Search Results

The Stella is intended to be surgically placed in the upper or lower jawbone to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, restoring the patient's chewing capabilities. The Stella is intended for delayed loading and immediate loading is possible when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading. The Stella Abutment is intended to be connected to the dental implant to retain the overdenture or partial denture.

Stella is a dental implant fixture that is implanted in the jawbone to support and maintain prosthetic restoration teeth or dentures in case of partial or total loss of teeth as a material for dental surgery. The fixture is made of titanium (ASTM F67, Grade 4), and the retention area is surface treated by spraying with Al2O3 (alumina) powder and then pickling to roughen the surface. The system incudes Healing Abutment, Simple Abutment, Duo Abutment, Contour Abutment, Angled Abutment, and Temporary Abutment.

The provided text describes the regulatory clearance for the "Stella" dental implant system. It does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study demonstrating the device meets performance criteria in the context of AI/ML or diagnostic applications. The document is a 510(k) summary, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting performance data against specific acceptance criteria for a novel AI/ML algorithm.

Therefore, most of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, device performance, sample sizes, ground truth, expert opinions, and MRMC studies for an AI/ML device is not present in the provided document.

However, I can extract the non-clinical testing performed to support the substantial equivalence claim for the Stella dental implant system.

Here's the relevant information that is available:

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

This information is not provided in the context of an AI/ML device's diagnostic performance. The document only lists types of non-clinical tests performed for physical characteristics of the dental implant system, and states that the "Stella" has "similar fatigue testing results to the predicate devices in the market" without providing specific acceptance criteria or quantitative results for these comparisons.

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

Not applicable to this document. The document describes a medical device (dental implant), not a diagnostic algorithm.

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 to this document.

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

Not applicable to this document.

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 to this document.

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

Not applicable to this document.

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

Not applicable to this document. The "ground truth" for a physical device like a dental implant would be engineering specifications and material properties, validated through physical testing, not expert consensus on images or pathology.

8. The sample size for the training set:

Not applicable to this document, as it does not describe an AI/ML algorithm.

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

Not applicable to this document.

Summary of Non-Clinical Testing (as described in the document for the physical device Stella, not an AI/ML component):

The document highlights the following non-clinical tests performed to support substantial equivalence of the Stella dental implant system:

Ask a specific question about this device

Dentis s-Clean s-Line Mini 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. This system is dedicated for one and two stage surgical procedures. This system is intended for delayed loading.

Dentis s-Clean s-Line Mini is composed of Fixture and Abutments. s-Clean SO-SL Fixture Mini 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 Hex. The subject implant body has a two screw-joint (structured with Upper and Lower screw joints) and a hex anti-rotation design connection. The two-screw-joint feature is for diverse screw connection with other abutment that has 1.6M screw or 2.0M Screw. The surface of fixture 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 system includes various abutments (Cover Screw, Healing Abutment, Sole Abutment, TiN Half Coating Sole Abutment, Couple Abutment, TiN Half Coating Couple Abutment, Angled Abutment, TiN Half Coating Angled Abutment, Abutment Screw, Temporary Abutment, MU Straight Abutment, MU Angled Abutment, MU Angled Abutment Screw) made from Pure titanium (ASTM F67), Ti-6Al-4V (ASTM F136), or PEEK material. Some abutments have Anodizing (Gold Color) or TiN-Coating surface treatments.

This document (K210080) describes the Dentis s-Clean s-Line Mini, an endosseous dental implant system, and its substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than an AI/ML-driven device requiring a study to prove meeting acceptance criteria in the context of diagnostic performance (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC).

The acceptance criteria described in this document are related to the physical, chemical, and mechanical properties, as well as the sterility and biocompatibility of the dental implant components, and their substantial equivalence to already marketed devices. The "study" proving acceptance is a series of non-clinical tests and comparisons to predicate devices.

Therefore, I cannot provide a table with "acceptance criteria and reported device performance" as typically found for AI/ML diagnostic devices (e.g., sensitivity, specificity). Instead, I will describe the non-clinical tests and their outcomes as presented in the document to demonstrate the device meets its acceptance criteria for safety and effectiveness as a physical medical device.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria (for a physical dental implant) and Reported Device Performance

Since this is a physical dental implant, the "acceptance criteria" are based on meeting established standards and demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices in terms of material, design, performance, and biocompatibility.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: The document doesn't specify a "test set" in the context of an AI/ML diagnostic algorithm. For the physical device, fatigue testing per ISO 14801 would involve a specific number of samples, but the exact count is not provided. Other tests like biocompatibility, sterilization, and shelf-life are typically performed on a limited number of samples representative of the product. The document states a comparative fatigue test was conducted.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of AI/ML. The "data" here refers to the results of non-clinical bench testing and material characterization. The manufacturer is Dentis Co., Ltd. from South Korea. The testing was performed according to international standards (ISO, ASTM, USP) and FDA-recognized guidance. It's a "prospective" assessment in that the tests were done on the manufactured devices to demonstrate their properties.

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

• This is not applicable for a physical medical device submission like this one. "Ground truth" in this context refers to established standards (e.g., ISO for fatigue, ASTM for materials, ISO/AAMI for sterilization), which are derived from broad expert consensus in relevant fields (engineering, microbiology, toxicology, dentistry).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Not applicable as this is not an AI/ML diagnostic study with human readers. Test results are compared against defined standard criteria.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done:

• No, this type of study is not relevant for a physical dental implant. MRMC studies are typically for evaluating the diagnostic performance of AI/ML systems, often with human readers.

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

• Not applicable. There is no algorithm or AI component in this dental implant.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

• The "ground truth" for proving the device's acceptance is based on:
  • International Standards: Conformance to recognized standards such as ISO 14801 (fatigue), ISO 10993 series (biocompatibility), ISO 11137 series (sterilization), ASTM F67, F136, F1980 (materials, shelf-life), and AAMI/USP guidelines for bacterial endotoxins.
  • Predicate Device Comparison: Substantial equivalence is established by demonstrating that the subject device has the "same intended use and fundamental scientific technology" as legally marketed predicate devices, and any differences "do not raise different questions of safety and effectiveness."

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Not applicable. There is no AI/ML training set for this physical device.

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

• Not applicable. There is no AI/ML training set.

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