Search Results

The ET Abutment System are indicated for use with ET Dental Implants to provide support to prosthetic restoration such as crowns, bridges and overdentures in partially or fully edentulous patients.

The ET Abutment System are indicated for use with ET dental implants to provide support to prosthetic restoration such as crowns, bridges and overdentures in partially or fully edentulous patients. Manufactured from medical grade titanium alloy and delivered non-sterilized. The ET Abutments are available in various lengths and diameters; configurations are listed in the table below.

This document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called the "ET Abutment System," which is an endosseous dental implant abutment. The primary purpose of a 510(k) submission is to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving safety and effectiveness through de novo clinical trials.

Therefore, the submission does not contain information about specific "acceptance criteria" for an AI algorithm's performance, nor does it detail a study proving such a device meets these criteria in the typical sense of AI/ML performance evaluation. The "studies" referenced are non-clinical bench tests demonstrating the physical and material properties of the dental abutments are comparable to existing, legally marketed devices.

Based on the provided text, here's an analysis of the "acceptance criteria" and "proof" in the context of this 510(k) submission:

The acceptance criteria and proof fundamentally revolve around demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, not performance against a specific clinical metric for an AI algorithm.

Missing Information:

The document concerns a physical dental device (abutment system), not an AI/ML powered device. As such, the concept of "acceptance criteria" for AI performance, clinical study design for AI (sample size for test/training sets, data provenance, expert ground truth, adjudication, MRMC studies, standalone performance, etc.) are not applicable to this submission. The FDA letter confirms the device type: "Endosseous Dental Implant Abutment."

However, to address the prompt's implied need for "acceptance criteria" and "studies" as they relate to this specific device (dental abutment), I will interpret the request within the context of a 510(k) submission for a non-AI medical device.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (as interpreted for a Dental Abutment System)

In a 510(k) submission for a dental abutment, "acceptance criteria" are typically defined by demonstrating that the proposed device has the same technological characteristics and similar performance to legally marketed predicate devices, or that differences do not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness. The "reported device performance" comes from non-clinical bench testing.

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

Since this is a physical medical device submission and not an AI/ML algorithm:

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not applicable in the context of an AI test set. For physical device testing, the sample sizes would be determined by the relevant ISO standards (e.g., ISO 14801 for fatigue testing). These specific numbers are not detailed in the summary but are typically part of detailed test reports that support the conclusion of substantial equivalence.
• Data Provenance: The data comes from non-clinical testing (bench tests) performed to standard specifications (e.g., ISO 14801). The "ET Abutment System are contract manufactured by the predicate device manufacturer," implying the manufacturing process and potentially some historical performance data are shared or directly comparable.
  • Country of Origin: Not specified for the non-clinical test data itself, but the applicant (Hiossen Inc.) is in Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA. The predicate manufacturer (Osstem Implant Co., Ltd.) is generally based in South Korea, suggesting potential international collaboration or shared manufacturing data.
  • Retrospective or Prospective: Not applicable in the context of patient data. The non-clinical tests would be conducted prospectively on newly manufactured devices.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications of Experts

• This concept is not applicable as this is not an AI/ML diagnostic or image analysis device that requires expert labeling or interpretation for "ground truth." The "ground truth" here is the adherence to material specifications, dimensional tolerances, and performance under specific mechanical and biological test conditions as defined by international standards.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• This concept is not applicable as there is no "test set" in the sense of clinical cases requiring interpretation or adjudication by multiple readers/experts. Performance is based on mechanical, material, and sterilization testing against predefined standards.

5. Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

• Not applicable. This type of study is for evaluating human performance with or without AI assistance, typically in image interpretation or diagnosis. This submission is for a physical dental implant component. The document explicitly states: "No clinical performance report(s) is being submitted."

6. Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Study

• Not applicable. This pertains to AI algorithm performance.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• The "ground truth" for this device's acceptance is based on engineering standards, material specifications, and performance data from validated non-clinical bench tests. This includes:
  • ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) standards for materials (e.g., ASTM F136 for titanium alloy).
  • ISO (International Organization for Standardization) standards for testing medical devices (e.g., ISO 14801 for fatigue testing of dental implants, ISO 17665-1 for moist heat sterilization).
  • FDA guidance documents (e.g., "Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Root-form Endosseous Dental Implants and Abutments," "Testing and Labeling Medical Devices for Safety in the Magnetic Resonance (MR) Environment").
  • Direct comparison to the established characteristics and performance of the legally marketed predicate devices.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This concept relates to AI/ML model development. There is no "training set" for a physical dental abutment. The device's design and manufacturing rely on established engineering principles and prior knowledge from the predicate device.

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

• Not applicable. Again, this refers to AI/ML model training. The "ground truth" for developing a physical device is derived from engineering design principles, material science, and the performance history of similar devices.

Ask a specific question about this device

CORE1 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, 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.

CORE1 Implant System 3.3mm diameter implants may be used as an artificial root structure for single tooth replacement of mandibular central and lateral incisors and maxillary lateral incisors.

CORE1 Fixture is a thread type implant made of CP Titanium Gr.4 according to ASTM F67 which will be placed in the alveolar bone to replace the function of missing tooth. This device has connection between the upper prosthesis and the internal hex. Fixture's surface 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 device or other components of a dental implant set with human body (mandibular or maxillary bone). Fixtures are provided after gamma sterilization as a set package including a cover screw or as a single fixture.

CORE1 Abutment intended for Single Unit restorations is a superstructure of a dental implant system and connecting elements between the dental implant and the crown. It is to made of Ti-6A1-4V ELI (ASTM F136), and intended to be placed on the fixture allows single prosthetic restorations to restore a patient's chewing function. Abutment Screw made of Ti-6AI-ELI (ASTM F136) is used to connect and fix the abutment to the fixture. The contained various abutments and accessories in the system are Solid Abutment, Cement Abutment, Angled Abutment, Milling Abutment, Temporary Abutment, Solid Protect Cap, Cover Screw, Healing Abutment, Healing Abutment (Scan). Angled Abutment can select 15° and 25° angles for prosthetics, and Milling Abutment is up to 20° for hand milling only.

CORE1 Abutment intended for Multi-Unit restorations is a superstructure of a dental implant system and connecting elements between the dental implant and the bridge. It is to made of Ti-6A1-4V ELI (ASTM F136), and intended to be placed on the fixture allows multi prosthetic restorations to restore a patient's chewing function. Universal Plastic Cylinder is a burn-out device only used in the lab for casting and is not part of the final restoration. Abutment Screw made of Ti-6A1-ELI (ASTM F136) is used to connect and fix the abutment to the fixture. The contained various abutments and accessories in the system are Universal Abutment, Universal Angled Abutment, Universal Ti Cylinder, Universal Temporary Cylinder, Universal Healing Cap. Universal Angled Abutment has angles of 17%30°.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the CORE1 Implant System, demonstrating its substantial equivalence to predicate devices. It focuses on physical and material characteristics and performance testing based on industry standards, rather than clinical study results involving human or expert evaluation for diagnostic accuracy.

Therefore, many of the requested details, such as those related to "acceptance criteria" for diagnostic accuracy, "sample size for the test set," "number of experts," "adjudication method," "MRMC study," "standalone performance," "type of ground truth," and "training set details" are not applicable or extractable from this document as it pertains to a dental implant system, not an AI/diagnostic device.

However, I can extract information related to the device's performance through non-clinical testing.

Here's a breakdown of the relevant information provided:

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

The document doesn't define specific numerical "acceptance criteria" in a table format for diagnostic performance, as it's a dental implant. Instead, it describes performance through non-clinical testing against established ISO standards and FDA guidance for dental implants. The "acceptance" is demonstrated by meeting the requirements of these standards.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

• Sample size: Not explicitly stated as a number of devices. The testing is based on performing the required tests as per relevant ISO standards. For fatigue testing, it states it was performed on "subject device and reference device K190837," implying at least one of each for the test, but typically these tests involve multiple samples to establish robustness and statistical significance as required by the standards.
• Data provenance: Not specified in terms of country of origin or whether it was retrospective/prospective. As this is non-clinical bench testing, the data is generated in a laboratory setting. The manufacturer, Cybermed Inc., is from the Republic of Korea.

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 device is a dental implant, not a diagnostic device requiring expert review for "ground truth" establishment of medical conditions. The "ground truth" for performance is based on established engineering and materials science standards for dental implants.

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

Not applicable, as this is non-clinical bench testing against established standards.

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 dental implant, not an AI/diagnostic device.

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

Not applicable. This is a dental implant, not an AI/diagnostic device.

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

The "ground truth" for this device's performance is derived from compliance with international and national standards for medical device safety and performance, specifically for dental implants (e.g., ISO 14801 for fatigue, ISO 10993 for biocompatibility, ISO 11137 for sterilization, USP for endotoxins).

8. The sample size for the training set:

Not applicable. This document does not describe a machine learning or AI algorithm, so there is no "training set."

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

Not applicable, as there is no "training set."

Ask a specific question about this device

The EK Dental Implants are indicated for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae, in support of single or multiple-unit restorations including; cemented, screw or overdenture restorations, and final or temporary abutment support for fixed bridgework. It is indicated for delayed loading. Ultra wide versions are indicated for use in the molar region only.

The EK Dental Implants (Ø3.5mm) are made of titanium alloy (Ti 6Al 4V) for Fixtures and Simple Mount and pure titanium for Cover Screw. The EK Dental Implants (Ø3.5mm) are indicated for use in mandibular and maxillary lateral and central incisor, in support of single or multiple-unit restorations including; cemented retained, screw retained, or overdenture restorations, and final or temporary abutment support for fixed bridgework. It is intended for delayed loading.

The EK Dental Abutments are indicated for use with EK Dental Implants to provide support to prosthetic restoration such as crowns, bridges and overdentures in partially or fully edentulous patients.

The EK Dental Implants are intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw arches, providing support to prosthetic devices to restore normal chewing functions. There are two types: SA and NH, both are bone level implants with the exact same internal hex, tapered body, use the same EK Dental Abutments, are manufactured from the same medical grade titanium materials and sterilized via gamma radiation. They only difference is the surface; SA is sand blasted and acid etched and NH which is SA + Dglucose + NaCI.

The EK Dental Abutments are indicated for use with EK Dental Implants to provide support to prosthetic restoration such as crowns, bridges and overdentures in partially or fully edentulous patients. Manufactured from medical grade titanium alloy and delivered non-sterilized.

The EK Dental Implants and Abutments are available in various lengths and diameters; configurations are listed in the table below.

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for dental implants and abutments. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices, rather than proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria through a clinical or performance study with a test set, ground truth, or expert readers as typically seen for novel AI/ML medical devices.

Therefore, the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, device performance, sample sizes, expert involvement, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and ground truth establishment is not directly applicable to this type of submission.

Instead, the document demonstrates substantial equivalence by comparing the proposed EK Dental Implants and Abutments to predicate and reference devices across several key characteristics:

• Intended Use: The proposed devices have the same intended use as the predicate devices (supporting single or multiple-unit restorations in edentulous mandibles and maxillae, for delayed loading).
• Design/Structure: The proposed implants have an internal hex connection, are submerged fixtures, and have a tapered body shape, similar to the predicate devices. The abutments are also comparable in design to their reference devices.
• Material: The implants use Pure Titanium Grade 4 (ASTM F67) and Titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V (ASTM F136), which are standard materials also used in the predicate devices. Abutments use similar materials (Ti-6Al-4V, Co-Cr-Mo Alloy, Gold alloy as per the reference devices).
• Surface Treatment: The implants employ SA (Sandblasted and Acid etched) and NH (SA + D-glucose + NaCl) surfaces, which are consistent with the predicate and reference devices.
• Sterilization: Implants are gamma irradiated, and abutments are provided non-sterile for steam sterilization by the user, matching the predicate/reference devices.
• Packaging: Similar packaging methods are used as the predicate devices.
• Performance Characteristics (Non-Clinical):
  • Biocompatibility: Not re-tested, as the materials and manufacturing processes are the same as predicate/reference devices.
  • Sterilization Validation: Not re-tested for implants (same process as predicate) or for abutments (provided non-sterile like reference devices, with user steam sterilization).
  • Shelf Life: Not re-validated for implants (same as predicate's 8-year validated shelf life and packaging) or for abutments (non-sterile, non-mechanical, no stated shelf life, similar to reference devices).
  • Surface Treatment Characterization: Not re-tested, as surfaces are manufactured using the same process and materials as predicate/reference devices.
  • Fatigue Testing: Conducted in accordance with ISO 14801. The worst-case implant and abutment configurations withstood 5,000,000 cycles without failure at a substantially equivalent load to the primary predicate.
• Clinical Performance Testing: No clinical performance report(s) were submitted, indicating that substantial equivalence was demonstrated through non-clinical data and comparison to predicates.

In a 510(k) substantial equivalence submission for a traditional medical device like a dental implant, the "acceptance criteria" are effectively the demonstration of sufficient similarity in technological characteristics and performance (often non-clinical) to a legally marketed predicate device. The "study" proving this device meets the "acceptance criteria" is the comprehensive comparison outlined above, coupled with relevant non-clinical testing (like fatigue testing).

Therefore, I cannot populate the table or answer the specific questions in the format requested, as they pertain to a different type of validation study (e.g., for an AI/ML diagnostic algorithm, which would involve a test set, ground truth established by experts, and statistical performance metrics).

Ask a specific question about this device

URIS OMNI Narrow System is indicated for use in the treatment of missing maxillary lateral incisors or the mandbular central and lateral incisors, in support of single or multiple-unit restorations including: cemented retained, or overdenture restorations, and final or temporary abutment support for fixed bridgework. It is intended for delayed loading.

The URIS OMNI Prosthetic abutments are intended for use with URIS OMNI dental implants to provide support for prosthetic restorations such as crowns, bridges, or over-dentures.

All digitally designed abutments and/or coping for use with URIS OMNI Prosthetic abutments are intended to be sent to a TruAbutment-validated milling center for manufacture.

URIS OMNI Narrow System fixtures are dental implants made of Unalloyed Titanium, grade 4 (ASTM F67) intended for use in the treatment of missing maxillary lateral incisors or the mandibular central and lateral incisors. The surface is SLA (Sandblasted, Large grit and Acid etched) treated and is provided sterile. It consists of two implant lines, the OMNI Straight and the OMNI Tapered, with corresponding cover screws, healing abutments and prosthetic abutments. The OMNI Tapered implant has a tapered wall with a single thread design. The OMNI Straight implant has straight wall with smaller threading at the coronal end, and bigger threading at the apical end. Both implant lines have Narrow (Ø 3.15 mm) platform sizes. Both implant lines share the following diameters and lengths.

Ø 3.15 x 10, 11.5, 13, 14.5mm (L)

URIS Prosthetic System is made of titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V ELI) intended for use as an aid in prosthetic restoration. It consists of Ball Abutment, Retainer, T LOC Straight Abutment, T Loc Titanium Cap, Multi-Unit Straight Abutment, Multi-Unit Angled Abutment, Multi-Unit Healing Cap, Multi-Unit Ti Cylinder, Multi-unit temporary cylinder, Multi-Unit Cylinder screw, URIS DS, URIS Base. No additional angulation is to be included in the when using a coping or cylinder (i.e., Multi-unit Ti Cylinder, Multi-unit Temporary Cylinder, Multi-unit Base) with any of the Multi-unit Abutments.

URIS Base consists of a two-piece abutment, where the titanium base is a pre-manufactured abutment that will be used to support a CAD/CAM designed superstructure (the second part of the two-piece abutment) that composes the final abutment. URIS Base is made of titanium alloy conforming to ASTM F136 Standard Specification for Wrought Titanium-4Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) Alloy for Surgical Implant Applications.

URIS DS abutment as a patient matched titanium abutment compatible with both URIS OMNI System (K172100) and URIS OMNI Narrow System (subject).

The provided document is a 510(k) Summary for a dental implant system. It discusses the substantial equivalence of the "URIS OMNI Narrow System & Prosthetic" to predicate devices based on non-clinical testing. The document does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria in the context of human reader performance or a standalone algorithm performance for AI/ML-driven devices.

The document states: "No clinical data were included in this submission." and focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through comparisons of technological characteristics and non-clinical test data.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information for an AI/ML device related to acceptance criteria, detailed study design, sample sizes, expert ground truth, adjudication methods, or MRMC comparative effectiveness studies, as these types of studies are not discussed in this 510(k) summary for this device.

The "acceptance criteria" presented in this document are primarily related to the successful completion and results of non-clinical tests to demonstrate equivalence to predicate devices. These are not performance metrics for an AI/ML algorithm.

Here's an analysis of what is provided regarding acceptance criteria in the context of this traditional medical device:

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

The document implicitly defines acceptance criteria by listing the standards to which tests were performed and stating that "the results have met the criteria of the standards." The "reported device performance" is that it successfully met these standards, thereby demonstrating substantial equivalence.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:
Not applicable for this type of non-clinical, non-AI device study. The document refers to testing on the device itself (e.g., fatigue testing, sterilization testing, biocompatibility).

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. Ground truth as typically understood for AI/ML performance is not relevant here. The "ground truth" for these tests would be the accepted parameters and methods defined by the referenced ISO/ASTM standards and FDA guidance.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
Not applicable. This is not a human reader or AI performance study.

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. This is not an AI/ML device.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
No. This is not an AI/ML device.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert concensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc):
Not applicable in the context of AI/ML device performance. For the described non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" is defined by the specific parameters and requirements of the referenced ISO/ASTM standards. For example, for biocompatibility, the ground truth is whether the materials meet the criteria specified in ISO 10993-1.

8. The sample size for the training set:
Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.

Ask a specific question about this device

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

The OSSTEM Implant System - Abutment is intended for use with a dental implant to provide support for prosthetic restorations such as crowns, bridges, or overdentures.

The OSSTEM Implant System - Abutment is intended for use as an aid in prosthetic restoration. It consists of Abutments, components and Abutment Screws.

This document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification of the OSSTEM Implant System - Abutment, indicating it is a dental device and not an AI/ML medical device. Therefore, the information requested in the prompt, which pertains to the acceptance criteria and study proving an AI/ML device meets those criteria, cannot be fully provided from this document.

The document discusses the substantial equivalence of the OSSTEM Implant System - Abutment to predicate devices. This typically involves demonstrating that the new device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device, often through material comparisons, design comparisons, and performance testing for mechanical properties and biocompatibility, rather than clinical studies or performance against defined efficacy metrics tied to patient outcomes.

However, I can extract information related to the device and the type of testing performed that is relevant to its acceptance for market.

Here's a breakdown based on the provided text, addressing the points of your prompt where applicable, and highlighting what's not present due to the nature of the device:

Device Description: The OSSTEM Implant System - Abutment is intended for use with a dental implant to provide support for prosthetic restorations such as crowns, bridges, or overdentures. It consists of Abutments, components, and Abutment Screws.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (General):
For this type of device, "acceptance criteria" revolve around demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing, legally marketed predicate devices. This means proving the new device is as safe and effective as the predicate. The performance is assessed through:

• Material composition: Comparing the materials used (e.g., Titanium Alloy, Zirconia, PEEK, PC, POM).
• Design and dimensions: Comparing the shapes, diameters, and lengths.
• Intended use: Confirming the device serves the same purpose.
• Technological characteristics: Ensuring the fundamental mechanism of action is similar.
• Nonclinical testing: Biocompatibility, sterilization validation, and mechanical properties.

Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (as inferred from a 510(k) for a non-AI/ML device):

Here's how the remaining points of your prompt are addressed:

1. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • Test set sample size: Not applicable in the context of an AI/ML algorithm's test set. The "testing" here refers to nonclinical lab tests and comparison to predicates.
   • Data provenance: Not directly applicable. The "data" are internal company reports demonstrating compliance with standards or comparisons to their own previously cleared devices. The manufacturer is OSSTEM Implant Co., Ltd. and their correspondent is HIOSSEN Inc., based in Republic of Korea and Pennsylvania, USA, respectively. The data are typically generated in a prospective manner for regulatory submission (i.e., tests are performed specifically for the submission).

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

   • Not applicable as this is a physical medical device, not an AI/ML algorithm requiring ground truth from experts for image interpretation or diagnosis.

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

   • Not applicable. This concept pertains to consolidating expert opinions for ground truth in AI/ML performance studies.

4. 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 MRMC study was done, as this is not an AI/ML device. The document explicitly states: "No clinical studies are submitted." (page 12)

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

   • Not applicable, as this is not an AI/ML device.

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

   • Not applicable. For this device, "ground truth" is embodied by established engineering specifications, material properties, and performance benchmarks for dental implants, which are verified through nonclinical laboratory testing against international standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM) and comparison to predicate device characteristics.

7. The sample size for the training set:

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

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

   • Not applicable. (See #7).

Summary of Acceptance:

The device's acceptance (clearance) by the FDA is based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices (listed in section 3 and 6) in terms of:

• Indications for Use: Identical.
• Technological Characteristics: Very similar, with minor differences in design/dimensions that do not raise new safety/effectiveness concerns.
• Materials: Identical.
• Performance (Nonclinical): Biocompatibility is leveraged from predicate devices; sterilization validated according to relevant ISO standards.

The document explicitly states: "No clinical studies are submitted." This reinforces that the acceptance was based on nonclinical testing and comparison to predicates, as is common for many Class II medical devices in the 510(k) pathway.

Ask a specific question about this device

The IBS Implant System is intended to replace missing teeth to restore chewing function. The IBS Implant can be placed in support of single or multiple-unit restorations including; cement retained, screw retained, or overdenture restorations, and terminal or immediate abutment support for fixed bridgework. This system is for one or two stage surgical procedures. This system is intended for delayed loading.

An endosseous dental implant is a device made of a material such as Ti-6AL-4V Eli (Conforming to ASTM Standard F-136). The IBS Implant System is consists of dental implants, abutments, and screws for use in one or two-stage dental implant placement and restorations. The implant-abutment connection is tight and precise fitting with internal hex and Morse taper bevel.

The surface of the system has been treated with RBM (Resorbable Blasted media) to increase junction strength by increasing the area of bone-implant interface.

There are 2 types of fixtures in this system, NR Fix and Magic FC. The NR Fix has diameters in 3.5mm and lengths in 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 mm. The Magic FC has diameters in 4. 4.5. 5.0. 5.5. 6.0. 6.5mm and lengths in 7. 9. 11, 13. 15 mm.

The contained various abutments and accessories in the system are Magic Screw retained type Abutment & protect cap, Healing Abutment, Angled Abutment (hexa, non hexa), Pair Abutment (non hexa), Solid Abutment & Solid abutment cap, Magic abutcoping (transfer type, pick up type), Multiunit abutment, UCLA abutment.

Fixtures and abutments are packaged separately. The Fixtures are supplied sterile and the abutments and accessories are provided non-sterile. The abutments and accessories should be sterilized before use. But healing abutment is supplied sterile.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the IBS Implant System, primarily focusing on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than providing detailed acceptance criteria and study results for device performance. As such, much of the requested information regarding specific acceptance criteria, detailed study parameters, ground truth establishment, sample sizes, and expert qualifications for performance evaluation (especially for AI/standalone algorithm performance) is not available in this document.

The document primarily discusses non-clinical data to support substantial equivalence.

Here's an attempt to extract the available information based on your request, followed by acknowledgments of what is missing:

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

The document does not explicitly state acceptance criteria in terms of numerical performance thresholds (e.g., specific accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, or success rates) for the device. Instead, the reported "performance" is demonstrated through compliance with recognized standards and successful non-clinical testing to show substantial equivalence.

Missing Information (Not available in the provided text):

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

• The document mentions "non-clinical tests" and "fatigue test" but does not detail the sample sizes (e.g., number of implant samples tested) or data provenance (e.g., from which specific test batches or labs). No human or clinical data is mentioned, so no information on retrospective/prospective human 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 as no human-expert-evaluated test set is described. The "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests would be the established performance metrics or compliance standards.

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

• Not applicable as no human-expert evaluation/adjudication is described.

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 MRMC or AI-assisted study is mentioned. This filing is for a physical dental implant system, not an AI software device.

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

• Not applicable; this is not an AI algorithm.

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

• For the non-clinical tests (sterilization, fatigue, surface analysis), the "ground truth" would be established by the specifications of the relevant ISO and ASTM standards and the results obtained from laboratory testing (e.g., successful biological indicator kill for sterilization, passing cycles for fatigue).

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable; this is not an AI algorithm.

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

• Not applicable; this is not an AI algorithm.

Summary of what the document confirms:

The IBS Implant System received 510(k) clearance by demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices. This was supported by:

• Matching intended use.
• Identical material composition (Ti-6AL-4V Eli conforming to ASTM F-136).
• Compliance with non-clinical testing standards including ISO 11137-1:2006, ISO 11137-2:2009 for sterilization validation, and ISO 14801:2007 for fatigue testing.
• Similar surface treatment (R.B.M.).
• A general statement of being "designed, manufactured and tested in compliance with FDA's Class II special controls guidance document root-form endosseous dental implants and endosseous dental implant abutments."

The review process focused on these points to confirm that the new device does not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness compared to the already marketed predicate devices.

Ask a specific question about this device