Search Results

Noris Medical Ltd. Conical Platform Dental Implants System is intended to replace missing tooth/teeth in either jaw for supporting prosthetic devices that may aid in restoring the patient's chewing function.

Noris Medical Ltd. Conical platform Dental Implants diameter 3.25 are intended to replace lateral incisor in Maxilla and/or a central or lateral incisor in the mandible for supporting prosthetic devices that may aid in restoring the patient's chewing function.

The procedure can be accomplished in a one-stage surgical operation. All impants are appropriate for immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading.

The subject dental implant devices are single use devices, provided sterile by Gamma Radiation, made of Titanium alloy Ti- 6Al-4V ELI (ASTM F136). The UniCon and Tuff Unicon Implants are designed with conical connection comprises of cone and internal hex connection, diameters of 3.25, 3.5, 3.75 and 4.2 mm and lengths of 8, 10, 11.5, 13, 16 and 18 mm. Both Implants are designed with three thread zones, the Tuff UniCon with lower V-shape thread zone and UniCon with sharp buttress threads enables self-tapping. The middle zone square type thread of Tuff UniCon and wide edge buttress of UniCon is used for compressing cancellous bone. The micro threads on the upper zone enables less pressure on the crestal bone. The subject devices undergo RBM (Resorbable Blasting Media) surface treatment and color anodization within its connection for the purpose of color coding. It is indicated to replace missing tooth/teeth in either jaw for supporting prosthetic devices that may aid in restoring the patient's chewing function. The Implants Diameter Ø3.25 are intended to replace lateral incisor in maxilla and/or a central or lateral incisor in the mandible for supporting prosthetic devices that may aid in restoring the patient's chewing function.

Healing Caps are Titanium devices mounted onto the dental implant before the soft tissue is sutured around the implant and are intended to protect the implant bore. The Subject Healing Cap with the conical connection fits the UniCon and Tuff Unicon Implants. It is single use device, non-sterile and made of Titanium alloy Ti- 6Al-4V ELI (ASTM F136). The Healing Cap provided with 4.3mm, 4.8mm and 5.2mm Diameter and 4.5mm, 5.5mm, 6.5m, 7.5mm, 8.5mm External Body Height. The subject device undergoes color anodization.

The Subject Abutments (temporary, straight, angular and screw retained) with the conical connection fits the UniCon and Tuff UniCon Implants. It is single use device, non-sterile and made of Titanium alloy Ti- 6Al-4V ELI (ASTM F136). The subject device undergoes color anodization. The abutments are provided in different types and dimensions.

Multi-Unit Straight/Angular Screw Retained abutment are intended to function in the mandible or maxilla to support multiple-unit temporary or permanent restorations on Noris dental implants. The Subject Abutments with the conical connection fits the UniCon and Tuff UniCon Implants. It is single use device, non-sterile and made of Titanium alloy Ti- 6Al-4V ELI (ASTM F136). The subject device undergoes color anodization.

The abutment screw is intended to fasten the abutment to a dental implant. The Subject Abutments screw with the conical connection fits the UniCon and Tuff Unicon Implants. It is single use device, non-sterile and made of Titanium alloy Ti- 6Al-4V ELI (ASTM F136). The Abutments screw provided with 2mm Diameter and 7.3 mm Length. The subject device undergoes color anodization.

Cover screw- Healing Caps and Cover Screws are Titanium devices mounted onto the dental implant before the soft tissue is sutured in place around the implant and which are intended to protect the implant bore. The Subject Cover screw with the conical connection fits the UniCon and Tuff Unicon Implants. It is single use device, non-sterile and made of Titanium alloy Ti- 6Al-4V ELI (ASTM F136). The cover screws are provided with 3.2mm, 3.5mm Diameters and 4.9 mm Length. The subject device undergoes color anodization.

Based on the provided FDA 510(k) summary for the "Conical Platform Dental Implants System," here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

Important Note: This document is a 510(k) summary, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device. This is different from a PMA (Premarket Approval) application, which requires clinical efficacy and safety studies. Therefore, the "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in this context refers to non-clinical performance testing and comparisons to predicate devices, rather than a full-scale clinical trial with human subjects. The document primarily focuses on physical and material characteristics and demonstrates equivalence through engineering analyses rather than clinical outcomes with an AI component.

The request asks for information that is more typical of a software as a medical device (SaMD) or AI/ML device approval, such as "number of experts," "adjudication method," "MRMC study," and "training set ground truth." However, this document describes a dental implant system, which is a physical device, and does not mention any AI/ML components. Therefore, many of the requested points related to AI/ML device evaluation are not applicable or cannot be found in this submission. I will address the points that are applicable to this type of device and note where information is not present in the provided text.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for this physical device are primarily based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices in terms of design, materials, indications for use, and performance testing (specifically fatigue).

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

Since this is a physical device and the primary evidence provided is non-clinical performance data (fatigue testing, material characterization, etc.) rather than a clinical study with a "test set" of patients, the concept of a sample size for a test set and data provenance (country, retrospective/prospective) as it applies to AI/ML or clinical trial data isn't directly applicable here in the same way.

• Sample Size for Testing: The document states that "Fatigue tests per ISO 14801 were performed to determine the fatigue strength for UniCon implants." ISO 14801 specifies the number of samples for fatigue testing (typically 6-12 samples per group, depending on the desired confidence and methodology), but the exact number used is not explicitly stated in this summary. Other tests (biocompatibility, reprocessing, pyrogen, MRI review) were leveraged or based on scientific rationale, meaning new physical samples were likely not tested for these aspects as equivalence to previously cleared devices was the basis.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of a clinical test set for a physical device where the primary evaluation is non-clinical. The company is Noris Medical Ltd., located in Nesher, Israel.

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

This question is highly relevant for AI/ML devices where "ground truth" often involves expert annotation or consensus. For this physical dental implant device, ground truth is established through:

• International Standards: e.g., ISO 14801 for fatigue testing, ASTM F136 for material specifications. These standards define the "ground truth" for material properties and mechanical performance.
• Regulatory Guidance: e.g., FDA Guidance for MRI safety, USP for pyrogen limits. These guidances define the acceptable methodology and results.
• Predicate Device Characteristics: The comparison of technological characteristics to predicate devices (K140440, K142260, K130462) establishes the "ground truth" for substantial equivalence.

There is no mention of human experts defining "ground truth" in the way it's done for diagnostic image interpretation by multiple radiologists. The expertise lies within the material science, mechanical engineering, and regulatory compliance teams that designed the device and conducted/evaluated the non-clinical tests.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. There is no human interpretation or subjective assessment of a test set that would require an adjudication method like 2+1 or 3+1. Performance is measured against objective engineering standards and direct comparison of physical/material characteristics.

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

No. An MRMC study is specific to diagnostic imaging devices, particularly those involving human interpretation of medical images, often assisted by AI. This document pertains to a physical dental implant system and therefore, this type of study was not conducted or required. No AI assistance or human reader improvement is mentioned.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) was Done

Not applicable. This device is a physical dental implant system and does not involve an algorithm or AI component.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for this device application is primarily based on:

• Engineering Standards: Specific material properties, mechanical performance (e.g., fatigue strength as per ISO 14801), and dimensional tolerances.
• Predicate Device Characteristics: The established safety and effectiveness of the chosen predicate devices serve as the benchmark for demonstrating substantial equivalence for the new device's indications for use, materials, and design.
• Leveraged Data: For biocompatibility, reprocessing sterilization, and pyrogen limits, the "ground truth" is that the material, manufacturing, and surface treatments are identical to previously cleared devices (K151909 and K140440), therefore their established safety and performance data (ground truth) is directly applicable.

No pathology reports or patient outcomes data as "ground truth" are mentioned in this 510(k) summary, as it relies on non-clinical data for substantial equivalence.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. There is no AI/ML component described, so there isn't a "training set" in the context of machine learning.

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

Not applicable, as there is no AI/ML component or training set described.

Ask a specific question about this device

DESS Dental Smart Solutions abutments are intended to be used in conjunction with endosseous dental implants in the maxillary or mandibular arch to provide support for prosthetic restorations.

All digitally designed custom abutments for use with DESS Ti Base abutments or Pre-Milled Blank abutments are to be sent to a Terrats Medical validated milling center for manufacture.

The purpose of this submission is to add components to the DESS Dental Smart Solutions system, which includes dental implants, abutments, and prosthetic components cleared previously in various submissions. The previously cleared abutments and prosthetic components are compatible with a variety of original equipment manufacturer (OEM) dental implants as well as DESS Dental Smart Solutions dental implants.

This submission adds various abutments to the DESS and OEM implant lines as summarized on the following pages in Table 1 Summary of Subject Device Abutment Designs, and Table 2 Summary of Subject Device Abutment Sizes.

The subject device abutment designs include Cover Screws, Healing Abutments, Temporary Abutments, Ti Base Abutments, AURUM Base Abutments (Ti Base abutments with a screw channel design that allows easier instrument access to the abutment screw), CoCr Base Abutments, Pre-Milled Blank Abutments, Multi-Unit Abutments (straight and angled), DESSLoc Abutments (Locator-type abutments), and abutment screws.

This document is a 510(k) summary for the DESS Dental Smart Solutions, a line of endosseous dental implant abutments. It details the device's characteristics, intended use, and a comparison to predicate devices to establish substantial equivalence.

Based on the provided text, the device itself is a physical medical device (dental implant abutments and associated components), not a software or AI-driven system. Therefore, the questions related to AI acceptance criteria, training/test sets, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, and ground truth establishment for AI would not be directly applicable to this product as described.

The document focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices through:

• Identical Intended Use: The device is intended for "functional and esthetic rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible or maxilla" by providing support for prosthetic restorations, which is the same as the predicate devices.
• Similar Technological Characteristics: The device utilizes similar designs, materials (Ti-6Al-4V, Co-Cr-Mo alloy), manufacturing processes, and sterilization methods as its predicates.
• Performance Data: Non-clinical testing (mechanical testing per ISO 14801, MR environment assessment) and comparison to existing data from predicate devices are used to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Therefore, many of the requested elements for describing AI acceptance criteria and studies are not present or applicable in this document.

However, I can extract information relevant to the device's performance assessment and criteria for its type of submission.

Here's an attempt to answer the questions based solely on the provided text, acknowledging that the nature of the device (a physical implant component) means many AI-specific questions will be answered as "Not Applicable" (N/A):

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

The document does not explicitly state quantifiable "acceptance criteria" in a table format with corresponding "reported device performance" metrics for this specific 510(k) submission. Instead, it relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices.

The underlying "acceptance criteria" for demonstrating substantial equivalence for this device type are primarily through:

• Mechanical Testing (ISO 14801): This is a critical performance standard for dental implants and abutments. The document states that mechanical testing was "conducted according to ISO 14801 to support the performance." The acceptance criteria would be successful completion of these tests, demonstrating the device's mechanical strength and fatigue resistance are comparable to or better than predicate devices. The reported performance is simply that the tests supported the performance.
• Material Conformance: Materials must conform to specific ASTM standards (e.g., ASTM F136 for Ti-6Al-4V, ASTM F1537 for Co-Cr-Mo). The reported performance is that the materials conform to these standards.
• Biocompatibility: While not detailed in this excerpt, the mention of "biocompatibility" in relation to predicates implies conformance to relevant biocompatibility standards (e.g., ISO 10993 series). The reported performance is that it is compatible.
• Sterilization Validation: Demonstrated sterility assurance level (SAL) of 10⁻⁶ via validated methods (moist heat or gamma irradiation). The reported performance is that validation was performed and met this SAL.
• Dimensional Compatibility: The abutments must fit the corresponding OEM implants correctly. The reported performance is that reverse engineering dimensional analysis confirmed compatibility.

Due to the nature of the document being a 510(k) summary focusing on substantial equivalence rather than a full study report, specific numerical performance results for the device tests are not provided in this text.

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

• Sample Size for Mechanical Testing: The document states "mechanical testing conducted according to ISO 14801." For such tests, ISO 14801 typically specifies minimum sample sizes (e.g., 10-11 samples for static strength, typically more for fatigue). The exact number of samples used for this specific submission is not explicitly stated, but it would have followed the standard's requirements.
• Data Provenance: The mechanical testing and material analyses are assumed to be "non-clinical data submitted or referenced" by the manufacturer, Terrats Medical SL, based in Barcelona, Spain. The "reverse engineering dimensional analysis" was done by Terrats Medical SL or through contractual agreement. This is prospective testing performed to support the 510(k). The document itself does not specify the country of origin for the underlying OEM implant data used for reverse engineering, although the OEM companies are listed (e.g., Astra Tech AB, BioHorizons).

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

N/A. This is a physical device. Ground truth, in the context of AI, refers to validated labels for data used to train and test an algorithm. For a physical device, performance is evaluated through engineering and biocompatibility testing against defined standards. There are no "experts" establishing ground truth in the AI sense. Testing would be performed by qualified engineers and technicians.

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

N/A. Adjudication methods are typically used in clinical studies involving interpretation (e.g., by radiologists) to resolve discrepancies. This document describes non-clinical performance testing of a physical device.

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

N/A. This product is a dental implant abutment, not an AI software intended to assist human readers.

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

N/A. This is a physical device, not an algorithm.

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

N/A. For engineering tests of physical devices, the "ground truth" is typically derived from established engineering principles, international standards (e.g., ISO 14801 for mechanical properties, ASTM for materials), and the physical properties of the materials and designs themselves. There isn't "expert consensus" or "pathology" in the AI or clinical trials sense.

8. The sample size for the training set

N/A. This is a physical device; there's no "training set" in the machine learning sense. The device is manufactured based on established engineering designs and material specifications.

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

N/A. No training set for AI. For device manufacturing, the "ground truth" for design and production parameters comes from established engineering best practices, prior successful device designs (predicate devices), and adherence to quality systems regulations (21 CFR Part 820).

Ask a specific question about this device

The s-Clean OneQ-SL Narrow Implant System (3.0, 3.3mm) may be used as an artificial root structure for single tooth replacement of mandibular central and lateral incisors and maxillary lateral incisors.

The implants may be restored immediately

1. with a temporary prosthesis that is not in functional occlusion,
2. when splinted together as an artificial root structure for multiple tooth replacement of mandibular incisors, or
3. for denture stabilization using multiple implants in the anterior mandible and maxilla.

The implants may be placed in immediate function when good primary stability has been achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading.

The s-Clean OneQ-SL Narrow Implant System is used to replace missing teeth in various situations ranging from a single tooth loss to the complete loss of incisors teeth. This system is restricted to substitute the maxillary lateral incisors and mandibular incisors. It is one and two stage endosseous screw type implant with internal double hexagonal connection, intended for single use. The s-Clean OneQ-SL Narrow Implant System is a suitable treatment option when the possibility of placing a standard implants is limited due to physical conditions, where the horizontal space is limited by adjacent teeth and roots, or in situations with a narrow alveola ridge.

This system consists of the fixture, cover screw, various abutments and prostheses. Only the subject abutments can be used with the subject fixtures.

This document describes the regulatory submission for the s-Clean OneQ-SL Narrow Implant System by Dentis Co., Ltd. The document is primarily a 510(k) summary demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than a standalone study documenting acceptance criteria and performance. Therefore, detailed information on acceptance criteria and specific study results proving the device meets those criteria, particularly for clinical outcomes, is limited.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly present a table of acceptance criteria with quantified performance targets and corresponding device performance for direct comparison in the way a clinical study report would. Instead, it relies on non-clinical testing against recognized standards to demonstrate equivalence.

The "acceptance criteria" are implied by adherence to these standards and the demonstration of "substantial equivalence" to predicate devices. The "reported device performance" is essentially that the device met the criteria of these standards and demonstrated substantial equivalence.

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

The document does not specify a "test set" in the context of human clinical data. All reported tests are non-clinical (biocompatibility, fatigue, endotoxin, sterilization, shelf life, surface characterization).

For non-clinical tests, sample sizes would typically be determined by the specific standards (e.g., ISO 14801 for fatigue testing might specify a minimum number of samples). The document states the tests were performed "for predicate devices and leveraged for the subject device" or "for the subject device." No specific sample numbers for these non-clinical tests are provided.

The "data provenance" for non-clinical tests is from the manufacturer's own testing (Dentis Co., Ltd.) or testing supporting their predicate devices. There is no mention of country of origin for non-clinical test data, but the manufacturer is based in South Korea.

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

Not applicable. This is a non-clinical submission demonstrating substantial equivalence through engineering and material testing, not human clinical trials requiring expert ground truth establishment for a test set.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable for a non-clinical submission.

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 device is a dental implant system, not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive technology for human readers. No MRMC study was performed or is relevant.

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

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device (dental implant system), not an algorithm or software. Its performance is evaluated through material and mechanical testing, not algorithm performance.

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

For the non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" is established by the specifications and pass/fail criteria defined in the referenced international standards (e.g., ISO 10993, ISO 14801, USP ), and by demonstrating material/design equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices. There is no biological "ground truth" from pathology or outcomes data generated by this submission directly for the subject device.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. There is no "training set" as this is not a machine learning or AI device.

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

Not applicable. There is no "training set" for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device