Search Results

Osstem Abutment System is intended for use with a dental implant to provide support for prosthetic restorations such as crowns, bridges, or overdentures.
• Link Abutment for CEREC
The Link Abutment for CEREC is titanium alloy abutments placed onto OSSTEM dental implants to provide support for customized prosthetic restorations. Link Abutment for CEREC is indicated for screw-retained single tooth or cement-retained single tooth and bridge restorations. All digitally designed copings and/or crowns for use with the Link abutment for CEREC is to be scanned using Sirona CEREC AC or CEREC AF or CEREC AI, designed using Sirona inLab software (Version 3.65) or Sirona CEREC Software (Version 4.2) and manufactured using a Sirona CEREC or inLab MC X or MC XL milling unit. CAD/CAM manufacturing/milling occurs at dental laboratories per the design limitations of the Sirona CEREC.

Osstem Abutment System is intended for use with a dental implant to provide support for prosthetic restorations such as crowns, bridges, or overdentures.
Osstem Abutment System is similar to other commercially available products based on the intended use, technology used, claims, material composition employed and performance characteristics.
Osstem Abutment System is substantially equivalent in design, function and intended use to the predicate devices as above.
The document then lists various components of the system including Transfer Abutment, Angled Abutment, Link Abutment for Cerec, Temporary Abutment, Multi Angled Abutment, Multi NP-Cast Cylinder, Multi Combination Cylinder, Convertible Angled Cylinder, Stud Abutment, O-ring, O-ring Retainer Cap, Port Abutment, Port Angled Abutment, Port Angled Abutment Head, Port Male, Port Extended Male, Port Male Cap, Port Male Kit, Abutment Screw, Cylinder Screw, Esthetic-low Temporary Cylinder, and Temporary Cap (Narrow Ridge), along with their descriptions, materials, and dimensions.

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the Osstem Abutment System. It outlines how the device is considered substantially equivalent to already marketed predicate devices, rather than providing a performance study against specific acceptance criteria for a new AI/software device.

Therefore, many of the requested details, such as those related to AI/algorithm performance (e.g., test set sample size, expert ground truth establishment, MRMC studies, standalone performance), are not applicable to this type of submission. The document focuses on material properties, design, indications for use, and a comparison to predicate devices to establish substantial equivalence.

Based on the provided text, here's what can be extracted and what cannot:

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

The document does not present explicit acceptance criteria in the typical sense of performance metrics for an AI/software device (e.g., accuracy, sensitivity, specificity). Instead, substantial equivalence is claimed based on similarities in:

• Intended Use
• Technology (design principles)
• Material Composition
• Performance Characteristics (mechanical properties, biocompatibility, sterilization)

The performance is "reported" by demonstrating that the device is equivalent to known predicate devices through non-clinical testing (biocompatibility, sterilization validation, mechanical properties, specifically fatigue testing and retention testing). The document states: "Non-clinical testing data are submitted, referenced, or relied upon to demonstrate substantial equivalence."

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

This information is not applicable and not provided. The submission relies on non-clinical (laboratory) testing for mechanical properties and biocompatibility, as well as comparison to predicate devices, not on a clinical test set with patient data.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

Not applicable. No clinical test set or human expert review of "truth" data for diagnostic performance is described.

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. This is not an AI/software device that assists human readers.

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)

For mechanical testing, the "ground truth" would be established by the physical and mechanical properties of the materials and designs as measured in laboratory tests, and compared against established industry standards (ISO 14801) and FDA guidance for dental abutments. For biocompatibility, it's adherence to ISO 10993 standards. No clinical ground truth from patients is established or used for this 510(k) submission.

8. The sample size for the training set

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

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

Not applicable.

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