Search Results

The Zfx Abutments are intended to be used in conjunction with endosseous dental implants in the maxillary or mandbular arch to provide support for prosthetic restorations.

All digitally designed custom abutments or superstructures and/or hybrid abutment crowns for use with Zfx TiBase or Pre-Milled Blank Abutments are intended to be sent to a Zfx validated milling center for manufacture.

The Zfx TiBase abutments for the 03.25 mm Certain implant bodies, and 03.1 mm Eztetic implant bodies are indicated for maxillary lateral and mandibular central/lateral incisors only.

The subject device, Zfx Abutments, consists of two abutment types, a TiBase and a Pre-milled Abutment Blank, with corresponding retaining screws. Zfx Abutments are offered in a variety of connections compatible with ZimVie dental implants. All abutments and screws are provided non-sterile.

TiBase Abutments: Subject device TiBases are two-piece abutments. The pre-manufactured titanium base component is the apical part. The coronal part of the two-piece abutment is a CAD/CAM designed and manufactured superstructure. The subject device TiBase abutments are available in hexed/engaging and non-hexed/nonengaging configurations. The engaging TiBase abutments are intended for single and multi-unit restorations and the non-engaging TiBases are intended for multi-unit restorations. The superstructure is intended to be manufactured at a Zfx validated milling center.

Pre-milled Abutment Blanks: The Pre-milled Abutment Blank is a cylindrical titanium alloy abutment designed for patient-specific abutment fabrication with CAD/CAM technology. The patient-specific abutment milled from a Pre-milled Abutment Blank is secured directly to the implant using a retaining screw. Pre-milled Abutment Blanks are available in an engaging/hexed design only for single-unit and multi-unit restorations.

Retaining Screws: Corresponding retaining screws are packaged with the abutment and replacement screws are available individually. All screws are compatible with the corresponding ZimVie dental implants.

Material Composition: All subject device abutments are made of titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V ELI conforming to ASTM F136. Screws are made of either titanium alloy Ti-6A1-4V ELI conforming to ASTM F136, or Gold-Tite® screws with stainless steel conforming to ASTM F138. Gold-Tite screws have a gold-plating conforming to ASTM B488 and ASTM B571. Zirconia superstructures for use with the TiBase Abutments are made of zirconia conforming to ISO 13356.

The provided text is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for Zfx Abutments, and as such, it focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting a performance study with detailed acceptance criteria and supporting data in the way a clinical study report or a formal performance evaluation report would.

Therefore, the information required to answer many of the questions regarding acceptance criteria, sample sizes, expert involvement, and ground truth establishment is not present in this document. The document primarily outlines the device's technical specifications, indications for use, and a comparison to predicate devices, supported by non-clinical testing data (mechanical testing, biocompatibility, sterilization, etc.).

However, I can extract the information that is available and explain why other requested details are missing.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (Based on "Equivalence to Marketed Devices" and "Performance Data" sections):

This document describes a substantial equivalence submission, meaning the acceptance criteria are primarily demonstrated by showing the device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device. The performance is assessed through non-clinical testing to ensure it meets established standards comparable to the predicate.

Missing Information and Explanations:

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

   • Not provided. This document details a 510(k) submission based on non-clinical testing for substantial equivalence, not a clinical trial or performance study with human data. The "Performance Data" section explicitly states: "No clinical data were included in this submission." Therefore, there is no "test set" in the context of clinical images or patient data to analyze. The "samples" used were physical samples for mechanical, sterilization, and biocompatibility testing. The data provenance would be from laboratory tests.

2. 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/Not provided. As no clinical data or clinical "test set" was used, there was no need for expert adjudication to establish ground truth from patient data. The ground truth for mechanical and material properties is established by engineering specifications and industry standards.

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

   • Not applicable/None. No clinical test set to adjudicate.

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 device (Zfx Abutments) is a physical dental implant component, not an AI software/device. Therefore, an MRMC study or AI assistance is not relevant to its performance evaluation for this submission.

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

   • Not applicable. As above, this is a physical medical device, not an algorithm or AI.

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

   • The "ground truth" for demonstrating substantial equivalence for this device relies on engineering specifications, material standards (e.g., ASTM, ISO), mechanical test results (e.g., forces to fracture), and comparative analysis with the predicate device's established safe and effective performance. There is no clinical outcomes ground truth cited here.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. This refers to a dataset for training an AI model. This device is not an AI/software.

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

   • Not applicable. As above, no training set for an AI model.

In summary, this document is a regulatory clearance letter focused on substantial equivalence for a physical dental device. The "study" proving it meets acceptance criteria consists of various non-clinical bench tests and a comparison to a predicate device's specifications and performance, rather than a clinical study with patients or an AI model's performance evaluation.

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 BTI Dental Implant System UnicCa® for oral implant surgery is to be used for the partial or total replacement of teeth in edentulate patients. Once attached to the bone, the implants act as an anchor for various fixed or removable prosthetic solutions that can be used to improve or restore a patient's mastication function.

In the case of 5.5 – 6.5mm long UnicCa® implants should be used in a two-stage surgical procedure. These implants are indicated for delayed loading. These implants are indicated only for straight abutments and to support permanently fixed restorations.

In the case of Tiny® 3.0 UnicCa® implants: These implants shall be used only to replace maxillary lateral incisors and mandibular lateral and central incisors. Immediate loading is recommended when there is good primary stability and an appropriate occlusal load.

The BTI Dental Implant System UnicCa® is a self-tapping, threaded, root form dental titanium implant provided with two types of connections; external (i.e., Externa®) and internal (i.e., Interna®), in a variety of platforms and range of diameters (3.0 - 6.0 mm) and lengths (5.5 - 18.0 mm). BTI Dental Implant System UnicCa® features an implant surface treatment that improves the hydrophilicity of the implant.

The purpose of this 510(k) is to allow B.T.I. to expand the product offering for the Wide and Universal Plus 5.5 mm and 6.0 mm diameter Interna® implants to extend implant length up to 15 mm.

This document is an FDA 510(k) summary for the BTI Dental Implant System UnicCa®, which is a dental implant system. The submission describes modifications to the existing device, specifically expanding the available dimensions (diameter and length) of certain implants. Importantly, this is a modification of an already cleared device (predicate K151391), and the document emphasizes substantial equivalence rather than presenting an entirely new device's performance data.

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

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Strict acceptance criteria and performance data for the modified device itself are not explicitly presented as a pass/fail table in the document. Instead, the document relies heavily on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a previously cleared predicate device (K151391) and other reference predicates. The "performance data" provided relates to general device safety and effectiveness based on established standards and previous clearances, rather than a novel statistically powered study for the dimensional changes.

However, based on the provided text, we can infer the following:

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

The document does not describe specific sample sizes for a new test set for the modified dimensions. The overarching theme is that the modifications (dimensional changes) do not alter the fundamental design, materials, or intended use. Therefore, the data presented relies on previous testing for the predicate device.

• The biocompatibility testing, bench testing (fatigue, corrosion, hydrophilicity), shelf-life validation, and sterilization validation all refer back to studies performed for the predicate device K151391. No new samples or data provenance are explicitly stated for these tests regarding the new extended sizes.
• Human Factors Study: A Human Factors study was performed, but the sample size is not specified. The data provenance is implied to be prospective, specifically assessing the handling of the proposed single-barrier packaging.

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

This is not applicable as the document describes a dental implant system, not an AI/diagnostic device that typically requires expert-established ground truth for performance evaluation. The "ground truth" here is compliance with established engineering standards and safety/performance requirements for medical devices.

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

Not applicable for this type of medical device submission. Adjudication methods are typically used in clinical trial settings or for performance evaluation of diagnostic/AI devices where agreement among experts on a finding is critical.

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 dental implant (hardware), not an AI-assisted diagnostic or imaging device.

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

Not applicable. This device is a physical dental implant.

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

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

• Compliance with recognized international and national standards (e.g., ISO 10993 series for biocompatibility, EN ISO 14801 for fatigue, ISO 5832-2 and ASTM F67 for material, ANSI ST72, USP, USP for endotoxins).
• Demonstration of substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices through direct comparison of technological characteristics, materials, and intended use.
• Previous performance data from the predicate device (K151391) being deemed applicable to the modified device due to the nature of the changes (dimensional expansion within a similar design).

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device.

9. 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 Zuga™ Dental Implant System is indicated for immediate or delayed implant placement for surgical and restorative applications in maxillary and/or mandibular arches to support prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, crowns, bridges, and overdentures. The Zuga™ Dental Implant System is indicated for immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading.

The Zuga™ Dental Implant System includes endosseous dental implants, sealing caps, healing caps, dental implant abutments, and fixation screws in a variety of sizes to accommodate differing patient anatomy. Implantation is suitable for one-or two-stage procedures. Endosseous implants are bone level, self-tapping, root-form, threaded. The threaded surface is blasted, then passivated. Sizematched anterior and posterior abutments are offered. Thes are fastened to the implant using a fixation screw. Sealing caps and healing caps provide protection to the abutment connection threads during endosseous and gingival healing. The implants are provided sterile, the remaining components must be sterilized prior to use.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the Zuga™ Dental Implant System. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices, rather than proving that the device meets a set of specific acceptance criteria through clinical performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy, as would be common for AI-driven diagnostic devices.

Therefore, the document does not contain the information requested regarding acceptance criteria in terms of performance metrics for an AI/ML device, nor does it detail a study proving the device meets such criteria with respect to AI performance.

Instead, the "Performance Data" section ([15]) focuses on biological and mechanical compatibility/safety testing, which is standard for medical devices like dental implants. These tests are designed to show that the physical device itself is safe and performs as intended, not to evaluate an AI algorithm's diagnostic or predictive capabilities.

Here's an breakdown of the information present and what's missing, based on the prompt's requirements:

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

• Present: The document lists various tests performed and their outcomes which act as "acceptance criteria" for a physical medical device. These are:
  • Static fatigue tests and dynamic fatigue tests (per ISO 14801 and FDA Guidance): "The results show that the Zuga™ Dental Implant System has sufficient mechanical strength for the intended clinical application."
  • Cytotoxicity testing (per ISO 10993-5 and USP ): "The results showed that the Zuga™ Dental Implant System received a passing score and is thus acceptable for clinical application."
  • Sterility tests (per ISO 10993, ISO 11137-1, 11137-2, ISO 17665-1, 17665-2): "yielded no difference in performance between the Zuga™ Dental Implant System and the predicate device."
  • LAL (Limulus Amebocyte Lysate) bacterial endotoxin tests (per ISO 10993 and USP , ): "yielded a EU/Device value that was less than the established acceptance criteria of 20 EU/Device".
  • Shelf life tests (per ISO 11607): "established the shelf life to be five years provided the sterile seal is not breached."
• Missing (for an AI/ML device context): Specific performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, AUC, FROC, etc., and their corresponding acceptance thresholds.

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

• Present: For LAL tests, it states: "The sampling plan consists of selecting 3% of the batch up to a maximum of 10 samples to be pooled for testing."
• Missing (for an AI/ML device context): Sample size for a "test set" of patient data (e.g., medical images, clinical records) for an AI algorithm. Data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is not applicable or mentioned for these physical/biological tests.

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

• Missing: This information is not relevant to the mechanical/biological testing of a physical implant. It would be crucial for an AI/ML device based on clinical data.

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

• Missing: Not applicable to the presented 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:

• Missing: Not applicable. This device is a physical dental implant, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

• Missing: Not applicable.

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

• Present (for physical device tests): The "ground truth" here is adherence to international standards (ISO, ASTM) and USP guidelines for mechanical strength, biocompatibility, sterilization, and endotoxin levels.
• Missing (for an AI/ML device context): Clinical ground truth established by experts or pathology for diagnostic purposes.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Missing: Not applicable, as this is not an AI/ML device.

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

• Missing: Not applicable.

In summary: The provided document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for a physical dental implant system. Its "acceptance criteria" and "performance data" relate to the mechanical, chemical, and biological safety and efficacy of the implant itself, demonstrated through adherence to various international and US standards. It contains no information relevant to the development, testing, or performance of an AI/ML device.

Ask a specific question about this device

BIOMET 3/ Dental implants are intended for surgical placement in the upper or lower jaw to provide a means for prosthetic attachment in single tooth restorations and in partially or fully edentulous spans with multiple single teeth, or as a terminal or intermediary abutment for fixed or removable bridgework, and to retain overdentures.

The 3i T3 Dental Implants are manufactured from Commercially Pure Grade 4 titanium and feature a roughened apex and traditional OSSEOTITE® coronal surface. The dental implants will consist of a straight wall or tapered body type with a basic screw-type design in various platform options and feature an internal connection/anti-rotation feature; 3.25 and 4/3mm has a 12pt dual hex; 4, 5, 6, 5/4 & 6/5mm has a six-point hex at the top and lower 12-point dual hex. The 3i T3 Dental Implants are available with either the Prevail platform switching feature or standard collar. In addition, the implants are offered with and without the nano-scale discrete crystalline deposition (DCD) calcium phosphate (CaP) surface treatment.

The provided document is a 510(k) Summary for the BIOMET 3i T3 Dental Implants. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices through non-clinical performance data. It does not describe an AI medical device or a study involving AI with human readers. Therefore, most of the requested information regarding AI device acceptance criteria and study design is not available in this document.

However, I can extract information related to the acceptance criteria and the studies performed for this non-AI medical device.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

This document does not specify exact sample sizes for the non-clinical tests (e.g., how many implants were cycle-tested). The clinical data mentioned refers to postmarket clinical studies of predicate implants, not the new device being tested for equivalence.

• Clinical Data (from predicate implants): Data on over 6,829 implants placed in the posterior from 1996 - 2011.
• Data Provenance: The provenance of the 6,829 implants is "sponsored or supported by Biomet 3i," implying it's from their own studies or collected data. No specific country of origin is mentioned, but Biomet 3i is a US-based company (Palm Beach Gardens, Florida). The studies are explicitly described as "postmarket clinical studies" of predicate implants, indicating retrospective data collection for the clinical portion. The non-clinical tests were performed on the new device, as part of its premarket submission.

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

Not applicable. This device is a dental implant, and the testing involves mechanical and material properties, not interpretation of images or data by human experts for establishing ground truth as would be relevant for an AI diagnostic device.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. This is not an AI diagnostic device requiring expert adjudication for ground truth.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI diagnostic device.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI medical device. The "standalone" performance here refers to the device itself meeting mechanical and material standards without human interpretation.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

For the non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" is based on established engineering standards, test procedures, and design specifications. For example:

• Mechanical Integrity: ISO 14801:2007 for cyclic fatigue testing.
• Design Intent: Biomet 3i internal procedures for print verification, ensuring manufacturing matches design.
• Material Properties: Adhesion strength, tolerance analysis, and torque testing against established parameters for the predicate devices.

For the postmarket clinical data, the ground truth is clinical survival rates of predicate implants, based on actual patient outcomes over several years.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. There is no training set mentioned, as this is not an AI device.

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

Not applicable. There is no training set for an AI model.

Ask a specific question about this device