Search Results
Found 4 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(248 days)
The INNO SLA Mini Plus® Implant System is divided into two types:
-
Cemented Type
The Cement type is indicated for use in the treatment of missing maxillary lateral incisors or the mandbular central and lateral incisors to serve as temporary support prosthetic devices during stage of permanent endosseous dental implant, such as artificial teeth, in order to restore masticating function in partially edentulous patients. -
Ball Type
The Ball type is designed for use in dental implant surgery. The Ball type is intended for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae, in support of overdentures. The use of the Ball type implants is not to exeed one hundred and eighty (180) days.
The Cemented Type and Ball Type implant bodies are indicated for immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading.
The INNO SLA Mini Plus® Implant System has two types, cement type and ball type. The INNO SLA Mini Plus® Implant System is a one-piece endosseous dental implant which is a combination of implant and abutment sections. The implant is made of commercially pure titanium and has S.L.A. surface treatment.
The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the INNO SLA Mini Plus® Implant System, which establishes substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than proving a device meets specific acceptance criteria based on a clinical study for performance. Therefore, much of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study details, and expert involvement is not present in the provided document.
However, I can extract the non-clinical performance data and related information as presented.
Here's a breakdown of the available information:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
The document does not present a table of acceptance criteria with corresponding device performance metrics from a formal study. Instead, it describes various non-clinical tests conducted or leveraged to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices. These tests primarily focus on material properties, manufacturing processes, and safety aspects.
Acceptance Criteria (Implied) | Reported Device Performance / Assessment |
---|---|
Biocompatibility | Leveraged K201323; Biocompatibility tests performed and results support substantial equivalence. |
Shelf Life | Leveraged K132242. |
Sterilization Validation | Leveraged K201323. Sterilization validation test conducted for POM caps & Nylon caps per ISO 17665-1 and ISO 17665-2. |
Endotoxin Limit | Endotoxin testing to be conducted on random batch every two months using Limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) test (gel-clot technique). |
Fatigue Testing | Not required as no angled abutments in the submission. |
MRI Safety | Non-clinical worst-case MRI review conducted. Scientific literature (Kim et al., Woods et al.) and ASTM standards (F2052, F2213, F2182, F2119) referenced to confirm stability of CP Ti Gr.4 in MRI environment and address FDA guidance. |
Material (CP Ti Gr.4) | Confirmed stability in MRI environment. |
Material (POM caps, Nylon caps) | Sterilization validation achieved. |
Manufacturing (SLA surface treatment) | Leveraged K132242. |
2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance
This information is not provided in the document. The document describes non-clinical tests, and for those, the "sample size" would refer to the number of units tested. This detail is not present. Data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is also not applicable or not disclosed for these non-clinical tests.
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of those Experts
This information is not provided. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing devices through non-clinical testing and comparison of characteristics, not through a clinical study requiring expert-established ground truth.
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set
This information is not provided. Adjudication methods are typically relevant for clinical studies involving multiple readers or assessors, which is not described 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
This information is not provided. The device is an endosseous dental implant system, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool. Therefore, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving AI assistance would not be applicable.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
This information is not applicable. The device is a physical dental implant system, not an algorithm or AI.
7. The Type of Ground Truth Used
For the non-clinical tests described:
- Biocompatibility/Chemical Analysis: The ground truth would be established by industry standards and regulatory requirements for safe material interaction with biological systems.
- Sterilization Validation: Ground truth is established by meeting the sterility assurance level (SAL) defined by ISO standards.
- Shelf Life: Ground truth is established by assessing material degradation over time under specific conditions.
- Endotoxin Testing: Ground truth is established by meeting specified pyrogen limits.
- MRI Safety: Ground truth is established by referenced scientific literature and adherence to ASTM standards and FDA guidance for MR safety, which define acceptable parameters for magnetic field interaction, heating, and artifact generation.
8. The Sample Size for the Training Set
This information is not applicable/not provided. There is no mention of a "training set" as this is not an AI/machine learning device. The non-clinical tests would have involved a sample size of the physical device components, but these details are not disclosed.
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established
This information is not applicable/not provided for the same reason as point 8.
Ask a specific question about this device
(90 days)
Meta G UCLA Abutment is intended for use with a dental implant to provide support for prosthetic restorations such as crowns, bridges, or overdentures.
The Meta G UCLA Abutment is used for prosthetic restoration. The Meta G UCLA Abutment consists of Meta G UCLA Abutment and abutment screws. The Meta G UCLA Abutment is made of CCM (ASTM F1537) and POM (ASTM F1855). The casting material to make prosthesis is also CCM. When cast a prosthesis with the Meta G UCLA Abutment, the post height above the transmucosal collar of the Meta G UCLA Abutment has to be taller than 4mm and maximum 7mm.
The Meta G UCLA Abutment has Hex, Non Hex connection. Hex-type abutment should be used for single unit restorations and is not recommended for multiple tooth restorations. Non Hex-type abutment is for multiunit restorations only. No angulation is to be incorporated into the cast final device and abutments should not be used on implants placed at an angle.
It is provided non-sterile, this should be user steam sterilized before use. The Meta G UCLA abutment is compatible with our own implant system.
- INNO SLA Submerged Implant System(K132242) by Cowellmedi Co., Ltd.
- INNO SLA Submerged Narrow Implant System (K231395) by Cowellmedi Co., Ltd.
The design envelope for the Meta G UCLA Abutment is as follows.
Minimum Diameter: 4.5 mm (0.18 in) Minimum Thickness : 0.8mm Maximum Total Cuff Height : 4mm Minimum Total Cuff Height : 1mm Maximum Cuff Height of Casting CCM part : 3mm Minimum Cuff Height of Casting CCM part : 0mm Post height: minimum of 4mm and maximum of 7mm
Minimum Diameter: 4.5 mm (0.18 in) Minimum Thickness : 0.93mm Maximum Total Cuff Height : 4mm Minimum Total Cuff Height : 1mm Maximum Cuff Height of Casting CCM part : 3mm Minimum Cuff Height of Casting CCM part : 0mm Post height: minimum of 4mm and maximum of 7mm
The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (Meta G UCLA Abutment) seeking clearance from the FDA. It does not describe a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria for an AI/ML powered device. Instead, it details the device's technical specifications, indications for use, and a comparison to predicate devices to demonstrate "substantial equivalence."
Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for information on acceptance criteria and a study proving an AI/ML device meets them, as this document is not about an AI/ML device or its performance evaluation in that context. This document focuses on the mechanical and material properties of a dental abutment and its equivalence to previously cleared devices.
Here's why and what information is available (though not directly answering your prompt):
- Type of Device: The Meta G UCLA Abutment is an "Endosseous Dental Implant Abutment." This is a mechanical medical device, not an AI/ML powered one.
- Performance Data (Non-Clinical) - Section 7: This section outlines the tests performed to demonstrate the safety and equivalence of the mechanical device:
- Sterilization validation testing: In accordance with ISO 17665-1 and ISO 17665-2 for steam sterilization.
- Biocompatibility testing: In accordance with ISO 10993-3, 5, 10, 11.
- Biocompatibility of the abutment screw: Leveraged from a previously cleared submission (K201323).
- MR Environment Condition: A non-clinical worst-case MRI review was performed using scientific rationale and published literature to assess magnetically induced displacement force and torque.
These are standard regulatory requirements for this type of mechanical implant component, not acceptance criteria for an AI/ML algorithm's analytical performance (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC).
If you have a document pertaining to an AI/ML powered device, I would be happy to analyze it according to your requested criteria.
Ask a specific question about this device
(156 days)
INNO SLA Submerged Narrow Implant System is intended for two-stage surgical procedures in the following situations and with the following clinical protocols:
-
The intended use for the 3.3mm, 3.5mm diameter INNO Sub Narrow Implant is limited to the replacement of maxillary lateral incisors and mandibular incisors.
-
Immediate placement in extraction situations with a partially or completely healed alveolar ridge.
-
It is intended for delayed loading.
The INNO SLA Submerged Implant System offers the following components.
1 INNO SLA Submerged Narrow Fixture (Narrow) Ø 3.3 x 8.00, 10.00, 12.00, 14.00 mm Ø 3.5 x 8.00, 10.00, 12.00, 14.00 mm
2 Cover Screw (Narrow) Ø 2.84 x 5.0 mm Ø 3.23 x 6.0 mm Ø 3.62 x 7.0 mm
3 Healing Abutment (Narrow) Type 1 Ø3.5 x 6.7, 7.2, 9.2, 10.2, 11.2 mm
4 Healing Abutment (Narrow) Type 2 Ø 4.5 x 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 mm
5 Cemented Abutment (Narrow) Ø 4.5 x 7.85, 8.85, 9.85, 10.85, 11.85, 12.85, 13.85, 14.85mm Ø 4.5 x 9.35, 10.35, 11.35, 12.35, 13.35 mm Ø 4.5 x 7.65, 8.65, 9.65, 10.65, 11.65, 13.65, 14.65 mm Ø 4.5 x 9.15, 10.15, 11.15, 12.15, 13.15 mm
6 Angulated Abutment (Narrow) Ø 4.5 x 11.85, 12.85, 13.85, 14.85 mm (15°, 25°)
7 Multi S Abutment Ø 4.5 x 5, 5.8, 6mm
8 Multi A Abutment Ø 4.5 x 6.42, 7.42, 8.42, 6.96, 7.96mm (15°,30°) – Hex type Ø 4.5 x 6.23, 7.22, 8.22, 6.76, 7.76mm (15,30°) – Non Hex type
9 Multi Hybrid Ti-Base Cylinder Ø 4.5 x 4.5mm
10 Abutment Screw (Narrow) Ø 2.25 x 10.2 mm Ø 1.95 x 8.7 mm
Ø 1.95 x 9.3 mm
12 Multi Cylinder Screw Ø 2.25 x 5 mm
13 Straight Abutment Ø 3.5 x 13.5, 14, 15, 16, 17 mm
14 Temporary Abutment Ø 4.5 x 10 mm
15 Multi Titanium Cylinder Ø 4.5 x 9 mm
The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device (INNO SLA Submerged Narrow Implant System). This type of document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices, not on proving clinical effectiveness or meeting specific performance acceptance criteria through a dedicated study.
Therefore, the document does not contain any information regarding:
- Acceptance criteria in the traditional sense of a clinical or performance study with numerical targets for metrics like sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, etc.
- The study that proves the device meets acceptance criteria (as no such study with performance metrics is presented).
- Sample size used for the test set or data provenance.
- Number of experts used to establish ground truth or their qualifications.
- Adjudication method.
- Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study.
- Standalone (algorithm only) performance.
- Ground truth type for a performance study.
- Sample size for the training set.
- How the ground truth for the training set was established.
Instead, the document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through:
1. Performance Data (Non-Clinical):
The performance testing listed focuses on engineering and material characteristics, leveraging previous clearances and established standards.
- Gamma radiation sterilization and shelf-life: Leveraged from Cowellmedi Co., Ltd.'s previous clearance K132242.
- Steam sterilization of abutments: Leveraged from Cowellmedi Co., Ltd.'s previous clearance K201323.
- Five-year shelf life and packaging: Leveraged from Cowellmedi Co., Ltd's previous clearance K132242.
- SLA surface treatment: Leveraged from Cowellmedi Co., Ltd.'s previous clearance K132242.
- Fatigue test in accordance with ISO 14801: This is an engineering test to ensure the mechanical integrity of the implant system. The document states: "We have performed the fatigue test to make sure the differences do not raise and the test result of the test supported substantial equivalence." However, no specific numerical acceptance criteria or results are provided in the summary.
- Biocompatibility endpoints: Leveraged from Cowellmedi Co., Ltd.'s previous clearance K132242.
- Non-clinical worst-case MRI review: Performed using scientific rationale and published literature to evaluate displacement force and torque.
2. Substantial Equivalence Discussion and Comparison Chart:
This section directly compares the subject device (INNO SLA Submerged Narrow Implant System) with various predicate and reference devices, highlighting similarities in:
- Intended Use
- Material (Titanium Grade 4 or Ti-6Al-4V ELI)
- Principle of Operation
- Design
- Surface Treatment (SLA, TiN Coating)
- Sterility (Gamma Sterilization, Non-sterile with terminal sterilization via moist heat/autoclave, End User Sterilization)
- Shelf Life (5 years)
The document asserts that slight differences, such as in abutment size options or diameter ranges, do not affect substantial equivalence or raise concerns about safety or performance.
In summary, for a traditional clinical or AI/ML performance study as requested, all fields would be "Not Applicable" or "Not Provided" based on the content of this 510(k) summary. The "acceptance criteria" here are implicitly that the device performs equivalently to the listed predicates based on the non-clinical tests and functional comparisons detailed.
Ask a specific question about this device
(345 days)
AR N SLA Type Implant System is indicated for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae, in support of single or multiple-unit restorations including; cemented retained, or overdenture restorations, and terminal or intermediate abutment support for fixed bridgework. AR_N SLA Type Implant System is for two stage surgical procedures. It is intended for delayed load.
The AR_N SLA Type Implant System is a dental implant system made of CP Ti Gr 4 per ASTM F67, intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw arches for loading affer a conventional healing period. The implants may be used to replace one or more missing teeth. The surface of the implants has been treated with SLA(Sandblasted with Large-grit and Acid-etching). The AR N SLA Type Implant System is offered in the following sizes. Subject implant bodies are to be used only with all abutments cleared in the primary predicate submission, and the cover screw and abutment screw to be used are the same as cleared in the primary predicate.
I am sorry, but the provided text does not contain the information required to answer your request. The document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for a dental implant system (AR_N SLA Type Implant System). It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on non-clinical testing (sterilization validation, surface characteristics, fatigue, biocompatibility, pyrogenicity, LAL bacterial endotoxin, and shelf life).
The text does not describe any study involving AI, human readers, or the establishment of ground truth by expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data. Therefore, I cannot extract details regarding:
- Acceptance criteria for AI performance or reported device performance related to AI.
- Sample sizes for test sets in an AI context or data provenance.
- Number of experts and their qualifications for ground truth establishment.
- Adjudication methods for test sets.
- Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study results or effect sizes.
- Standalone (algorithm only) performance.
- Type of ground truth used in an AI study.
- Sample size for training sets.
- How ground truth for the training set was established.
The document is purely about the physical and material characteristics, manufacturing processes, and safety testing of a dental implant for FDA clearance, not about any AI-powered device or diagnostic tool.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1