Search Results

The ATLANTIS™ Crown is intended for use with an ATLANTIS™ Abutment and an endosseous implant to function as a substructure that also serves as the final restoration, in a partially or completely edentulous patient.

The ATLANTIS™ Crown is a patient-specific dental prosthetic component intended for use with an ATLANTISTM Abutment, abutment screw, and an endosseous implant to support a single-tooth prosthetic restoration. The ATLANTIS™ Crown is made of yttria stabilized zirconia powder (Y-TZP) and fabricated according to the clinician's prescription using CAD/CAM technology. The crown can be delivered as a full contour crown or as a cut-back substructure onto which porcelain will be added by the customer. The ATLANTIS™ Crown is finally cemented to the ATLANTIS™ Abutment.

This document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the ATLANTIS™ Crown, a patient-specific dental prosthetic component. The information provided heavily focuses on comparing the proposed device to predicate devices to establish substantial equivalence, rather than detailing a specific clinical study with acceptance criteria for a novel device.

Therefore, it is important to note that the input document does NOT describe the acceptance criteria and a study that proves the device meets those acceptance criteria in the typical sense for an AI/ML device.

Instead, the document demonstrates that the ATLANTIS™ Crown is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device based on its intended use, technological characteristics (material, design, manufacturing), and non-clinical performance data (flexural strength, fracture toughness, chemical solubility, radioactivity concentration, and coefficient of thermal expansion).

Here's an analysis based on the available information, addressing the requested points where possible, and noting where information is not present in the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in the context of a performance study for the ATLANTIS™ Crown as a new device with novel performance claims to be evaluated. Instead, it relies on demonstrating that the ATLANTIS™ Crown meets the established performance characteristics of its predicate devices and complies with relevant standards.

Regarding the remaining points:

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (ATLANTIS™ Crown) which is a physical product, not an AI/ML diagnostic or assistive tool. Therefore, many of the requested points related to AI/ML device studies (sample sizes for test/training sets, data provenance, number/qualifications of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, ground truth types) are not applicable and are not found in this document.

Specific responses to the remaining points based on the understanding that this is not an AI/ML device document:

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective): Not applicable. This document reports non-clinical material characterization data (flexural strength, fracture toughness, etc.) against established standards (ISO, ASTM), not a clinical trial with a test set of patient data.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience): Not applicable. "Ground truth" in the context of clinical or diagnostic AI/ML studies is not relevant here. Material properties are measured against physical standards.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable. Material testing involves scientific measurement and comparison to quantitative standards, not expert adjudication.
5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance: Not applicable. This is a physical prosthetic device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This is a physical prosthetic device.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert concensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): Not applicable in the AI/ML sense. The "ground truth" for material properties is the defined limits and test methods of international standards like ISO 6872.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. There is no "training set" as this is not an AI/ML model.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable. There is no "training set" or corresponding ground truth establishment process.

Ask a specific question about this device

Implants:
The Astra Tech Dental Implants are intended for both one- and two-stage surgical procedures in the following situations and with the following clinical protocols:

• replacing single and multiple missing teeth in the mandible and maxilla, ●
• immediate placement in extraction sites and in situations with a partially or completely . healed alveolar ridge,
• especially indicated for use in soft bone applications where implants with other implant ● surface treatments may be less effective,
• immediate loading in all indications, except in single tooth situations on implants shorter . than 8 mm or in soft bone (type IV) where implant stability may be difficult to obtain and immediate loading may not be appropriate.

The intended use for OsseoSpeed™ Plus 3.0S is limited to replacement of maxillary lateral incisors and mandibular incisors.

Abutments:
Astra Tech Implant System Plus abutments are intended to be used in conjunction with Astra Tech Implant System Plus in fully edentulous or partially edentulous maxillary and/or mandibular arches to provide support for crowns, bridges or overdentures.

Atlantis Abutments:
The Atlantis™ Abutment is intended for use with an endosseous implant to support a prosthetic device in a partially or completely edentulous patient. It is intended for use to support single and multiple tooth prostheses, in the mandible or maxilla. The prosthesis can be cemented, screw retained or friction fit to the abutment. The abutment screw is intended to secure the abutment to the endosseous implant.

The Atlantis™ Crown Abutment in Zirconia is intended for use with an endosseous implant to function as a substructure that also serves as the final restoration, in partially or completely edentulous patients. The prosthesis is screw retained. The abutment screw is intended to secure the crown abutment to the endosseous implant.

The purpose of this submission is to expand the OsseoSpeed™ Plus Implant System to include all the components of the previously cleared OsseoSpeed System. The OsseoSpeed Plus Implant System, cleared September 26, 2011 under K111287, has the same design as the OsseoSpeed system, except for addition of an anti-rotation feature to the implant/abutment interface.

The OsseoSpeed Plus System includes implants with diameters ranging from Ø3.0 mm to Ø5.4 mm and lengths ranging from 6 mm to 17 mm. Radiographic guides are available for all implant sizes. Abutments sizes range from Ø3.0 mm to Ø5.4 mm in straight and angled designs ranging from 15° to 30°. Abutment designs include coverscrews, healing abutments, temporary abutments, cast-to abutments, ball abutments, straight and angled abutments.

This 510(k) Premarket Notification for the OsseoSpeed™ Plus Dental Implant System primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices. Therefore, the information provided does not detail specific acceptance criteria for a new clinical study and a study that proves the device meets those criteria, as one would typically find for a novel device.

The submission is for an expansion of an existing system (OsseoSpeed™ Plus) to include components from the previously cleared OsseoSpeed System (K111287). The core argument for substantial equivalence is based on the device having the "same intended use and design principles" and "same technological characteristics" as predicate devices, supported by non-clinical testing.

Here's an analysis of what is available in the document, acknowledging that typical clinical study acceptance criteria and results are not present:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

As this submission relies on substantial equivalence and non-clinical testing, explicit acceptance criteria tied to a clinical performance study with defined metrics (e.g., success rates, complication rates) are not provided in the document.

The "acceptance criteria" here are implicitly linked to demonstrating that the OsseoSpeed™ Plus system is as safe and effective as the predicate devices. The non-clinical data presented aims to show that any differences in technological characteristics do not raise new issues of safety or efficacy.

2. Sample Size for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not applicable in the context of this 510(k) submission, as there is no specific clinical test set described from a prospective study. The evaluation relies on non-clinical engineering and bench testing data, and the historical performance of the predicate devices. The document does not specify sample sizes for the non-clinical tests, other than referencing the types of tests performed (e.g., ISO 14801).
• Data Provenance: The referenced predicate devices would have been previously marketed (interstate commerce prior to May 28, 1976, or reclassified devices). The non-clinical testing data would typically be generated in a lab setting by the manufacturer (Astra Tech AB, Sweden, or its testing partners).

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

• This question is not applicable for this submission. The ground truth, in the absence of a clinical study, is the established safety and efficacy of the predicate devices, supported by the non-clinical testing confirming that the new device variant performs similarly. Expert consensus on clinical outcomes for a novel test set is not described.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable. There is no clinical test set requiring an adjudication method by experts for ground truth establishment.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done, and its effect size

• No. This type of study is not mentioned or implied in this 510(k) submission, as it focuses on dental implants, not image-based diagnostic aids or similar devices where MRMC studies are common.

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

• Not applicable. The OsseoSpeed™ Plus is a physical dental implant system, not a software algorithm or AI-driven device.

7. The type of ground truth used

• The "ground truth" for this 510(k) clearance is primarily:
  • The established safety and efficacy profile of the legally marketed predicate devices.
  • Bench test results and engineering analyses (e.g., mechanical strength, dimensional accuracy, surface characteristics) demonstrating that the subject device performs comparably to the predicates and meets relevant standards (like ISO 14801).
  • The regulatory precedent set by the predicate devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of a machine learning algorithm for this physical device. If referring to product development and testing, the sample size for non-clinical tests would be defined by engineering standards and internal validation protocols, but specific numbers are not provided in this summary.

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

• Not applicable. As there is no training set for an AI algorithm, this question doesn't apply. The "ground truth" for the overall submission is based on regulatory precedent and engineering validation against established standards and predicate devices.

Ask a specific question about this device