Search Results

STERI-OSS Implant System is intended for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxilla, in support of single of multiple-unit restorations including; cemented retained, or overdenture restorations, and terminal or intermediate abutment support for fixed bridgework. STERI-OSS Implant System is for single stage surgical procedures. This system is intended for delayed loading.

STERI-OSS Implant System, Fixture is a medical device made of titanium that is inserted into the maxillary or mandibular alveolar bone to support prosthesis such as artificial teeth for the patient's recovery of masticatory function.
STERI-OSS Implant System. Abutment is inserted to support prosthesis such as artificial teeth, and is a medical device made of titanium alloy. It connects artificial teeth with a fixture implanted in the maxillary or mandibular alveolar bone where teeth are lost.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the STERI-OSS Implant System, which is a dental implant system. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than providing a study where the device meets pre-defined acceptance criteria for performance in a clinical setting. For medical devices undergoing 510(k) clearance, the primary goal is to show that the new device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device, not necessarily to meet specific novel performance acceptance criteria through clinical studies.

Therefore, the requested information elements such as "acceptance criteria and the reported device performance," "sample sizes used for the test set," "number of experts used to establish ground truth," "adjudication method," "MRMC comparative effectiveness study," "standalone performance," "type of ground truth," "sample size for the training set," and "how ground truth for the training set was established" are typically not applicable in the context of a 510(k) substantial equivalence submission for a device like a dental implant. These elements are more commonly associated with clinical trials or performance studies for novel devices or software with AI/ML components requiring new clinical evidence.

The document describes non-clinical testing to demonstrate that the differences between the subject device and predicate devices do not affect substantial equivalence.

Here's a breakdown of the available and non-applicable information based on your request:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

This information is not applicable in the format typically used for performance studies with defined acceptance criteria for clinical outcomes. The document instead presents a comparison of technological characteristics with predicate devices and reports on non-clinical engineering and materials testing to support substantial equivalence.

Ask a specific question about this device

The IT-III active system is indicated for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae, in support of single or multiple-unit restorations including; cemented retained, screw retained, or overdenture restorations, and terminal or intermediate Abutment support for fixed bridgework. IT-III active system is dedicated for two stage surgical procedures and for immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading.

IT-III active System is composed of Fixture and Abutments. IT-III active Fixture is a thread type implant made of Pure titanium according to ASTM F67 which will be placed in the alveolar bone to replace the function of the missing tooth. This device has connection between the upper prosthesis and the internal Octa. Fixture's surface is treated with SLA (Sandblasted with Large-grit and Acid-etching). It is only part to be implanted into bone, and to provide connection of prosthetic devices or other components of a dental implant set with human body (mandibular or maxillary bone). The IT -III active System Abutment are composed as below; IT Cover screw, IT Healing Abutment, IT Solid Abutment, IT Excellent Solid Abutment, Protective Cap, IT Cemented Abutment, IT Pre Angled Abutment, IT Collared Abutment, IT Gold UCLA Abutment, IT Cemented Abutment Screw and IT Angled Abutment Screw.

The provided text describes the Neobiotech Co., Ltd. IT-III active System, an endosseous dental implant system, and its substantial equivalence to predicate devices, but does not contain a study comparing the device's performance against specific acceptance criteria and reporting its performance metrics in a way that directly answers all the questions in the prompt.

The document is a 510(k) summary for FDA clearance, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to already legally marketed devices rather than presenting a detailed study with acceptance criteria and device performance metrics in the format requested.

However, I can extract the information provided that is relevant, or indicate where the information is not present.

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

The document does not explicitly present a table of acceptance criteria with corresponding performance results in the requested format. Instead, it states that "The results of the above tests have met the criteria of the standards and demonstrated the substantial equivalence with the predicate device." This implies that the device did meet the criteria of the standards listed, but doesn't quantify the performance against those criteria.

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

The document lists non-clinical testing performed, such as Fatigue Testing, Sterilization Testing, Shelf Life Testing, Bacterial Endotoxin Test, and Biocompatibility Evaluation. However, it does not specify the sample sizes used for these tests. It also does not mention the country of origin of the data or whether the studies were retrospective or prospective.

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 type of information is not applicable to the non-clinical testing (fatigue, sterility, etc.) described in the document. Ground truth as typically established by experts (e.g., radiologists for imaging studies) is not relevant for the engineering and biological tests conducted for dental implant device clearance.

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

This information is not applicable to the non-clinical testing described. Adjudication methods are typically used in clinical studies or expert reviews to resolve discrepancies in diagnoses or assessments, which is not the nature of the tests performed here.

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 MRMC comparative effectiveness study was performed or mentioned in this document. This study type is far more common for diagnostic imaging AI devices, rather than for a dental implant system.

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

This concept is not applicable to the IT-III active System, which is a physical dental implant. Standalone algorithm performance refers to the performance of AI software independent of human intervention, which is not relevant for this device.

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

For the non-clinical tests conducted, the "ground truth" is defined by the standards themselves (e.g., ISO 14801 specifies the methodology and interpretation for fatigue failure, ISO 11137 for sterility). The tests measure whether the device meets the predefined physical, mechanical, and biological properties as stipulated by these recognized standards. It's not about an expert diagnosis or clinical outcome but rather adherence to engineering/material specifications.

8. The sample size for the training set

No training set is mentioned or applicable. This document is not describing a machine learning or AI algorithm, but rather a physical dental implant device undergoing non-clinical validation.

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

Not applicable, as there is no training set described.

Ask a specific question about this device

The IS-III active System is indicated for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae, in support of single or multiple-unit restorations including: cemented retained, or overdenture restorations, and terminal or internediate Abutment support for fixed bridgework. IS-III active System is dedicated for two stage surgical procedures and for immediate loading when there is good primary stability and an appropriate occlusal load. Also, implants with diameters larger than 5mm are indicated for molar regions.

IS-III active System is composed of IS-III active fixtures and Abutments. IS-III active Fixture is a thread type implant made of TI CP4 according to ASTM F67 which will be placed in the alveolar bone to replace the function of the missing tooth. This device has connection between the upper prosthesis and the internal hex. Fixture's surface is treated with SLA (Sandblasted with Large-grit and Acid-etching). It is only part to be implanted into bone, and to provide connection of prosthetic devices or other components of a dental implant set with human body (mandibular or maxillary bone). There are 4 types of fixtures in this system and the dimensions are as following: Tolerance of dimension shall be within ± 1% range. IS-III active System Abutments are composed of IS Cover Screw, IS Healing Abutment, IS Encoded Healing Abutment, IS Solid Abutment, Protective Cap, IS Cemented Abutment, IS Shapable Abutment, IS Angled Abutment, IS Gold UCLA Abutment, IS Temporary Abutment, IS Ball Abutment, IS Ball Abutment Component (Housing, Retainer, O-ring) and IS Abutment Screw. The dimensions of abutments are as following: Tolerance of dimension for Abutments shall be within ± 1% range. The purpose of Anodizing for Cover Screw is to distinguish the sizes with the naked eyes for convenience. The surface of IS Solid, cemented, Shapable, Angled Abutments was treated with TiN-Coated. IS-III active Fixture, IS cover screw, and healing Abutments are provided sterilized. And other Abutments are provided non- sterilized. IS-III active Fixture is enclosed with Cover Screw in a packing. Other Abutments are enclosed with Abutment Screw in a packing. The Solid Abutment is enclosed with Protective cap. All of above products including enclosed product are packed separately for convenience.

The provided document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification for a dental implant system. It outlines the characteristics of the IS-III active System and compares it to predicate devices to demonstrate substantial equivalence, rather than providing extensive clinical study data with detailed acceptance criteria and performance metrics for an AI/ML powered device.

Therefore, many of the requested elements for an AI/ML device (like sample sizes for test/training sets, data provenance, number/qualifications of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, or standalone algorithm performance) are not applicable or not present in this document.

However, I can extract information related to the device's non-clinical testing and comparison to acceptance criteria (standards).

Here's the closest representation of the requested information based on the provided document:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study for the Neobiotech IS-III active System (K181138)

This 510(k) submission establishes the substantial equivalence of the IS-III active System to legally marketed predicate devices primarily through comparison of technological characteristics and non-clinical performance testing against recognized standards. The acceptance criteria are derived from these international and internal standards, and the device's performance data is reported as meeting these criteria.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Specific sample sizes for each non-clinical test (e.g., number of implants for fatigue testing or biocompatibility animal models) are not detailed in this summary document.
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin for the non-clinical testing data nor if it was retrospective or prospective, as these are typically not relevant for non-clinical bench or lab testing. The testing was conducted to international and US FDA recognized standards.

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 information is not applicable as the document describes non-clinical engineering and biological tests conducted against established standards, not a clinical study involving expert interpretation or "ground truth" establishment in a diagnostic context.

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

This information is not applicable as the document describes non-clinical engineering and biological tests.

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

This information is not applicable. This document is for a dental implant system (a physical device), not an AI/ML powered medical device.

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

This information is not applicable. This document is for a dental implant system (a physical device), not an AI/ML powered medical device.

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

For biocompatibility and mechanical testing, the "ground truth" is defined by the established criteria and methodologies within the cited international ISO and ASTM standards, as well as the FDA guidance document. For example, for fatigue, the "ground truth" is that the device must withstand a certain number of cycles at a specified load without failure, as per ISO 14801.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable. This document is for a physical medical device. There is no AI/ML algorithm or "training set" involved in its development or evaluation as described here.

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

This information is not applicable. No training set is mentioned or relevant to the information provided in this 510(k) summary for a physical dental implant.

Ask a specific question about this device

The S-mini active Fixture is indicated for use in the treatment of missing maxillary lateral incisors or the mandibular central and lateral incisors to serve as temporary support prosthetic devices during the healing phase of permanent endosseous dental implant, such as artificial teeth, in order to restore chewing function in partially edentulous patients.

S-mini active Fixture is one body type mini implant which will be placed in the alveolar bone to replace the function of the missing tooth. It is made of Ti-6Al-4V ELI based on ASTM F136. The surface treatment of device is SLA (Sandblasted with Large-grit and Acid-etching). It is only part to be implanted into bone, and to provide connection of prosthetic devices or other components of a dental implant set with human body (mandibular or maxillary bone). The feature of S-mini active fixture is one body implant which has thread body design include cutting edge for self-tapping. The fixtures' diameters and lengths are available as: Ø 2.5 mm (D) X 8.5/10.0/ 11.5/13.0/15.0mm (L), Ø 3.0 mm (D) X 7.0/8.5/10.0/ 11.5/13.0/15.0mm (L), Ø 3.5 mm (D) X 7.0/8.5/10.0/ 11.5/13.0/15.0mm (L). Tolerance of dimension shall be within ± 1% range. S-mini active Fixture is provided sterilized.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the "S-mini active Fixture," an endosseous dental implant. This document is a premarket notification to the FDA to demonstrate that the device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device.

Crucially, this document does not describe a study that proves the device meets specific acceptance criteria based on performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or human reader improvement with AI assistance. This is because the device in question is a dental implant, a physical medical device, not a software or AI-based diagnostic tool.

Therefore, many of the requested points in your prompt are not applicable to the information contained within this document. The "acceptance criteria" here refers to demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device based on material, design, sterilization, and non-clinical bench testing.

Here's how the provided information relates to your request, with an emphasis on what's not applicable:

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

The acceptance criteria for a 510(k) for a physical device like a dental implant are primarily centered around demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to a predicate device, as opposed to performance metrics like sensitivity or specificity for a diagnostic algorithm.

The document states:

• "The results of the above tests have met the criteria of the standards and demonstrated the substantial equivalence with the predicate device."
• "Performance testing has been finished to ensure the devices comply with the applicable International and US FDA Guidance."

Acceptance Criteria (Implicit from Non-Clinical Testing):
The device must meet the criteria of the following standards and tests, demonstrating bio-compatibility, structural integrity, and durability:

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated in terms of patient data. The "test set" here refers to the number of physical devices tested in the non-clinical bench studies (e.g., how many implants were used for fatigue testing), which is not specified.
• Data Provenance: The tests are non-clinical, meaning they are laboratory/bench tests, not studies on human patients. The manufacture is located in South Korea.

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

• Not Applicable. This document describes a physical medical device (dental implant), not an AI or diagnostic software. Therefore, there is no "ground truth" in the diagnostic sense, nor experts interpreting images or data for a test set. The "truth" is established through engineering and biological testing against predefined standards.

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

• Not Applicable. See point 3.

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 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 device.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• Not Applicable in the context of diagnostic AI. For this physical device, "ground truth" is defined by established engineering standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM, ANSI, USP) and the physical properties and performance characteristics demonstrated by the predicate devices. For instance, the "ground truth" for biocompatibility is defined by meeting the criteria of the ISO 10993 series.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not Applicable. There is no "training set" as this is not a machine learning model.

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

• Not Applicable. There is no "training set" and thus no "ground truth" establishment process for one.

Ask a specific question about this device

URIS OMNI System is indicated for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae, in support of single or multiple-unit restorations including; cemented retained, or overdenture restorations, and final or temporary abutment support for fixed bridgework. It is intended for delayed loading.

URIS OMNI System fixtures are dental implants made of Unalloyed Titanium, grade 4 (ASTM F67) intended for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae, in support of single or multiple-unit restorations. The surface is SLA (Sandblasted, Large grit and Acid etched) treated and is provided sterile. It consists of two implant lines, the OMNI and the OMNI Tapered, with corresponding cover screws, healing abutments and prosthetic abutments. The OMN Tapered implant has a tapered wall with a single thread design. The OMN is straight walled with smaller threading at the coronal end, and bigger threading at the apical end. Both implant lines have two platform sizes, Narrow (Ø 3.5 mm) and Regular (Ø 4.0 - Ø 6.5 mm). Both implant lines share the following diameters and lengths:

Ø 3.5 x 8.5, 10, 11.5, 13, 14.5mm (L) Ø 4.0 x 7. 8.5. 10. 11.5. 13. 14.5mm (L) Ø 4.5 x 7, 8.5, 10, 11.5, 13, 14.5mm (L) Ø 5.0 x 7, 8.5, 10, 11.5, 13, 14.5mm (L) Ø 5.5 x 7. 8.5. 10. 11.5. 13. 14.5mm (L) Ø 6.0 x 7, 8.5, 10mm (L) Ø 6.5 x 7, 8.5, 10mm (L).

URIS Prosthetic System is made of titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V ELI) intended for use as an aid in prosthetic restoration. It consists of Cover screw, Healing abutment-direct type, D-basis abutmentcemented type, Angled abutment, Milling abutment, Temporary abutment screw. The surface of cover screw and healing abutment are anodized in yellow and green.

The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for the URIS OMNI System, a dental implant device. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on technological characteristics and non-clinical test data for mechanical properties and biocompatibility.

Crucially, this document explicitly states: "No clinical data were included in this submission."

Therefore, the information required to answer your request regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets those criteria, specifically concerning human performance with or without AI, multi-reader multi-case studies, standalone algorithm performance, or ground truth derived from expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data, cannot be found in this document.

The acceptance criteria mentioned in this 510(k) summary are for non-clinical tests to demonstrate the device's physical and biological properties.

Here's the relevant information that can be extracted, interpreting "acceptance criteria" in the context of this regulatory submission:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (Non-Clinical)

The "acceptance criteria" for this submission are not expressed as performance metrics for an AI/CADe device, but rather as meeting established standards for dental implants and abutments. The "reported device performance" is a statement that the device met these criteria.

Since "No clinical data were included in this submission," the following requested information cannot be provided from this document:

2. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable, as no clinical test data is provided.
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 (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable.
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.
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 (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Not applicable to device performance in a clinical context.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable (refers to AI/machine learning data, not present here).
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device