mm (Mini, Regular)
• · Astra OsseoSpeed EV (K120414) 3.6, 4.2, 4.8, 5.4 mm
• · BioHorizon Tapered Internal(K093321, K143022, K071638) 3.0. 3.4, 3.8 mm
• · Straumann Tissue Level Implant (K122855, K202942): 4.1(RN), 4.8(RN), 6.5(WN) mm
  All digitally designed zirconia superstructure for use with the TruBase are intended to be sent to a TruAbutment-validated milling center for manufacture.

TruAbutment DS system includes patient-specific abutments which are placed into the dental implant to provide support for the prosthetic restoration. The subject abutments are indicated for cemented or screw-retained restorations. The patient-specific 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 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 and provided to the authorized end-user as a final patient-specific abutment.

TruBase consists of a two-piece abutment, where the titanium base is a pre-manufactured abutment that will be used to support a CAD/CAM designed superstructure (the second part of the two-piece abutment) that composes the final abutment. The system also includes a TruBase Screw for fixation to the implant body.
TruBase abutments are made of titanium alloy conforming to ASTM F136 Standard Specification for Wrought Titanium-6Aluminum-4Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) Alloy for Surgical Implant Applications and are provided in a various prosthetic platform diameters (OSSTEM TSIII SA 3.5 (3.7), 4.0 (4.2), 4.5 (4.6), 5.0 (5.1), 6.0 (6.0), 7.0 (6.8) (Mini, Regular) and Astra EV 3.6, 4.2, 4.8, 5.4mm and BioHorizons Internal 3.0. 3.5. 4.5. 5.7mm and Straumann Tissue Level: 4.1(RN), 4.8(RN), 6.5(WN). The TruBase Screws are composed of titanium alloy per ASTM F136.
CAD/CAM customized superstructure that composes the final abutment 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. TruBase is provided non-sterile therefore must be sterilized after the cementation of the customized superstructure on the TruBase.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for two dental devices, TruAbutment DS and TruBase. The submission asserts substantial equivalence to a predicate device based on material, intended use, and mechanical testing. The document focuses on regulatory compliance and mechanical performance, rather than clinical efficacy measured by expert assessments or comparative effectiveness studies with human readers.

Here's an analysis of the provided information concerning acceptance criteria and supporting studies:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are primarily based on established international standards for dental implants and abutments and ensuring mechanical integrity. The reported performance indicates that the devices met these criteria.

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

• Test Set Sample Size: The document does not explicitly state a sample size for the mechanical fatigue testing beyond "worst-case constructs." For other tests (sterilization, biocompatibility, MRI review), specific sample sizes are not provided, though these are typically laboratory-based tests rather than patient-data-based studies.
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin for any data or whether the data is retrospective or prospective. The studies mentioned (e.g., fatigue testing, sterilization) are engineering and laboratory tests, not clinical studies involving patient data.

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

This information is not applicable to the provided document. The studies described are non-clinical (mechanical, sterilization, biocompatibility, MRI safety) and rely on testing against established engineering and safety standards, rather than expert interpretation of a 'ground truth' in a clinical context.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable as the described studies are non-clinical laboratory tests and material/design assessments, not studies involving human judgment or adjudication.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and Effect Size of How Much Human Readers Improve with AI vs. Without AI Assistance

This information is not applicable. The submission relates to dental abutments, which are physical medical devices, and does not involve AI or image-based diagnostics requiring human reader performance studies.

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

This information is not applicable. The device is not an algorithm or AI system.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (Expert Consensus, Pathology, Outcomes Data, etc.)

The "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests is based on:

• Established international and national standards (e.g., ISO 14801, ISO 17665, ISO 10993, ASTM F-136, ANSI/AAMI ST79).
• Engineering specifications and design limits (e.g., minimum thickness, maximum angle for abutments).
• Physical measurements and compatibility assessments (e.g., dimensional analysis and reverse engineering of implant-to-abutment connections).
• Scientific rationale and published literature for MRI safety.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable. The devices are physical dental abutments, not AI models that require training data.

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

This information is not applicable as there is no training set for an AI model.

In summary, the provided document focuses on demonstrating the substantial equivalence of physical medical devices through adherence to established engineering and safety standards, rather than clinical performance based on human reader assessments or AI model evaluations.

Ask a specific question about this device

Rodo Abutment System is intended to be used in conjunction with compatible implant systems in the maxillary or mandibular arch to provide support for crowns, bridges or overdentures.

The Rodo Abutment System includes the Rodo Abutment, Smileloc Sleeve, Titanium Coping, Temporary Cap, abutment screws, the Smileloc Activator (or Smileloc Remover) (all cleared under K160786) and Smilekey (cleared under K180609). The Smileloc Sleeve is used to lock and unlock the Titanium Coping for final restoration to or from the abutment. This makes the prosthesis removable. The Rodo Abutment System eliminates the need for an access hole on the occlusal surface of a screw-retained restoration and also eliminates the possibility of prosthetic screw loosening. The Smilekey is an induction heating device for dental prosthesis removal of the Smileloc Sleeve in the Rodo Abutment System. The Smilekey was cleared as an accessory to the Abutment System in K180609, and there have been no changes to the Smilekey since this clearance.

The Rodo Abutment is provided in five series designs (100 F, 200 P, 300 S, 400 M, 500 D) with the 200 P and 500 D series having angled abutments (17°, 30°), for a total of nine designs. The 300 S series is designed for limited occlusal space and the 400 M series is designed for large interproximal spaces. Abutments are available in sizes ranging from 3.0 mm to 6.0 mm depending on the compatible implant system in use. Designs are available with engaging and non-engaging implant-abutment interfaces.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the Rodo Abutment System, focusing on adding compatibility with new implant lines. However, it does not contain the detailed information typically found in a study proving a device meets specific performance acceptance criteria for an AI/ML medical device.

The Rodo Abutment System is a hardware dental device, not an AI/ML software device. The "performance data" section discusses non-clinical testing such as dimensional analysis, reverse engineering, and fatigue testing according to ISO 14801. It does not refer to AI/ML model performance metrics, ground truth establishment, or human reader studies.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, expert qualifications, or multi-reader multi-case studies, as the provided document pertains to the clearance of a mechanical dental device and not an AI/ML-driven diagnostic tool.

Specifically, the document does NOT contain information on:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance for an AI/ML model (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC).
• Any sample sizes used for a test set in the context of AI/ML performance.
• Data provenance for AI/ML data (country of origin, retrospective/prospective).
• Number of experts used to establish ground truth for an AI/ML model.
• Adjudication method for an AI/ML test set.
• Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness studies.
• Standalone (algorithm-only) performance of an AI/ML model.
• Type of ground truth used (pathology, outcomes data, etc.) for an AI/ML model.
• Sample size for a training set in the context of AI/ML.
• How ground truth for a training set was established for an AI/ML model.

The document's "Performance Data" section solely refers to non-clinical bench testing for a mechanical device.

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:

· Tapered Internal Implants (K071638) (K143022) 3.4, 3.8, 4.6, 5.8 mm

• · BioHorizons Laser-Lok Implant System (K093321) 3.0 mm
  The available range of diameters is summarized below:

Tapered Internal / Laser-Lok 3.0

Implant Ø (mm) : 3.0 / Implant Platform (mm) : 3.0 / Type of Implant-Abutment Connection : Internal Hex Tapered Internal

Implant Ø (mm) : 3.4 / Implant Platform (mm) : 3.0 / Type of Implant-Abutment Connection : Internal Hex

Implant Ø (mm) : 3.8 / Implant Platform (mm) : 3.5 / Type of Implant-Abutment Connection : Internal Hex

Implant Ø (mm) : 4.6 / Implant Platform (mm) : 4.5 / Type of Implant-Abutment Connection : Internal Hex

Implant Ø (mm) : 5.8 / Implant Platform (mm) : 5.7 / Type of Implant-Abutment Connection : Internal Hex

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 patient-specific abutments which are placed into the dental implant to provide support for a prosthetic restoration. The subject abutments are indicated for cemented or "Screw- and Cement-Retained Prosthesis" (SCRP) restorations. The patient-specific 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 patient-specific 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 provided document describes the FDA 510(k) clearance for the TruAbutment DS, a patient-specific CAD/CAM abutment. It does not contain information typically found in an AI/ML device approval, such as acceptance criteria related to classification metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC), sample size for test sets (in the context of AI models), number of experts for ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance of an algorithm (as this is a physical device, not an algorithm), or information about training datasets.

The "acceptance criteria" and "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in this document refer to the non-clinical testing performed for the physical dental abutment device, primarily focusing on its mechanical performance and compatibility with existing implants.

Here's the information parsed from the document based on the device type:

1. A 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: The document mentions "finished assembled implant/abutment systems of the worst-case scenario" for fatigue testing. It does not specify a numerical sample size but implies a representative selection for worst-case evaluation. For sterilization and biocompatibility, the tests were "performed for reference device K152559 and leveraged for the subject device," without specifying its sample size.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of clinical data for AI/ML. The tests are non-clinical, performed in a lab setting.

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

• Not applicable. The ground truth for this physical device is based on objective engineering standards (ISO standards, dimensional measurements, material properties), not expert interpretation of medical images or conditions.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• Not applicable, as this is not a study requiring adjudication of interpretations.

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. TruAbutment DS is a physical dental implant component, not an AI-assisted diagnostic or prognostic tool.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an algorithm. The device itself is "standalone" in function as it's a physical component.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• Engineering Standards and Measurements: The ground truth for evaluating TruAbutment DS is based on established international (ISO) and national (ANSI/AAMI) engineering standards for medical devices (specifically dental implants and abutments), material specifications (ASTM Standard F-136 for Ti-6A1-4V ELI), and precise dimensional measurements and compatibility assessments.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable, as this is not a machine learning model.

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

• Not applicable, as this is not a machine learning model.

Ask a specific question about this device