Search Results

The Sirona Dental CAD/CAM System with InLab Software 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 mesostructures may also be used in conjunction with the Camlog Titanium base CAD/CAM (types K2244.xxxx) (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 and sizes follows).

The Sirona Dental CAD/CAM System with InLab Software 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 functionality for the control of critical CAD/CAM abutment dimensions. The subject Sirona Dental CAD/CAM System with InLab Software consists of: InLab SW version 18.5, "labside" CAD/CAM software, InEos X5 3D digital desktop scanner, InEos Blue 3D digital desktop scanner, InLab MC X5 milling unit, InLab MCXL milling unit, Sirona TiBase titanium base components, inCoris ZI zirconium mesostructure blocks. The system is utilized to digitally acquire and/or 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 and the zirconium ceramic mesostructure component which is designed using the InLab software and milled using the InLab milling equipment. The completed mesostructure is cemented to the TiBase component using PANAVIA F 2.0 dental cement.

The provided text is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from Dentsply Sirona for their Sirona Dental CAD/CAM System with InLab Software. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing legally marketed predicate devices, rather than providing a detailed clinical study report with acceptance criteria and performance data for a novel artificial intelligence algorithm.

Therefore, many of the specific details requested in your prompt (e.g., sample size for test set, data provenance, number of experts, MRMC study, standalone performance, training set details) are not applicable or not present in this type of FDA submission.

This document indicates that the device is a modification to an already cleared system (K111421), and the current submission (K200191) focuses on bringing the "labside" variant (InLab software) into equivalency with a previously cleared "chairside" variant (CEREC software, K181520), which already incorporated the software design limitation controls.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text, addressing what information is available and what is not:

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

• Acceptance Criteria/Performance: The document does not provide a quantitative table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance in terms of clinical outcomes or diagnostic accuracy, which would be typical for an AI/algorithm-based diagnostic device.
• Instead, the "acceptance criteria" are implied by the regulatory standards and successful validation against those standards. The performance is assessed by showing conformity to these standards and the equivalence of its function and safety to the predicate device.
  • IEC 60601-1: Medical electrical equipment - General requirements for basic safety and essential performance.
  • IEC 60601-1-2: Medical electrical equipment - Electromagnetic compatibility.
  • IEC 62304: Medical device software - Software lifecycle processes.
  • Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff: Guidance for the Content of Premarket Submissions of Software Contained in Medical Devices (May, 2005).
  • "Software verification and validation testing was conducted to demonstrate that the software's design restrictions prevent design of the mesostructure component outside of design limitations, including screenshots under user verification testing." This indicates functional performance testing, where the "acceptance" is that the software correctly restricts design parameters.
  • "the encrypted abutment design library was validated to demonstrate that the established design limitations and specifications are locked and cannot be modified within the abutment design library." This confirms data integrity and adherence to design specifications.

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated in terms of patient data or case numbers. The testing appears to be on the device's functional and safety aspects (e.g., software function, electrical safety), not a clinical dataset of patient images or outcomes.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of device functional testing. There's no indication of patient data being used for "testing" in the sense of a clinical study.

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. This document describes a CAD/CAM system for designing dental abutments, not a diagnostic AI system requiring expert-derived ground truth from medical images. The "ground truth" here relates to the engineering specifications and design limitations of the dental abutment, which are inherent to the software's programming and validated through functional testing.

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

• Not applicable. No clinical image-based adjudication process is described as this is not a diagnostic imaging AI.

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. An MRMC study is not mentioned. This is a CAD/CAM system for manufacturing dental prosthetics, not a system providing AI assistance to human readers for diagnostic interpretation.

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

• The document implies the software, as a component of the system, operates in a "standalone" fashion in terms of its internal logic for design limitations. However, the overall device (Sirona Dental CAD/CAM System) is inherently human-in-the-loop, as dentists and lab technicians use it for design and manufacturing. The focus of the validation is on the software's ability to enforce design restrictions automatically.

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

• The "ground truth" for the software's performance is based on engineering specifications and design limitations for dental abutments. These limitations are programmed into the software and verified to be unmodifiable and correctly enforced.
• This is not clinical ground truth derived from patient data or expert consensus on clinical findings.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This CAD/CAM system's software (InLab Software) is not described as utilizing a machine learning or deep learning algorithm that requires a "training set" in the conventional sense of AI. It's a design and manufacturing software, where "training" would refer to its development and programming against predefined dental design rules, not learning from data samples.

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

• Not applicable. As no training set is mentioned for an AI/ML algorithm, the concept of establishing ground truth for it does not apply. The software's functionality is based on established dental design principles and manufacturing parameters, which are encoded into its programming.

Ask a specific question about this device

Ziacom Dental Implant Systems are intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the mandibular or maxillary jaw arches to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, in order to restore the patient's chewing function and to aid in prosthetic rehabilitation. Ziacom Dental Implant Abutments are intended to be used with Ziacom Dental Implants to aid in prosthetic rehabilitation.
The intended use for Ziacom Dental Implant Zinic® NP 3.30mm diameter is limited to replacement of mandibular incisors.

Zinic® and Zinic MT implants are threaded, self-tapping, root-form dental implants manufactured from CP titanium Grade 4 conforming to ASTM F67 Standard Specification for Unalloyed Titanium for Surgical Implant Applications (UNS R50250, UNS R50400, UNS R50550, UNS R50700). The implants have apical flutes, an internal hexagonal abutment interface and a conical bevel at the abutment interface. They are threaded internally for attachment of mating abutments, cover screws, healing abutments or temporary abutments. The coronal portion of the implant has a microthread design. The Zinic design is a straight implant, while Zinic MT implants are tapered in the apical 40% of the implant length. All implants have a grit blasted and acid etched surface, designated Osseonova Surface.
Implants and abutments with the same platform connection are compatible. Zinic and ZinicMT implants are available with following sizes: (Table of sizes provided in the document).
Zinic and ZinicMT implants are provided sterile to the end-user in a single-unit package, and are for single-patient, single-use only. They are provided in ZPlus packaging or Z2Plus packaging, attached to the ZPlus or Z2Plus Mount, respectively, or in NoMount packaging, without an implant mount. Packaging facilitates the aseptic handling and placement of the implant, with the mounts also capable of serving either as a provisional abutment or a definitive abutment. Z2Plus also can serve as a transfer for a Snap-On impression technique.
Subject device abutments include cover screws, healing abutments, provisional abutments, sculptable (prepable) abutments, conical abutments in straight and angled (15°, 25° and 30°) designs, castable abutments (CoCr base plus burn-out sleeve) in straight and angled (15°, 20°) designs, Basic and Unitary Basic abutments to serve as intermediate abutments between the implant and the prosthesis. XDrive multi-unit abutments in straight and angled (17°, 30°) designs.
All subject device abutments have the universal internal implant connection and are compatible with both implant lines, except that NP abutments are compatible only with Zinic NP implants (there are no ZinicMT NP implants). Abutments are manufactured from Ti-6Al-4V alloy conforming to ASTM F136 Standard Specification for Wrought Titanium-6Aluminum-4Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) Alloy for Surgical Implant Applications (UNS R56401), polyetheretherketone (PEEK) conforming to ASTM F2026 Standard Specification for Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Polymers for Surgical Implant Applications or cobalt-chromium-molybdenum alloy conforming to ASTM F1537 Standard Specification for Wrought Cobalt-28-Chromium-6-Molybdenum Alloys for Surgical Implants (UNS R31537, UNS R31538, and UNS R31539).
Subject device abutments include two overdenture abutments (Kirator,ZM-Equator). Kirator overdenture abutments are straight prosthetic abutments that are used for the retention of preexisting or newly fabricated full dentures (classified as implant-retained mucosupported overdentures). ZM-Equator abutments are straight prosthetic abutments used for the retention of tissue-supported implantretained prostheses. Its is indicated in rehabilitation of narrow ridges and/or reduced vertical dimension Each overdenture abutment is the "male" part of a removable prosthesis retention which contains a metal housing cap that incorporate plastic retention with different degrees of elastic retention. Abutments and housing caps are manufactured from Ti-6Al-4V alloy conforming to ASTM F136 Standard Specification for Wrought Titanium-6Aluminum-4Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) Alloy for Surgical Implant Applications (UNS R56401). The different plastic retentions are manufacture from Kepital, Rilsan bmno and Pebax.
All abutments are provided non-sterile to the end-user in a single-unit package, and are for singlepatient, single-use only.
Clinical screws used to attach abutments and prosthetic components to implants are available with an M1.6 thread and 8 mm length to fit NP abutments and implants and with an M1.8 thread and 7.85 mm length to fit RP and WP abutments and implants. They are available in a machined Ti-6AI-4V design and in a design that is hard anodized to provide anti-loosening characteristics, designated Kiran®. Machined titanium alloy screws are anodized for identification, with the M1.6 thread screw that fits NP abutments and implants colored yellow and the M1.8 thread screws that fit RP and WP abutments and implants colored blue. Kiran screws are dark grey.
A TX30 Torx screw is available for retention of the TX30 Mechanized Abutment. It incorporates a 6-lobed internal feature mating with a 6 lobed spherical tip screwdriver to permit driving the screw with the driver inserted through the angled portion of the restoration. It is provided with the Kiran hard anodizing treatment.
Additional screws are available to attach prosthetic components to Basic abutments and to XDrive abutments. Basic screws have an M1.8 thread and are 4.3 mm long, while XDrive screws have an M1.4 thread and are 3.5 mm long. Each is available as an anodized titanium alloy screw or as a Kiran screw with the hard anodizing treatment.

The provided text describes the Ziacom Dental Implant Systems and its substantial equivalence to predicate devices, but it does not contain information about an AI/ML-enabled medical device study or acceptance criteria for such a device.

The document is a traditional 510(k) premarket notification for a Class II medical device (endosseous dental implant). The performance data presented focuses on mechanical strength testing, material characterization (surface roughness, chemistry), biocompatibility (cytotoxicity), and sterilization validation, which are standard for dental implants.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for the following sections as the necessary information is not present in the provided document:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance (for an AI/ML device)
2. Sample sizes used for the test set and data provenance
3. Number of experts used to establish ground truth and their qualifications
4. Adjudication method for the test set
5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study details
6. Standalone (algorithm-only) performance
7. Type of ground truth used
8. Sample size for the training set
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

The document describes the device's technical specifications and how it is demonstrated to be substantially equivalent to existing predicate devices based on non-clinical performance data (mechanical and biological testing), rather than clinical or AI/ML performance.

Ask a specific question about this device

CAM Titanium Blanks are intended for the fabrication of abutments and healing caps on CAMLOG® SCREW-LINE and CAMLOG® ROOT-LINE implants in the maxilla and mandible for the purpose of supporting single or multiple tooth prostheses of a partially or fully edentulous patient. Digitally designed abutments fabricated with CAD/CAM techniques for use with CAMLOG® CAM Titanium Blanks are intended to be sent to a CAMLOG validated milling center for manufacture.

CAM Titanium Blanks are intended for the fabrication of abutments and healing caps on CONELOG® SCREW-LINE implants in the maxilla and mandible for the purpose of supporting single ooth prostheses of a partially or fully edentulous patient. Digitally designed abutments fabricated with CAD/CAM techniques for use with CONELOG® CAM Titanium Blanks are intended to be sent to a CAMLOG validated milling center for manufacture.

CAM Titanium Blanks are intended for the fabrication of abutments and healing caps/gingiva former on iSy® implants in the maxilla and mandible for the purpose of supporting single or multiple tooth prostheses of a partially or fully edentulous patient. Digitally designed abutments fabricated with CAD/CAM techniques for use with iSy CAM Titanium Blanks are intended to be sent to a CAMLOG validated milling center for manufacture.

CAM Titanium Blanks are abutments with a prefabricated, precision interface (implant/abutment connection) and a screw channel suitable for the respective implant system. CAM Titanium Blanks are to be used by a CAMLOG validated milling center with CAD/CAM technology to fabricate a final finished customized abutment made of titanium alloy. Each patient-specific abutment is individually prescribed by the clinician as a temporary, permanent, single, or multi-unit abutment. Computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) techniques are used to process the cylinder portion above the implant connection into an individual abutment or healing cap/gingiva former design. The healing cap/gingival former is temporary and used during healing. Permanent abutments have straight and angled designs that can be used for crowns, bridges or overdentures.

CAM Titanium Blanks are available for CAMLOG SCREW-LINE and ROOT-LINE implants fitting five implant diameters (3.3. 3.8. 4.3. 5.0. 6.0 mm), for CONELOG SCREW-LINE implants fitting four implant diameters (3.3. 3.8, 4.3, 5.0 mm), and for the iSy implants with one connection fitting three implant diameters (3.8, 4.4, 5.0 mm).

This document is a 510(k) summary for the "CAM Titanium Blanks" dental device, which is related to endosseous dental implant abutments. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on design, materials, and intended use, rather than presenting a performance study with specific acceptance criteria and detailed quantitative results.

Therefore, much of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria and performance study specifics for an AI/ML device (like sample size for test/training sets, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, MRMC studies, standalone performance) is not applicable or present in this regulatory submission.

However, I can extract the information that is available:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document does not provide specific quantitative acceptance criteria or corresponding reported device performance values in the way one might see for an AI/ML diagnostic or predictive device (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC thresholds). Instead, the "acceptance criteria" are implied by demonstrating substantial equivalence through:

• Non-clinical testing: This includes sterilization validation, biological evaluation, and mechanical testing. The acceptance here is successful completion according to the referenced standards.
• Comparison of Indications for Use: The claim is that the indications are "substantially equivalent."
• Comparison of Technological Characteristics: The claim is that the characteristics are "similar" or "substantially equivalent."

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

• This document is for a mechanical dental device (titanium blanks for abutments), not an AI/ML-driven device that typically uses test sets of data.
• The "test set" here refers to the actual physical devices subjected to non-clinical tests. The sample sizes for these specific non-clinical tests (sterilization, biological, MR, mechanical) are not explicitly stated in this summary, but would be defined by the relevant ISO/ASTM standards referenced.
• Data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is not applicable in the context of this summary for a mechanical device.

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 as this is a mechanical device, not an AI/ML device relying on expert-labeled ground truth data. The "ground truth" for mechanical properties would be derived from standard test methods and measurements, not expert consensus on interpretations.

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

• Not applicable. This is a mechanical 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

• No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is relevant for AI/ML diagnostic tools that assist human readers, which this device is not.

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

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

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

• The "ground truth" for demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of this mechanical dental device is based on established engineering standards and material properties testing. For example, the "ground truth" for mechanical strength is whether the device withstands specified forces according to ISO 14801. The "ground truth" for biocompatibility is conformance to ISO 10993-1.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This is a mechanical device, not an AI/ML device trained on data.

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

• Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

CAMLOG® and CONELOG® Abutments are intended to be used to fabricate prosthetic restorations in conjunction with CAMLOG® and CONELOG® implants to support prostheses in the maxillary and/or mandibular arch.

iSy® Abutments are intended to be used to fabricate prosthetic restorations in conjunction with iSy implants to support prostheses in the maxillary and/or mandibular arch.

Abutment for Bridges is a straight abutment designed for multi-unit, cement-retained restorations. It is available with two gingival heights (0.8 and 2.0 mm) for CONELOG and iSy and one gingival height for CAMLOG.

Abutment for Bridges is available for CAMLOG, CONELOG and iSy Implant Systems. It is available in five CAMLOG platform diameters (3.3 mm, 4.3 mm, 5.0 mm, and 6.0 mm), four CONELOG platform diameters (3.3 mm, 3.8 mm, 4.3 mm and 5.0 mm), and one iSy interface connection.

The Temporary Abutment is a straight, one-piece titanium abutment for cement-retained provisional restorations. It is available in a non-indexed bridge version for CAMLOG, CONELOG and iSy, and an indexed crown version for CAMLOG implant system.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification from the FDA regarding a dental device called "Abutment for Bridges" by ALTATEC GmbH. It does not provide information about acceptance criteria and performances of an AI/ML-based medical device. Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information like acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, expert qualifications, or ground truth methods related to an AI device.

The document discusses the substantial equivalence of the "Abutment for Bridges" to previously marketed predicate devices. It includes:

• Device Name: Abutment for Bridges
• Regulation Number: 21 CFR 872.3630
• Regulation Name: Endosseous dental implant abutment
• Regulatory Class: II
• Product Code: NHA
• Intended Use: To fabricate prosthetic restorations in conjunction with CAMLOG®, CONELOG®, and iSy® implants to support prostheses in the maxillary and/or mandibular arch.
• Performance Data (Non-clinical): Sterilization validation (ISO 17665-1, ISO 17665-2), biological evaluation (ISO 10993-1), and reference to biocompatibility of the applicant's predicate devices (K113779, K133991, K0823496).
• Clinical Data: "No clinical data were included in this submission."

The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence based on material, design, intended use, operating principle, and sterilization processes compared to predicate devices, not on evaluating performance against specific acceptance criteria for a new functionality through a clinical study.

Ask a specific question about this device

The LOCATOR® F-Tx Attachment System is designed to support fixed, partial or full arch restorations on endosseous dental implants in the mandible or maxilla for the purpose of restory function. It is used in fixed hybrid restorations that can be attached with a snap-in system.

The LOCATOR® F-Tx Attachment System is compatible with the following implants: Implant Manufacturer Connection Type / Platform

The LOCATOR® F-Tx Attachment System is for rigid connection of fixed, partial and full arch restorations on endosseous dental implants using a snap-in or screw-retained attachment system. The system includes abutments and healing caps. LOCATOR F-Tx abutments are compatible with the implant systems, connection types, and platform sizes listed above, and are provided in various gingival cuff heights ranging from 1 to 6 mm. LOCATOR F-Tx System abutments are made of titanium alloy conforming to ASTM F136 Standard Specification for Wrought Titanium-6Aluminum-4Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) Alloy for Surgical Implant Applications (UNS R56401). LOCATOR F-Tx abutments may be provided with an optional coating of either TiCN (titanium carbon nitride) or TiN (titanium nitride). LOCATOR F-Tx System Healing Caps are made of PEEK.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device, the LOCATOR® F-Tx Attachment System. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to pre-existing predicate devices, rather than presenting a study design with specific acceptance criteria and detailed performance data often seen for novel AI/ML devices. As such, many of the requested points regarding acceptance criteria, study types (MRMC, standalone), sample sizes for test/training sets, expert qualifications, and ground truth establishment are not applicable or cannot be extracted from this document, as it is not a performance study report for an AI/ML device.

This document outlines the device's intended use, design, materials, and provides a comparison to legally marketed predicate devices to establish substantial equivalence. The "Performance Data" section primarily details the non-clinical testing performed to meet various ISO standards related to sterilization, biocompatibility, and mechanical testing, which are typical for dental implant components.

Here's an attempt to address the request based only on the available information, noting where information is absent:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for LOCATOR® F-Tx Attachment System

Based on the provided 510(k) summary, the "acceptance criteria" are primarily demonstrated through substantial equivalence to predicate devices and adherence to relevant non-clinical performance standards. The performance data presented focuses on material properties, sterilization, biocompatibility, and mechanical retention, rather than performance metrics for an AI/ML system.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

• "Substantial equivalence in indications and design principles to legally marketed predicate devices." Comparing language: "The subject device and primary predicate have slightly different Indications for Use language. However, the difference in language does not change the intended use of abutments." |
  | - Similar Design Principles | - "LOCATOR F-Tx and Locator (K072878) are each provided with varving cuff heights. The abutment/implant interfaces of all LOCATOR F-Tx abutments are identical to those of the corresponding Locator (K072878) abutments." |
  | - Similar Materials | - Abutment: Ti-6Al-4V ELI (same as predicate).
• Abutment Coating: TiN (same as predicate), TiCN (same as reference predicate K150295).
• Prosthetic Retention Component: PEEK (predicate uses Nylon). This difference is noted but deemed acceptable. |
  | Material Biocompatibility (ISO 10993-1, -5, -12) | - "Characterization and biocompatibility testing of the TiCN coating,"
• "Biocompatibility testing of the PEEK Healing Caps."
• (Specific results not detailed, but testing was performed and deemed acceptable for submission). |
  | Sterilization (ISO 17665-1, -2) | - "Sterilization testing."
• (Specific results not detailed, but testing was performed and deemed acceptable for submission). |
  | Mechanical Performance (Specifically Retention Strength) | - "The mechanical testing demonstrated the retention strength of the LOCATOR F-Tx Attachment System when using the High Retention Balls was statistically greater than the tensile force created when masticating worst case sticky food (p

Ask a specific question about this device

CONELOG® Titanium base CAD/CAM

• Implant-prosthetic titanium abutment for CONELOG® implants with connection, as a bonding base for hybrid abutments.
• The Titanium base CAD/CAM for implant Ø 3.3 mm is designed only for hybrid abutments in the area of the upper lateral incisors and lower central and lateral incisors.

CONELOG Titanium base CAD/CAM is an abutment designed to be used with the Sirona CAD/CAM System in Coris ZI meso L and meso S to fabricate a hybrid abutment with an angle up to 20°.The Titanium base CAD/CAM is available in four implant platform sizes (3.3 mm 3.8 mm, 4.3 mm, and 5.0 mm), two gingival heights (0.8 mm or 2.0 mm) and is supplied with the corresponding screw. All design parameters are according to the cleared Sirona CAD/CAM System parameters.

This document is a 510(k) summary for the CONELOG® Titanium base CAD/CAM. It describes the device, its intended use, and the data submitted to demonstrate substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices.

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

The document does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria. Instead, it relies on performance testing designed to demonstrate mechanical integrity under relevant dental conditions.

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 does not specify the exact sample size for the non-clinical testing. It only states that "non-clinical testing data submitted" was used. The provenance of the data (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is not mentioned.

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 is a medical device submission for a physical implant component, not an AI or imaging-based diagnostic tool. Therefore, there is no "ground truth" in the diagnostic sense, and no experts were used to establish such. The "ground truth" for this type of device is its mechanical robustness and compliance with established standards.

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

Not applicable, as this is not an imaging or diagnostic study requiring adjudication for ground truth.

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 submission for a physical dental implant component, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

Not applicable. This is a submission for a physical dental implant component, not an algorithm.

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

The "ground truth" in this context is the successful completion of established mechanical performance tests (ISO 14801) designed to simulate in-vivo conditions. The device is expected to withstand specified static and dynamic forces without failure, demonstrating its structural integrity and safety.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is not a machine learning or AI-based device, so there is no training set in the conventional sense.

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

Not applicable. See point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device