Search Results

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

SNUCONE Tissue Level Implant System is inticated 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 bridge work. Snucone implant 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.

SNUCONE Implant System Fixture, also known as an endosseous implant, is surgical component that interfaces with the bone of the jaw or skull to support a dental prosthesis such as a crown, bridge, denture. Snucone's abutment and prosthetic components and tools are compatible with the Snucone's fixture only. The system includes Fixtures and Cover Screw, and Abutment and Component (Solid Abutment, InOcta Closing Screw, InOcta Healing Abutment, InOcta Abutment, InOcta Angled Abutment, InOcta Temporary Abutment, Platform Switching Abutment, and Abutment Screw).

The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device (SNUCONE Tissue Level Implant System). It contains details about the device, its intended use, comparison to predicate devices, and a list of non-clinical tests performed. However, it does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study that proves the device meets those criteria, especially in the context of an FDA clearance for an AI/ML-driven device.

The document explicitly states: "Bench tests were conducted to verify that the subject device met all design specifications as was Substantially Equivalent (SE) to the predicate device." It details mechanical performance, sterilization, shelf-life, packaging, MR environment conditions, bacterial endotoxin, and biocompatibility.

THERE IS NO MENTION OF AN AI/ML COMPONENT IN THIS DEVICE.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for information regarding:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance for an AI/ML component. The document describes acceptance criteria for mechanical, material, and sterilization properties, but not AI/ML performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC).
2. Sample size for test set and data provenance specific to an AI/ML model. The tests mentioned are laboratory bench tests, not data-driven performance studies on patient cohorts for an AI model.
3. Number of experts and their qualifications for ground truth establishment. This is not relevant to the non-clinical tests described.
4. Adjudication method for the test set. Not relevant.
5. MRMC comparative effectiveness study or human reader improvement. Not relevant.
6. Standalone (algorithm only) performance. Not relevant.
7. Type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.). Not relevant to the tests performed.
8. Sample size for the training set. Not relevant, as no AI model is described.
9. How ground truth for the training set was established. Not relevant, as no AI model is described.

In summary, the provided document is a 510(k) submission for a physical dental implant system and does not involve any AI/ML components or related performance studies.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Luna Dental Implant System is intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw arches to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, and to restore the patient's chewing function.

The Luna Dental Implant System - Healing Abutment is to be connected to the implant and is to heal gingiva before setting abutment on the implant in the oral cavity. It is made of commercially pure titanium alloy Gr4. It offers narrow and regular platform types, and the narrow type has anodizing surface treatment in purple to be distinguished from the regular type.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Luna Dental Implant System - Healing Abutment, a medical device. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices rather than providing detailed acceptance criteria and performance data from a clinical or non-clinical study designed to prove the device meets specific performance metrics.

Therefore, the document does not contain the information requested in your prompt regarding acceptance criteria, device performance, sample sizes, expert involvement, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, or ground truth establishment relevant to proving device performance against specific criteria.

The 510(k) summary explicitly states its basis for substantial equivalence:
"The Luna Dental Implant System - Healing Abutment is substantially equivalent to its predicate device (K123155) in terms of indications for use, raw material, and design. The differences are in body design and size range. The design change does not raise a question in substantial equivalence since the change is not significant. We have identified a reference device that encompass the size range of the subject device. Based on the information submitted here in we conclude that the subject device is substantially equivalent to the predicate devices."

The "Non-Clinical Testing" section merely states: "Risk analysis was conducted according to ISO14971 to evaluate the effect of the modification. The risk assessment did not show that the device changes affected biocompatibility, sterilization, and shelf life such that the testing in the prior (predicate) file is still applicable." This indicates that no new performance testing was conducted or deemed necessary to demonstrate the modified device meets specific acceptance criteria, as its equivalence to the predicate implies it meets the same criteria the predicate device did.

In summary, this 510(k) document is a declaration of substantial equivalence, not a report of a study designed to establish acceptance criteria for a novel device and prove its performance against those criteria.

Since the requested information (acceptance criteria, performance data, sample sizes, expert details, etc.) is not present in the provided text, I cannot complete the table or answer the specific questions about the study from this document.

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 Sirona Dental CAD/CAM System is intended for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae in support of single or multiple-unit cement retained restorations. For the BH 3.0 S. SSO 3.5 L and SBL 3.3 L titanium bases, the indication is restricted to the replacement of single lateral incisors in the maxilla and lateral and central incisors in the mandible. The system consists of three major parts: TiBase. inCoris mesostructure, and CAD/CAM software. Specifically, the inCoris mesostructure and TiBase components make up a two-piece abutment which is used in conjunction with endosseous dental implants to restore the function and aesthetics in the oral cavity. The inCoris mesostructure may also be used in conjunction with the Camlog Titanium base CAD/CAM (types K2244.XXX) (K083496) in the Camlog Implant System. The CAD/CAM software is intended to design and fabricate the inCoris mesostructure. The inCoris mesostructure and TiBase two-piece abutment is compatible with the following implant systems: (list of compatible implant systems follows).

The Sirona Dental CAD/CAM System which is the subject of this premarket notification is a modification to the Sirona Dental CAD/CAM System as previously cleared under K111421. The modifications represented in the subject device consist of the implementation of a new "chairside" CAD/CAM software version, CEREC SW version 4.6.1, in which additional functionality for the control of critical CAD/CAM abutment dimensions has been added. Additionally, the modified Sirona Dental CAD/CAM System that is the subject of this premarket notification includes a line extension to the existing offerings of the Sirona TiBase titanium base component offerings. These additional TiBase variants facilitate compatibility with additional implant systems. The modified Sirona Dental CAD/CAM System which is the subject of this premarket notification consists of: CEREC SW version 4.6.1, "chairside" CAD/CAM software; CEREC AC digital acquisition unit; CEREC AC Connect digital acquisition unit; CEREC Omnicam 3D digital intraoral scanner; CEREC MCXL product family of CAM milling units; Sirona TiBase titanium base components; inCoris ZI zirconium mesostructure blocks. As subject to this premarket notification, the Sirona Dental CAD/CAM System is utilized to digitally acquire and record the topographical characteristics of teeth, dental impressions, or physical stone models in order to facilitate the computer aided design (CAD) and computer aided manufacturing (CAM) of two-piece "CAD/CAM" abutments. The patient-specific two-piece abutments consist of pre-fabricated "TiBase" components which are designed with interface geometry to facilitate compatibility and connection with currently marketed dental implant system. The CEREC SW 4.6.1 CAD/CAM software is utilized to drive the specified acquisition unit hardware to acquire the intraoral dental scans and to design the mesostructure component of the CAD/CAM abutments. Following the completion of the design, the CEREC SW 4.6.1 drives the CAM fabrication of the mesostructure component in the "chairside" workflow by utilizing the CEREC MCXL milling equipment and the defined zirconium block materials. The completed mesostructure is cemented to the TiBase component using PANAVIA F 2.0 dental cement in order to complete the finished, two-piece CAD/CAM dental abutment.

Here is the information about the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria, based on the provided document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (K111421) rather than explicitly detailing numeric acceptance criteria for each test. However, it lists the types of non-clinical performance data and states that the results support substantial equivalence. The implied acceptance criterion for all tests is "conformity" with the referenced standards or successful validation/analysis, and the reported performance is that these criteria were met.

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

The document does not explicitly state the numerical sample sizes for each specific test (e.g., number of abutments for fatigue testing, number of software test cases). It refers generally to "testing" and "analyses."

The data provenance is implied to be internal testing conducted by Dentsply Sirona, as the document details their testing efforts to support the 510(k) submission. No information about country of origin of the data is provided, nor whether it was retrospective or prospective, although typically such a submission would involve prospective testing designed to meet the specified standards.

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

This information is not provided in the document. The document describes compliance with recognized standards and internal validation processes but does not detail the involvement of external experts for establishing ground truth on a test set.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

This information is not provided. The non-clinical testing appears to rely on objective measurements against established engineering and regulatory standards rather than subjective expert adjudication of results.

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

No MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done or reported. This device is a CAD/CAM system for designing and fabricating dental abutments, not an AI or imaging diagnostic tool that would typically involve human reader performance studies.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study:

Yes, a standalone performance study in the form of non-clinical performance data and software verification and validation testing was performed. The document describes:

• Testing to verify conformity with various IEC and ISO standards for medical electrical equipment, electromagnetic compatibility, and dynamic loading.
• Compatibility analyses of new TiBase interface geometries.
• System validation testing for the CAD/CAM software's design and fabrication workflow.
• Software verification and validation testing specifically for the abutment design library to demonstrate design restrictions and locked specifications.

These tests focus on the technical performance and safety of the device components and software, independent of human clinical application for their evaluation.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

The ground truth used for non-clinical testing is based on:

• Engineering specifications and design requirements: For confirming the functionality and outputs of the CAD/CAM system and software.
• Recognized international standards: Such as IEC 60601-1, IEC 60601-1-2, IEC 62304, and ISO 14801 which define performance benchmarks and safety criteria.
• Original manufacturer's implant connection geometries: For compatibility analyses of TiBase interfaces.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

This information is not applicable and therefore not provided. The Sirona Dental CAD/CAM System, as described, is not an AI/ML-based diagnostic device that typically requires a "training set" in the context of machine learning model development. It's a system for computer-aided design and manufacturing within predetermined parameters.

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

This information is not applicable, as there is no mention or indication of a "training set" for an AI/ML model for this device. The software functions based on established CAD/CAM principles and predefined parameters rather than learning from a training dataset.

Ask a specific question about this device

The OSSTEM Implant System - Abutment is intended for use with a dental implant to provide support for prosthetic restorations such as crowns, bridges, or overdentures.

The OSSTEM Implant System - Abutment is intended for use as an aid in prosthetic restoration. It consists of Abutments, components and Abutment Screws.

This document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification of the OSSTEM Implant System - Abutment, indicating it is a dental device and not an AI/ML medical device. Therefore, the information requested in the prompt, which pertains to the acceptance criteria and study proving an AI/ML device meets those criteria, cannot be fully provided from this document.

The document discusses the substantial equivalence of the OSSTEM Implant System - Abutment to predicate devices. This typically involves demonstrating that the new device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device, often through material comparisons, design comparisons, and performance testing for mechanical properties and biocompatibility, rather than clinical studies or performance against defined efficacy metrics tied to patient outcomes.

However, I can extract information related to the device and the type of testing performed that is relevant to its acceptance for market.

Here's a breakdown based on the provided text, addressing the points of your prompt where applicable, and highlighting what's not present due to the nature of the device:

Device Description: The OSSTEM Implant System - Abutment is intended for use with a dental implant to provide support for prosthetic restorations such as crowns, bridges, or overdentures. It consists of Abutments, components, and Abutment Screws.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (General):
For this type of device, "acceptance criteria" revolve around demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing, legally marketed predicate devices. This means proving the new device is as safe and effective as the predicate. The performance is assessed through:

• Material composition: Comparing the materials used (e.g., Titanium Alloy, Zirconia, PEEK, PC, POM).
• Design and dimensions: Comparing the shapes, diameters, and lengths.
• Intended use: Confirming the device serves the same purpose.
• Technological characteristics: Ensuring the fundamental mechanism of action is similar.
• Nonclinical testing: Biocompatibility, sterilization validation, and mechanical properties.

Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (as inferred from a 510(k) for a non-AI/ML device):

Here's how the remaining points of your prompt are addressed:

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

   • Test set sample size: Not applicable in the context of an AI/ML algorithm's test set. The "testing" here refers to nonclinical lab tests and comparison to predicates.
   • Data provenance: Not directly applicable. The "data" are internal company reports demonstrating compliance with standards or comparisons to their own previously cleared devices. The manufacturer is OSSTEM Implant Co., Ltd. and their correspondent is HIOSSEN Inc., based in Republic of Korea and Pennsylvania, USA, respectively. The data are typically generated in a prospective manner for regulatory submission (i.e., tests are performed specifically for the submission).

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

   • Not applicable as this is a physical medical device, not an AI/ML algorithm requiring ground truth from experts for image interpretation or diagnosis.

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

   • Not applicable. This concept pertains to consolidating expert opinions for ground truth in AI/ML performance studies.

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:

   • No MRMC study was done, as this is not an AI/ML device. The document explicitly states: "No clinical studies are submitted." (page 12)

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

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

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

   • Not applicable. For this device, "ground truth" is embodied by established engineering specifications, material properties, and performance benchmarks for dental implants, which are verified through nonclinical laboratory testing against international standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM) and comparison to predicate device characteristics.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. There is no concept of a "training set" for this type of conventional physical device.

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

   • Not applicable. (See #7).

Summary of Acceptance:

The device's acceptance (clearance) by the FDA is based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices (listed in section 3 and 6) in terms of:

• Indications for Use: Identical.
• Technological Characteristics: Very similar, with minor differences in design/dimensions that do not raise new safety/effectiveness concerns.
• Materials: Identical.
• Performance (Nonclinical): Biocompatibility is leveraged from predicate devices; sterilization validated according to relevant ISO standards.

The document explicitly states: "No clinical studies are submitted." This reinforces that the acceptance was based on nonclinical testing and comparison to predicates, as is common for many Class II medical devices in the 510(k) pathway.

Ask a specific question about this device

ET System: The HIOSSEN Prosthetic system is intended for use with a dental implant to provide support for prosthetic restorations such as crowns, bridges, or over-dentures.
US/SS System: The OSSTEM Prosthetic system is intended for use with a dental implant to provide support for prosthetic restorations such as crowns, bridges, or over-dentures.

The ET US SS Prosthetic system is intended for use as an aid in prosthetic restoration. It is consisted of abutments, components and abutment screws.

The provided document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from the FDA for a dental prosthetic system. It details the device, its intended use, and its substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on nonclinical testing. However, it does not contain acceptance criteria for device performance, nor does it describe a study proving the device meets specific performance criteria in terms of clinical effectiveness or accuracy.

Instead, the document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing legally marketed devices, which is a different regulatory pathway than proving novel performance. Substantial equivalence is established by showing that the new device has the same intended use and the same technological characteristics as the predicate device, or, if it has different technological characteristics, that the different characteristics do not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness and that the device is as safe and effective as the predicate device.

Here's an analysis of the information available in the document, keeping in mind that it's a substantial equivalence filing rather than a performance validation study against acceptance criteria:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

This information is not provided in the document. The document primarily identifies the device's characteristics (materials, dimensions, intended use) and compares them to predicate devices to establish substantial equivalence. It does not list quantitative acceptance criteria for clinical performance (e.g., accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, or success rates) or specific performance metrics that the device is intended to meet.

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

This information is not applicable in the context of the provided document. The submission explicitly states:

• "No clinical studies are submitted." (Page 22)
• The nonclinical testing primarily involves fatigue testing and biocompatibility evaluations, which are typically performed on samples of the device components rather than a "test set" of patient data. The sample sizes for these engineering tests are not specified in this summary.
• Data provenance for clinical data is not applicable as no clinical data was submitted.

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

This information is not applicable as no clinical studies with a test set requiring ground truth establishment by experts were submitted.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable as no clinical studies with a test set requiring adjudication were submitted.

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. The device described is a physical dental prosthetic system (abutments, screws, caps), not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool. Therefore, an MRMC study and AI-related effect sizes are not relevant to this submission.

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

This information is not applicable for the same reason as point 5. The device is a physical prosthetic, not an algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

This information is not applicable as no clinical studies requiring ground truth were submitted. The basis for safety and effectiveness is substantial equivalence to predicate devices, supported by nonclinical testing (fatigue, biocompatibility, sterilization validation).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable. There is no mention of a "training set" as this device is not an AI/machine learning product and no clinical data or algorithms are being trained.

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

This information is not applicable as there is no training set mentioned in relation to this device.

Summary of the Study and "Acceptance Criteria" (as interpreted from the document's context):

The "study" described in the document is primarily focused on nonclinical testing and demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than fulfilling specific performance acceptance criteria for clinical outcomes.

Acceptance Criteria (Implicit from Substantial Equivalence):

From the context of a 510(k) submission, the "acceptance criteria" are implicitly met if the device can demonstrate that it is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device. This is achieved by showing:

• Same Intended Use: The ET US SS Prosthetic system is intended for use with a dental implant to provide support for prosthetic restorations (crowns, bridges, over-dentures), which is identical to the indications for use of its identified predicate and reference predicate devices (e.g., K062030, K130662).
• Same Technological Characteristics OR Equivalent Safety/Effectiveness with Different Characteristics:
  • Material: Titanium Alloy, PEEK, Polymer (Polycarbonate, POM) – consistent with predicate devices.
  • Design & Function: Described as similar in various components (e.g., Quick Temporary Abutment, Solid Abutment, ComOcta Abutment, Healing Abutment, Ti Screw, O-ring Abutment, Multi Angled Abutment, Esthetic-low Temporary Cylinder). Where there are differences (e.g., new dimensions, slight shape changes, different connection structures for Multi Angled Abutments), the submission asserts that these differences "do not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness" and that the device maintains "same principles of operation, function, material, characteristic and intended use."
  • Biocompatibility: Stated to be the same as predicates, thus requiring no additional testing.
  • Sterilization: For Cover Screw and Healing Abutment, considered substantially equivalent to a predicate. Other components are non-sterile and require steam sterilization validation according to ISO 17665-1:2006. The results implicitly meet the standard.
  • Fatigue Testing: Performed according to "Guidance for industry and FDA staff Class II Special Controls Guidance Document Root-form Endosseous Dental Implants and Endosseous Dental Abutment" with a worst-case scenario. The implied acceptance is that the device met the fatigue strength requirements comparable to the predicate devices or within safe limits for its intended use, ensuring structural integrity. Specific results or detailed criteria are not laid out, but the successful completion of these tests supports substantial equivalence.

Reported Device Performance (from the perspective of 510(k) substantial equivalence):

The document reports the device's performance by demonstrating its similarities to predicate devices across various characteristics:

• Materials: Predominantly Titanium Alloy (ASTM F 136), Titanium (ASTM F 67), and various polymers (PEEK, Polycarbonate, PolyOxy Methylene). These are well-established materials in dental prosthetics, matching those of the predicate devices.
• Dimensions: Various diameters and heights are listed for each component, often including new dimensions that are added to existing product lines. The claim is that these new dimensions do not alter the fundamental safety or effectiveness and maintain the "same principles of operation, function, material, characteristic and intended use" as the predicate devices.
• Functional Principles: Described for each component (e.g., "Used to make temporary prosthesis," "Used in producing ordinary cement-retained prosthetics," "Connect an abutment with fixture by screw"). These are consistently aligned with the predicate device functions.
• Nonclinical Test Results:
  • Biocompatibility: Implicitly deemed acceptable due to using the same materials, manufacturing processes, surface treatments, and sterilization methods as legally marketed predicate devices.
  • Sterilization Validation: Cover Screw and Healing Abutment results are "considered to be substantial equivalent" to a specific predicate, indicating adequate sterilization protocols. Other non-sterile devices underwent steam sterilization validation to ISO 17665-1:2006, implying successful validation.
  • Fatigue Testing: Performed on a "worst-case scenario" sample, suggesting that the device's mechanical durability was assessed and found satisfactory based on the relevant guidance document, thereby supporting its structural integrity and equivalence.

In conclusion, the document demonstrates that the ET US SS Prosthetic System meets the "acceptance criteria" for a 510(k) submission by establishing its substantial equivalence to predicate devices through a comparison of technological characteristics and successful nonclinical testing for biocompatibility, sterilization, and fatigue. No clinical performance criteria or studies are presented.

Ask a specific question about this device

Anker Dental Implant System is intended to be surgically placed in the alveolar bone of upper or lower jaw arches to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, and to restore the patient's chewing function.

Anker Dental Implant System is intended for delayed loading. No matter placing implants in anterior or posterior region, we recommend choosing the diameter of implants as large as possible. The prosthetic restorations used are single crowns, bridges and partial or full dentures, which are connected to the implants through the corresponding components (abutments).

Specific indications for small diameter (Ø 3.3mm) and short (length

Anker Dental Implant System is an integrated system which includes Bone Level (SB-III series) and Tissue Level (ST and AT series) dental implants.

Anker Dental Implant System SB-III series consists of fixture, abutments (healing abutment, fixed abutment, dual abutment, angle abutment, o-ring abutment, temporary abutment, convertible abutment, convertible protect cap, convertible combination cylinder, convertible angled cylinder, convertible temporary cylinder, angled screw abutment, temporary cylinder) and cover screw.

Anker Dental Implant System ST and AT series consist of fixture, abutments (healing cap, solid abutment, cementable abutment, angled abutment, temporary restoration screw, screw retained abutment, locator abutment) and closure screw.

Fixtures are made of pure titanium (grade IV) and there surface was treated by SLA (Sand-blasted, Large grit. Acid-etched) process. Diameters of fixtures are including 3.3 to 5.0 mm and lengthes are including 7.0 to 15.0 mm. Cover screw, closure screw and most abutments are made of titanium alloy. Temporary abutment and convertible temporary cylinder (SB-III series) are made of SUS316L stainless steel instead of titanium alloy. All products are sterilized as finished products.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Anker Dental Implant System, a medical device. This type of document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing legally marketed predicate devices, rather than establishing acceptance criteria and conducting a study to prove performance against those criteria in the way a novel AI/software medical device might.

Therefore, the information requested in your prompt (especially points 1-7, and 9 for a training set) is not directly applicable to this document. This submission does not describe an AI/software device with performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or reader improvement. It describes a physical dental implant system and relies on non-clinical testing to demonstrate that it meets established safety and performance standards by being similar to already approved devices.

Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted and why other parts cannot, based on the provided text:

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

• Not applicable in the AI/software sense. This document does not define quantitative performance metrics like accuracy, sensitivity, or specificity with specific acceptance thresholds for the dental implant system as a whole in the way an AI diagnostic tool would.
• Instead, acceptance is demonstrated by meeting harmonized standards for mechanical and biocompatibility testing. The "reported device performance" is that it passed these tests. The table on page 8 lists the testing items and standards referenced, implying that meeting these standards is the "acceptance criteria" for those specific aspects.
  • Compressive forces and fatigue tests: ISO14801 (Likely relates to mechanical strength and durability under chewing forces)
  • Compatibility test of dental implant/abutment interface: N/A (Indicates no specific standard, but testing was performed)
  • Corrosion test: ASTM G3-89
  • Residual of Acidic Substances Test: ISO10993-12 (Biocompatibility, specifically related to the SLA surface treatment)
  • Biocompatibility tests: ISO10993-3, ISO10993-5, ISO10993-6, ISO10993-10, ISO10993-11, Pharmacopeia US, OECD guideline #473, OECD guideline #474 (Cover various aspects like genotoxicity, cytotoxicity, irritation, sensitization, systemic toxicity)
  • Sterilization validation of GAMMA irradiation: ISO11137-1
  • Shelf life Validation: ASTM F88/F88M-09, ASTM F1140-07, ASTM F1929-98, ISO11737-2 (Relates to package integrity and sterility maintenance over time)

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 in the AI/software sense. There isn't a "test set" of patient data in the context of an AI algorithm. The testing involves physical samples of the dental implants. The document does not specify the number of individual implant units tested for each non-clinical test (e.g., how many implants were subjected to fatigue testing).
• Data provenance: The tests are likely performed by the manufacturer or accredited labs compliant with the referenced standards. The manufacturer is Alliance Global Technology Co., Ltd. from Taiwan.

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

• Not applicable. There is no "ground truth" establishment by experts in this context as would be done for an AI diagnostic algorithm. The "ground truth" for these physical tests is adherence to the scientific principles and methodologies outlined in the referenced ISO and ASTM standards.

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

• Not applicable. This concept relates to expert review of medical images or data for AI algorithm validation. For physical device testing, adherence to a standard's protocol and acceptance criteria is the assessment method.

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 dental implant, not an AI software. No human reader study with or without AI assistance was performed.

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

• Not applicable. This is a physical device, not an algorithm.

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

• Not applicable in the typical AI sense. For this device, the "ground truth" is defined by the technical specifications and performance requirements derived from harmonized standards (e.g., ISO for mechanical properties, ASTM for corrosion, ISO 10993 for biocompatibility). Passing these tests constitutes meeting the "ground truth" of safety and performance for a dental implant.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This device does not use a "training set" as it's not an AI/machine learning model.

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

• Not applicable.

In summary: The provided document is a 510(k) submission for a physical medical device (dental implants), not an AI/software medical device. Therefore, the questions related to AI/software performance metrics, ground truth establishment by experts, and training/test set methodologies are not relevant and cannot be answered from this text. The "study" that proves the device meets "acceptance criteria" here refers to the non-clinical testing performed according to recognized international standards, demonstrating equivalence to predicate devices.

Ask a specific question about this device