Search Results

Geo Abutments are intended for use to support a prosthetic device in a partially or completely edentulous patient. They are intended to support a single-unit or multi-unit cement-retained prosthesis in the mandible or maxilla. Geo Abutments are compatible with the following implants. All digitally designed custom abutments for use with Geo Abutments are to be sent to a GeoMedi Co. Ltd. validated milling center for manufacture.

The purpose of this submission is to obtain marketing clearance for Geo Abutment from GeoMedi Co., Ltd. a line of titanium base abutments (identified as Multibase) and machinable blank abutments (identified as CMFit) to interface with compatible dental implants from four (4) manufacturers, and a total of seven (7) implant-abutment connections. The compatible implant body diameters range from 3.0 mm to 8.0 mm. The subject device prosthetic platform diameters range from 4.0 mm to 4.6 mm. All patient-specific abutments prepared from subject device Geo Abutment are to be manufactured at a GeoMedi validated milling center.

Geo Multibase abutments are two-piece abutments in which the Geo Multibase Abutment comprises the first part of the two-piece abutment and a patient-specific zirconia superstructure comprises the second part; the assembly becoming a final finished medical device after cementation of the superstructure on the subject device abutment. They are provided in straight designs, and two (2) connection types: for single unit prostheses (engaging connection) and for bridge or multi-unit prostheses (non-engaging connection). They are not intended for angulation correction, as the design parameters for the superstructure are restricted to straight abutments only.

These abutments are made of titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) with a titanium nitride (TiN) coating on the coronal portion of the external surface, not including the implant-abutment interface.

The Geo Multibase abutment and corresponding zirconia superstructure are provided to the clinician either with the superstructure cemented to the abutment by the dental laboratory or separately, for the clinician to bond together chairside, using the cement required in the labeling (3M ESPE RelyX Unicem bonding cement, cleared in K022476 as RelyX RMGIP).

All patient-specific custom zirconia superstructure fabrication is by prescription on the order of the clinician.

The design parameters for zirconia superstructures to be used with Geo Multibase abutments are:

• Minimum wall thickness – 0.5 mm
• Minimum cementable post height for single-unit restoration – 4.0 mm (minimum cementable post height for single-unit restoration is defined as the height above the restorative margin)
• Minimum gingival height of the superstructure – 0 mm (Geo Multibase abutments have minimum gingival height of 1.0 mm)
• Maximum gingival height – 5.0 mm
• Maximum angle – 0° (straight only)

All zirconia copings (superstructures) for use with the subject device Geo Multibase abutment will be made at a GeoMedi Co., Ltd. validated milling center under FDA quality system regulations, and the material will conform to ISO 13356, Implants for surgery – Ceramic materials based on yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia (Y-TZP).

Geo CMFit abutments are cylindrical titanium alloy abutments designed to be used for fabrication of a one-piece, all titanium patient-specific abutment by a CAD/CAM process. The portion of the abutment available for milling is either 9.9 mm in diameter by 20 mm in length or 13.9 mm in diameter by 20 mm in length. Geo CMFit abutments are available in engaging and non-engaging connections.

All patient-specific abutment fabrication is by prescription on the order of the clinician. The design parameters for all CMFit patient-specific abutments are:

• Minimum wall thickness – 0.65 mm
• Minimum cementable post height for single-unit restoration – 4.0 mm (minimum cementable post height for single-unit restoration is defined as the height above the restorative margin)
• Minimum gingival height – 0.5 mm
• Maximum gingival height – 5.0 mm
• Maximum angle – 30°

Manufacture of the Geo Abutment CMFIT patient-specific abutment is to be performed at an GeoMedi Co., Ltd. validated milling center.

The provided text is a 510(k) clearance letter for a dental implant abutment, not an AI/ML medical device where performance characteristics like sensitivity, specificity, or reader studies are typically discussed.

The document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through:

• Indications for Use (IFU) comparison: Showing that the intended use of the Geo Abutment is the same as already cleared devices (supporting prosthetic devices in edentulous patients, compatible with various implants).
• Technological characteristics comparison: Detailing similarities in design, materials (titanium alloy, TiN coating, zirconia for superstructures), manufacturing processes (CAD/CAM, milling center), mechanical properties, and sterilization methods.
• Non-clinical performance data: This section lists types of tests conducted (e.g., mechanical testing per ISO 14801, shear/tension testing per ASTM F1044/F1147, sterilization validation per ISO 17665-1/2, biocompatibility per ISO 10993-5/12) to ensure the device meets safety and performance standards equivalent to the predicate. However, it does not provide acceptance criteria or specific numerical results from these tests. It only states that these tests were done to "demonstrate that the subject devices... have sufficient strength for the intended use" and "characterize the mechanical properties."

Therefore, based on the provided document, I cannot fulfill your request for:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: This detailed information is typically part of the test reports submitted to the FDA, but not usually summarized in the publicly available 510(k) clearance letter or summary in this level of detail (i.e., the specific pass/fail thresholds and the measured values for each test). The document only states what was tested and the conclusion that it demonstrated "sufficient strength."
2. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance: This information is not present in the 510(k) summary. These details would be in the specific test protocols and reports.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth... and their qualifications: This is not applicable as this is a physical device, not an AI/ML diagnostic aid requiring human expert annotation for ground truth.
4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable for this type of device.
5. MRMC comparative effectiveness study: Not applicable for a physical dental abutment. This is typically for AI/ML diagnostic devices.
6. Standalone (algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance): Not applicable for a physical device.
7. The type of ground truth used: For a physical device like a dental abutment, "ground truth" relates to material properties, mechanical strength, dimensional accuracy, and biocompatibility, as demonstrated through engineering tests and material characterization, not clinical outcomes or expert consensus in an AI sense. The document refers to ISO and ASTM standards, which define the test methods and what constitutes acceptable performance (the "ground truth" for material and mechanical properties).
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.

In summary, the provided document demonstrates substantial equivalence for a physical dental device through comparison to predicate devices and adherence to established engineering and material standards, rather than through clinical study formats typically seen for AI/ML diagnostic tools.

To answer your question, if this were an AI/ML device document, the "acceptance criteria" and "reported device performance" would typically be found in sections describing performance metrics like:

• Sensitivity, Specificity, Accuracy
• Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve (AUC)
• Positive Predictive Value (PPV), Negative Predictive Value (NPV)
• F-score or Dice coefficient (for segmentation tasks)
• Comparison to a "clinical standard of care" or "expert performance."

And the "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" would be a clinical validation study (often a retrospective or prospective reader study or a standalone algorithm performance study) with clearly defined ground truth, reader qualifications, and statistical analysis. None of these elements are present because the device is a physical dental abutment.

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 & Ø3.3mm) 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 & Ø3.3mm) are indicated for use in mandibular and maxillary lateral and central incisor, 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 EK D3.3 and Ultra Wide 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 components and prosthetic parts, 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 is sand blasted and acid etched plus treated with a layer of low crystalline HA and super hydrophilic coating.

The EK D3.3 and Ultra Wide Dental Implants are available in various lengths and diameters; configurations are listed in the table below.

This document describes the premarket notification (510(k)) for the EK D3.3 and Ultra Wide Dental Implants. It focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices rather than providing a study demonstrating performance against specific acceptance criteria for a new device's efficacy or safety.

Therefore, the provided text does not contain the information requested regarding acceptance criteria and a study that proves the device meets those criteria for a new device's performance. Instead, it relies on demonstrating that the new device (EK D3.3 and Ultra Wide Dental Implants) is substantially equivalent to existing, legally marketed predicate devices, thereby leveraging their established safety and effectiveness.

Here's a breakdown of why the requested information cannot be extracted from the provided text:

• No new acceptance criteria: The document is a 510(k) summary, which aims to show substantial equivalence. It does not define new, quantitative acceptance criteria for this specific device's novel performance.
• No new performance study: The document explicitly states "No clinical performance report(s) is being submitted." The non-clinical data section describes various tests (Biocompatibility, Sterilization Validation, Shelf Life, Surface Treatment Characterization, Fatigue Testing, MR conditional) where the new device is either identical to the predicate, uses the same processes/materials, or is referenced from existing data. These are comparative tests to support equivalence, not studies proving performance against a set of newly established acceptance criteria for a novel AI device or a device requiring new clinical evidence of effectiveness.
• No AI component: The device described is a dental implant, a physical medical device, not an AI/ML-driven device. Thus, questions regarding AI-specific criteria (MRMC studies, standalone performance, ground truth establishment) are not applicable.

In summary, the provided text details a regulatory submission leveraging substantial equivalence, not a study demonstrating a device's performance against specific acceptance criteria.

To answer your prompt, I would need a document describing a new device that underwent a performance study to prove its efficacy or safety against pre-defined acceptance criteria, ideally including an AI/ML component if you intend to ask about those specific details.

Ask a specific question about this device

Dentis s-Clean SQ-SL Fixture is indicated for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae, in support of single or multiple unit restorations including; cemented retained, screw retained, or overdenture restorations, 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.

Dentis s-Clean SQ-SL Fixture is two type as Mini and Regular according to the connection. Dentis s-Clean SQ-SL Fixture is a thread type implant made of Pure titanium according to ASTM F67 which will be placed in the alveolar bone to replace the function of the missing tooth. This device has connection between the upper prosthesis and the internal Hex.

The surface of fixture is treated with SLA (Sandblasted with Large-grit and Acid-etching).

The dimensions of fixtures are as following:

Tolerance of dimension shall be within ± 1% range.

s-Clean SQ-SL Fixture is compatible with devices in K192688 and K210134 as below:

s-Clean SO-SL Fixture Mini is compatible with devices in K210080 as below:

Denis s-Clean SQ-SL Fixture is provided sterilized.

Dentis s-Clean SQ-SL Fixture is packaged with Cover screw that was cleared in FDA as K192688 and K210080.

This document is a 510(k) Summary for the Dentis s-Clean SQ-SL Fixture, a dental implant. It does not contain information about the acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria from an AI/algorithm performance perspective. The document focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to predicate devices through non-clinical testing.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information regarding AI/algorithm acceptance criteria, test set details, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, ground truth types, or training set details because this information is not present in the provided text.

The "Non-Clinical Test Data" section describes engineering and biocompatibility tests conducted on the device, not an AI algorithm.

Non-Clinical Test Data Summary (from the document):

• Tests performed on the subject device: Fatigue Testing (ISO 14801:2016).
• Tests performed on predicate devices and leveraged for the subject device:
  • Sterilization Validation Test on Fixtures (ISO 11137-1,2,3 referenced in K192688).
  • Shelf-Life Test on Fixtures (ASTM F1980 referenced in K153639).
  • Biocompatibility testing on fixtures (ISO 10993-1:2009, ISO 10993-3:2014, ISO 10993-5:2009, ISO 10993-6:2007, ISO 10993-10:2010 and ISO 10993-11:2006 referenced in K153639).
  • Bacterial Endotoxin Test Report on Fixtures (ANSI/AAMI ST72:2011, USP , and USP referenced in K192688).
• Acceptance Criteria for these non-clinical tests: "met the criteria of the standards" (e.g., ISO 14801:2016 for fatigue).
• Study Design/Purpose: To demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices.
• MR Environment Condition: A non-clinical worst-case MRI review was performed using scientific rationale and published literature to evaluate magnetic safety, addressing magnetically induced displacement force and torque.

This document describes a traditional medical device (dental implant) clearance process, not one involving Artificial Intelligence.

Ask a specific question about this device

Medentika abutments are intended for use with dental implants as a support for single or multiple tooth prostheses in the maxilla or mandible of a partially or fully edentulous patient.
Medentika abutments for the Dentsply Sirona Astra Tech OsseoSpeed EV 3.0mm and TX 3.0mm implant bodies are indicated for maxillary lateral and mandibular central/lateral incisors only.
Medentika TiBase CAD/CAM Abutments are intended for use with dental implants as a support for single or multiple tooth prostheses in the maxilla or mandible of a partially or fully edentulous patient. Medentika TiBase is intended for use with the Straumann® CARES® System. All digitally designed copings and/or crowns are intended to be sent to Straumann for manufacture at a validated milling center.
Medentika abutments for the Nobel Biocare Nobel Active®* 3.0mm, Dentsply Sirona Astra Tech OsseoSpeed EV®* 3.0mm and TX®* 3.0mm implant bodies are indicated for maxillary lateral and mandibular central/lateral incisors only.
Medentika PreFace CAD/CAM Abutments are intended for use with dental implants as a support for single or multiple tooth prostheses in the maxilla or mandible of a partially or fully edentulous patient.
Medentika Preface is intended for use with the Straumann® CARES® System. All digitally designed abutments for use with Medentika CAD/CAM Abutments are intended to be manufactured at a Straumann® CARES® validated milling center. The final patient matched form is a MedentiCAD abutment.
Medentika abutments for the Dentsply Sirona Astra Tech OsseoSpeed EV 3.0mm implant bodies are indicated for maxillary lateral and mandibular central/lateral incisors only.
Multi-unit abutments are indicated for use with dental implants as a support for multi-unit screw retained bridges and bars in the maxilla or mandible of a partially or fully edentulous patient.

The Medentika abutments include abutments, abutment screws, caps, and bases which are labelled under a specific Medentika series and are compatible with a specified dental implant system. The abutments include sinqle-unit abutments intended for use with dental implants as a support for single or multiple tooth protheses in the maxilla or mandible of a partially or fully edentulous patient. The abutments also include multi-unit abutments indicated for use with dental implants as a support for multi-unit screw retained bridges and bars in the maxilla or mandible of a partially or fully edentulous patient.
The purpose of this premarket notification is to add additional abutments. The subject abutments include abutments compatible with additional dental implant systems forming a new Medentika series (the OT series). The subject abutments also include abutments compatible with new implant diameters in existing Medentika series (E, EV, F, and S). Lastly, the subject abutments include new abutment designs compatible with existing implant diameters in existing Medentika series (R).

This looks like a 510(k) Summary for a medical device (dental abutments), which means the document is about proving "substantial equivalence" to a predicate device, not about proving clinical effectiveness or performance against pre-defined acceptance criteria in the way one might for a novel AI/software medical device.

Therefore, the information requested in your bullet points (e.g., acceptance criteria table, sample size for test set, number of experts for ground truth, MRMC study, standalone performance, training set details) is not applicable to this type of regulatory submission because the device is a mechanical one, not an AI/software device. The data presented here is focused on demonstrating physical and mechanical compatibility and equivalence to previously cleared devices.

Here's why each point is not applicable and what information is provided:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: This document doesn't provide a typical "acceptance criteria" table as would be seen for an AI/software device measuring diagnostic performance (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC). Instead, it relies on demonstrating that the new abutments perform similarly to existing, cleared abutments through "dynamic fatigue testing" and "dimensional analysis and reverse engineering." The performance is implicitly "accepted" if these tests show equivalence to the predicate.

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective): No "test set" in the context of diagnostic performance is mentioned. The "testing" refers to non-clinical, physical testing (fatigue, dimensional analysis). There is no patient data involved in this type of submission 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. Ground truth, in the AI/software sense, is not established for this device. The "truth" is based on engineered specifications and physical testing.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable. No human adjudication of diagnostic output is relevant 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: Not applicable. This is not an AI-assisted device.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This is not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): Not applicable. The "ground truth" is engineering specifications and physical measurements.

8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. There is no AI/machine learning component to "train."

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable for the same reason as above.

What the document does provide regarding device performance and testing:

• Type of Testing:

  • Dynamic fatigue testing according to FDA guidance and ISO 14801 (Dentistry - implants dynamic loading test for endosseous dental implants).
  • Dimensional analysis and reverse engineering of the implant-to-abutment connection platform.
  • Sterilization validation (steam and gamma irradiation) referenced from K191123, ISO 17665-1, ISO/TS 17665-2, ISO 11137-1, ISO 11137-2.
  • Sterile packaging validation referenced from K191123, ISO 11607-1, ISO 11607-2.
  • Biocompatibility evaluations referenced from K142167, K170838, K191123, K150203, K061804 in accordance with ISO 10993-1.
  • MR testing referenced from K180564 in accordance with ASTM F2052-15, ASTM F2213-06 (2011), ASTM F2182-11a, and ASTM F2119-13.

• Conclusion: The tests demonstrated "implant to abutment compatibility" and "established substantial equivalency of the proposed device with predicate devices." This is the "proof" that the device meets the (implicit) acceptance of being substantially equivalent to existing, legally marketed devices.

In summary, this document is for a traditional mechanical medical device, and the regulatory pathway does not involve performance studies in the way you've outlined for AI/software-based devices.

Ask a specific question about this device

J & P Click Attachments are designed to support fixed, partial or full arch restorations on endosseous dental implants in the mandible or maxilla for the purpose of restoring masticatory function. They are used in fixed hybrid restorations that can be attached with a click in system. Click attachments are indicated for use with vertical implant placements. They are indicated for the following implant systems: Biohorizons Tapered Tissue Level implants in diameters 3.8, 4.2, 4.6, 5.2 mm Nobel Biocare NobelActive including 3.5. 4.3, 5.0 mm diameter NobelActive, 3.75, 4.3, 5.0mm diameter NobelParallel and 3.5. 4.3. 5.0mm diameter NobelReplace Conical Connection Implants Implant Direct Legacy 3 for 3.7, 4.2, 4.7, 5.2mm diameter implants Surgikor Versatile for 3.5, 3.75, 4.2, 4.5, 5.0, 6.0mm diameter implants Surgikor Fixation for 3.5. 3.9. 4.3. 5.0mm diameter implants Surgikor Solution for 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, 5.5, 6.0mm diameter implants Neodent Grand Morse for 3.5, 3.75, 4.0, 4.3 and 5.0 mm diameter implants MIS Seven for implant diameters 3.75, 4.2, 5, and 6mm Zimmer for Tapered Screw-Vent in 3.7, 4.1 and 4.7mm implant diameter Hiossen ETIII for 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, 5.5, 6.0, and 7.0mm implant diameters SIN Cone Morse 11.5° and 16° implant lines 11.5° Strong SW/SW Plus implant diameters 3.5. 3.8.4.5. 5.0mm Unitite implant diameters 3.5. 4.0.4.3. 5.0. 6.0 Tryon CM Conical implant diameters 3.5, 4.5, 5.0 Tryon CM Cylindrical implant diameters 3.5, 3.75, 4.0. 5.0 Epikut CM/CM Plus implant diameters 3.5, 3.8, 4.0. 4.5, 5.0 16 ° Strong SW CM Plus implant diameters 3.5, 3.8, 4.5 and 5.0mm Epikut S/S Plus implant diameters 3.5, 3.8. 4.0. 4.5. 5.0mm

J & P Click Attachments provide a rigid connection of fixed, partial and full arch restorations (fixed/detachable hybrid dentures) to endosseous dental implants. They consist of abutments, attachment housings, and inserts. The abutments are provided in various OEM implant and abutment connections. The abutments are made from Ti-6AL-4V ELI which meets ASTM F136. All varieties of click attachments come in collar heights of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6mm. Abutment platform diameters include: Biohorizons 3.5, and 4.5mm Nobel Biocare Nobel Active 3.5 and 3.9mm (NobelParallel and NobelReplace Conical Connection are the same) Implant Direct Legacy 3.5 and 4.5mm Surgikor Versatile 3.5 and 4.5mm Surgikor Fixation and Solution 3.5 and 3.9mm Neodent Grand Morse 3.0mm MIS Seven 3.5 and 4.5mm Zimmer for Tapered ScrewVent 3.5 and 4.5mm Hiossen ETIII 3.35mm SIN 2.5mm for 11.5° cone morse and 2.72 mm for 16° cone morse

The document describes the J & P Click Attachments, which are dental implant abutments. The submission aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device, the Zest High Retention Attachment System (K220252), and several reference predicates.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

It is important to note that the provided text is a 510(k) summary for a premarket notification, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than defining specific acceptance criteria for a new clinical study. Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" here are based on comparative attributes for demonstrating substantial equivalence, and "reported device performance" refers to the characteristics of the J & P Click Attachments as compared to the predicate.

Study Proving Device Meets Acceptance Criteria:

The document describes a series of non-clinical tests and a comparison to predicate devices, rather than a single "study that proves the device meets acceptance criteria" in the sense of a clinical trial with predefined statistical endpoints. The primary method for demonstrating substantial equivalence is through comparative analysis with predicate devices and non-clinical testing.

Non-Clinical Testing Performed:

• Abutment Steam Sterilization: Done according to ISO 17665-1.
• Cytotoxicity Testing: Conducted according to ISO 10993-5.
• Reverse Engineering Tolerance Analyses: Conducted for all OEM implant systems in the indications for use. These analyses covered OEM implant body models, OEM abutment models, and OEM abutment screw models to ensure compatibility.
• MR Environment Condition (MRI Review): Non-clinical worst-case MRI review was performed using scientific rationale and published literature (e.g., Woods, Terry O., et al., 2019) to evaluate magnetic compatibility, specifically for magnetically induced displacement force and torque, based on the entire system and material composition (Ti-6AL-4V ELI).

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 describe a clinical "test set" with human or animal subjects in the traditional sense of a clinical study.
• The "test set" for the reverse engineering tolerance analyses would be the designs and physical specifications of the OEM implant systems. The number of samples for these analyses is not specified beyond "all OEM implant systems in the indications for use."
• Data provenance: Not explicitly stated, but the submission is for an FDA 510(k), implying compliance with US regulatory standards. Non-clinical tests like cytotoxicity (ISO 10993-5) and sterilization (ISO 17665-1) are international standards.

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 information is not provided in the document. The substantial equivalence determination is based on comparative attributes and non-clinical engineering and biological testing, not on expert-adjudicated ground truth from a clinical data set.

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

• This information is not applicable as there is no mention of a human-reviewed "test set" requiring adjudication in the context of this 510(k) submission.

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

• This information is not provided and is not applicable to this type of medical device (dental implant attachments). MRMC studies are typically used for imaging diagnostics involving human readers and AI. This device is a mechanical component, not an AI software.

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

• This information is not provided and is not applicable. This device is a physical dental component and does not involve an algorithm or AI.

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

• For the non-clinical tests:
  • Sterilization: Ground truth is defined by the requirements of ISO 17665-1.
  • Cytotoxicity: Ground truth is defined by the requirements and endpoints of ISO 10993-5.
  • Reverse Engineering Tolerance Analyses: Ground truth is the design specifications and tolerances of the referenced OEM implant systems.
  • MRI Environment Review: Ground truth is established by scientific rationale and published literature referenced (e.g., relating to magnetic properties of materials).
• For substantial equivalence: The "ground truth" is the established characteristics and performance of the legally marketed predicate devices, as documented in their 510(k) clearances and product specifications.

8. The sample size for the training set

• This information is not provided and is not applicable. The device is a physical medical device, not an AI or software device that undergoes a training phase.

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

• This information is not provided and is not applicable (see point 8).

Ask a specific question about this device

STERI-OSS Implant System is intended for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxilla, in support of single of multiple-unit restorations including; cemented retained, or overdenture restorations, and terminal or intermediate abutment support for fixed bridgework. STERI-OSS Implant System is for single stage surgical procedures. This system is intended for delayed loading.

STERI-OSS Implant System, Fixture is a medical device made of titanium that is inserted into the maxillary or mandibular alveolar bone to support prosthesis such as artificial teeth for the patient's recovery of masticatory function.
STERI-OSS Implant System. Abutment is inserted to support prosthesis such as artificial teeth, and is a medical device made of titanium alloy. It connects artificial teeth with a fixture implanted in the maxillary or mandibular alveolar bone where teeth are lost.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the STERI-OSS Implant System, which is a dental implant system. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than providing a study where the device meets pre-defined acceptance criteria for performance in a clinical setting. For medical devices undergoing 510(k) clearance, the primary goal is to show that the new device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device, not necessarily to meet specific novel performance acceptance criteria through clinical studies.

Therefore, the requested information elements such as "acceptance criteria and the reported device performance," "sample sizes used for the test set," "number of experts used to establish ground truth," "adjudication method," "MRMC comparative effectiveness study," "standalone performance," "type of ground truth," "sample size for the training set," and "how ground truth for the training set was established" are typically not applicable in the context of a 510(k) substantial equivalence submission for a device like a dental implant. These elements are more commonly associated with clinical trials or performance studies for novel devices or software with AI/ML components requiring new clinical evidence.

The document describes non-clinical testing to demonstrate that the differences between the subject device and predicate devices do not affect substantial equivalence.

Here's a breakdown of the available and non-applicable information based on your request:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

This information is not applicable in the format typically used for performance studies with defined acceptance criteria for clinical outcomes. The document instead presents a comparison of technological characteristics with predicate devices and reports on non-clinical engineering and materials testing to support substantial equivalence.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Elos Accurate® Customized Abutments are intended for attaching to dental implants in order to provide basis for single or multiple tooth prosthetic restorations. The Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment will be attached to a dental implant using the included Elos Prosthetic screw. The Elos Accurate® Customized Abutments are compatible with the implant systems listed in Table 1.

The Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment is a patient specific abutment intended for attaching to dental implants in order to provide basis for single- or multiple tooth prosthetic restorations. The Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment will be attached to the implant using the included Elos Prosthetic Screw and attached to the crown/coping manually by cementation. The Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment consists of an Abuttnent Blank used in fabricating of a full patient-specific abutment in Titanium alloy per ASTM F136. The Abutment Blank used in creation of the Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment has a pre-manufactured connection interface that fits directly to a pre-specified dental implant. The customized shape of the abutument is intended to be manufactured according to a digital dentistry workflow or intended to be manufactured at an FDA registered Elos Medtech approved milling facility. The Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment is delivered non-sterile and the final restoration including corresponding Elos Prosthetic Screw is intended to be sterilized at the dental clinic before it is placed in the patient. The Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment provides clinicians and laboratories with a prosthetic device that can be used in definitive (permanent) single- or multi restorations.

The provided document, K231307 for Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment, is an FDA 510(k) premarket notification. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices rather than presenting a standalone study with defined acceptance criteria and performance metrics in the way a clinical trial or a performance study for an AI/ML powered medical device would.

The "acceptance criteria" discussed in this document pertain to the device meeting the requirements for FDA 510(k) clearance by demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, primarily through engineering, dimensional, and non-clinical testing. There is no mention of a human-in-the-loop study, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) study, or an AI/ML algorithm-only standalone performance study.

Therefore, many of the requested fields regarding expert adjudication, MRMC studies, and ground truth establishment for AI/ML models are not applicable to the information contained within this 510(k) submission.

Here's an interpretation of the document's contents in relation to your request, with a focus on non-clinical testing and substantial equivalence:

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

The "acceptance criteria" for this device are implicitly tied to demonstrating substantial equivalence to its predicates and meeting established material and dental implant abutment standards. The document doesn't present a table with numerical acceptance criteria and performance for a diagnostic AI algorithm. Instead, it lists various non-clinical tests and their successful outcomes as evidence of substantial equivalence and safety/effectiveness.

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

• Test Set Sample Size: The document does not specify exact "sample sizes" in terms of number of abutments or implants tested for each reported non-clinical test. The tests are general performance validations (e.g., fatigue, cytotoxicity, sterilization efficacy) and dimensional analyses that demonstrate compliance with relevant standards or a worst-case scenario. For example, fatigue testing often involves a small number of samples (e.g., 6 minimum per ISO 14801, though more are often used for statistical power) under specific loading conditions. Similarly, biocompatibility is performed on representative samples.
• Data Provenance: The data comes from the manufacturer's (Elos Medtech Pinol A/S) internal testing and leverages data from previously cleared devices where material, size, and geometry are substantially equivalent. The provenance is therefore the manufacturer's testing facilities and associated regulatory submissions. There is no indication of different countries of origin for the data concerning these non-clinical tests. The tests are prospective in nature, as they are part of the premarket submission process.

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

This question is not applicable. The "ground truth" for this medical device (dental abutment) is established by engineering specifications, material properties, performance standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM), and clinical safety and effectiveness data from the predicates. There is no AI/ML component described that would require expert human review or "ground truth" establishment in the context of diagnostic interpretation.

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

This question is not applicable as there is no human interpretation or diagnostic "test set" that would require adjudication.

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 question is not applicable. The device is a physical dental abutment and its associated digital design workflow, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool requiring human reader studies.

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

This question is not applicable. The device is not a standalone AI algorithm. The digital dentistry workflow involves CAD software and CAM software, but these are tools for designing and manufacturing the physical abutment, not for automated diagnostic interpretation or decision-making in the clinical sense of an AI/ML algorithm.

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

The "ground truth" for this device's performance, as demonstrated in the submission, is based on:

• Compliance with international standards (e.g., ISO 14801 for fatigue, ISO 10993-5 for biocompatibility, ISO 17665 for sterilization).
• Engineering and dimensional analysis against established dental implant system specifications.
• Physical testing results (e.g., torque, heating, displacement) for MR compatibility.
• Validation of the digital workflow ensuring design constraints and manufacturing accuracy.
• The fundamental demonstration is substantial equivalence to existing legally marketed predicate devices, implying that their established safety and effectiveness forms the basis of the "ground truth" for this device's intended use.

8. The sample size for the training set

This question is not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that requires a training set for model development. The design software has built-in constraints ("design limitations" and "design limits in the library file"), which are more akin to pre-programmed rules and geometric parameters rather than a learned model from data.

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

This question is not applicable. No AI/ML training set is mentioned or implied. The "ground truth" for the design limitations within the software (e.g., minimum material thickness) would be established by engineering principles, biomechanical studies (often in labs, not clinical trials), and clinical experience with dental prosthetics, which define safe and effective design parameters.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base™ is intended for attaching to dental implants in order to provide basis for single or multiple tooth prosthetic restorations. The Hybrid Base™ is used as an interface between a dental implant and a zirconia superstructure and will be attached to the implant using a prosthetic screw and attached to the zirconia superstructure by cementing. The Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base™ is compatible with the implant systems listed in table 1:

| Implant Platform compatibility | Platform diameter
[mm] | Implant Body diameter
[mm] |
|--------------------------------|---------------------------|--------------------------------|
| Zimmer Screw-vent 3.5 | Ø3.5 | Ø3.7/Ø4.1 |
| Zimmer Screw-vent 4.5 | Ø4.5 | Ø4.7 |
| Zimmer Screw-vent 5.7 | Ø5.7 | Ø6.0 |
| Biomet 3i Certain 3.4 | Ø3.4 | Ø3.25 |
| Biomet 3i Certain 4.1 | Ø4.1 | Ø4 |
| Biomet 3i Certain 5.0 | Ø5 | Ø5 |
| Biomet 3i Certain 6.0 | Ø6 | Ø6 |
| Straumann Standard RN | Ø4.8 | Ø3.3/Ø4.1/Ø4.8 |
| Straumann Standard WN | Ø6.5 | Ø4.8 |
| Neodent GM | Ø3.5/Ø4.5/Ø5.5/Ø 6.5 | Ø3.5/Ø3.75/Ø4/Ø4.3/Ø 5/Ø 6/Ø 7 |
| Hiossen ET Mini | Ø3.2/Ø3.5 | Ø3.2/Ø3.5 |
| Hiossen ET Regular | Ø4/Ø4.5/Ø5/ Ø5.5/Ø6/Ø7 | Ø4/Ø4.5/Ø5/ Ø5.5/Ø6/Ø7 |

The zirconia superstructures for use with the Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base™ are either intended to be sent and manufactured at an FDA registered Elos Medtech approved milling facility or to be designed and manufactured according to digital dentistry workflow system integrates multiple components of the digital dentistry workflow: scan files from Intra-Oral Scanners, CAD software, CAM software, ceramic material, milling machine and associated tooling and accessories.

The Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base™ is intended for attaching to dental implants in order to provide basis for single or multiple tooth prosthetic restorations. The Hybrid Base™ is used as an interface between a dental implant and a zirconia superstructure and will be attached to the implant using the included prosthetic screw and attached to the zirconia superstructure by cementing. The Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base™ is a two-piece abutment composed of the Hybrid Base as the bottomhalf and the zirconia superstructure as the top-half, which when assembled comprises the final finished medical device.

The Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base™ consists of a pre-manufactured prosthetic component in Titanium alloy per ASTM F136, as well as supporting digital library file for 510(k) cleared design software (3Shape Abutment Designer™ Software, K151455) which facilitates the design of a patient specific zirconia superstructure by the laboratory/clinician. The Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base™ fits directly to an endosseous dental implant. The laboratory designed superstructure is manufactured from 510(k) cleared Zirconia (Lava Plus, K011394) according to digital dentistry workflow. For all Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base™ models the zirconia superstructure must be designed according to following limits:

• 1. Minimum wall thickness 0.5 mm
• 2. Minimum post height 4.0 mm (for single unit restorations)
• 3. Maximum gingival height 5.0 mm (min. GH of 0.5mm)
• 4. Maximum angulation 20°

The laboratory designed superstructure is attached to the Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base by use of 510(k) cleared cement (Multilink Hybrid Abutment, K130436 or Panavia V5, K150704) and the final prosthetic restoration is attached to the implant using a Prosthetic screw.

The Elos Accurate® Hybrid Bas has a gold-colored anodized surface to increase the esthetics of the dental restoration - the same surface as in predicate device K201860.

Some of the prosthetic screws are uncoated and two screws are Medicarb coated, identical to the Medicarb coating in predicate device K201860. The subject uncoated screws are compatible with implant platforms Zimmer Screw-vent, Biomet 3i, Neodent GM and Straumann Standard RN and WN. The subject Medicarb coated screws are compatible with the implant platforms Hiossen ET Mini and ET Regular. The purpose of the coating is to lower friction in the thread connection and the screw seat connection.

The Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base™ is delivered non-sterile and the final restoration and corresponding screw is intended to be sterilized at the dental clinic before it is placed in the patient.

The Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base™ is a dental device intended for attaching to dental implants to provide a basis for single or multiple tooth prosthetic restorations. It acts as an interface between a dental implant and a zirconia superstructure.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and supporting studies:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

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

   • Fatigue Testing: "fatigue testing was performed on the subject devices per ISO 14801." The exact number of samples tested per device type is not specified but implied to be sufficient for ISO 14801 compliance.
   • Engineering and Dimensional Analysis: Performed on "original manufactures' components (abutments, implants & abutment screws)." The number of components is not specified.
   • Digital Dentistry Workflow Validation/Design Limitation Test: "The digital dentistry workflow validation was completed on selected models of subject product line" and "A design limitation test is performed...". Number of models/tests not specified.
   • Biocompatibility (Cytotoxicity): A cytotoxicity test was performed on "a complete restoration produced via the described validated workflow." Exact number of samples not specified.
   • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but the testing appears to be conducted by or for the manufacturer (Elos Medtech Pinol A/S). No information is given about the country of origin of the data or if it was retrospective or prospective in the context of clinical studies (as this is a non-clinical submission).

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

   • This submission focuses on non-clinical testing and substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on engineering and performance standards. There is no mention of "experts" establishing ground truth in the context of diagnostic performance or clinical outcomes. The "ground truth" for the engineering and material properties would be established by validated test methods and established standards (e.g., ISO 14801, ISO 10993).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

   • Not applicable. This is a non-clinical submission based on engineering tests and standards, not a clinical study requiring adjudication of diagnostic results.

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 study was mentioned or performed. This device is a 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 physical medical device, not an algorithm.

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

   • The "ground truth" in this context refers to established engineering standards, material properties, and performance requirements for dental implant abutments. This includes:
     • ISO 14801: "Dentistry – Implants – Dynamic fatigue test for endosseous dental implants" for fatigue testing.
     • ISO 17665-1 & ISO 17665-2: For sterilization validation.
     • ISO 10993-1 & ISO 10993-5: For biocompatibility (cytotoxicity).
     • Engineering and dimensional analysis: Based on specifications of original manufacturers' components.

8. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. This device is not an AI/machine learning product and does not have a "training set." The closest analogy could be the design and manufacturing parameters used to create the device, which are based on established engineering principles and prior device knowledge.

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

   • Not applicable, as there is no "training set" for this type of medical device. The design and manufacturing are based on established engineering principles and validation against performance standards.

Ask a specific question about this device

The LW 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, screw retained, or overdenture restorations, and terminal or intermediate abutment support for fixed bridgework. The LW Implant System is dedicated for two stage surgical procedures and is intended for delayed loading. Also, implants with diameters larger than 5mm are indicated for molar regions.

The LW Implant System consists of a fixture, cover screw, healing abutments, and abutment screw. The Fixture is made of CP Ti Grade 4(ASTM F67) with the surface treated by the SLA method. It has several design characteristics: internal hex connection, submerged type, tapered body, sided cutting edge. The Cover Screw and Healing Abutment are made of CP Ti Grade 4(ASTM F67) without any surface treatment. The Abutments consist of the LW Solid, LW Angled, LW Vis and LW Temporary Abutment, and LW Abutment Screw. The abutments have s-Line type and cuff type. The abutments are made of Ti-6AI-4V-ELI (ASTM F136).

The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for the LW Implant System. It outlines substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than providing a detailed study report with specific acceptance criteria and performance data for this device. Therefore, a table of acceptance criteria and direct device performance is not explicitly available in the provided text in the way one would typically find for a new, de novo device or a clinical study.

The document focuses on demonstrating that the LW Implant System is "substantially equivalent" to already legally marketed predicate devices. This means that the device meets the same safety and effectiveness standards, often by showing it performs as well as, or better than, a known predicate device.

Based on the provided text, here's a breakdown of the requested information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

As noted, the document doesn't present specific acceptance criteria and performance data in a dedicated table for the LW Implant System, as it's a 510(k) submission focused on substantial equivalence. Instead, it describes various non-clinical tests performed to demonstrate that the device meets established standards and performs comparably to predicate devices. The "acceptance criteria" are implied by adherence to relevant ISO and ASTM standards and FDA guidance documents, and the "reported device performance" is essentially that the device "met the acceptance criteria" or "demonstrated substantial equivalence."

Here's an interpretation of the implied acceptance criteria and the summary of reported performance:

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

The document does not explicitly state the specific sample sizes for each non-clinical test performed (e.g., how many devices were subjected to fatigue testing, or how many samples for biocompatibility). It references standards like ISO and ASTM, which inherently define sample size requirements, but the exact numbers are not reported in this summary.

Data Provenance: The tests are non-clinical (laboratory-based) and were conducted to support the safety and performance of the device against established standards and predicate device comparisons. The "country of origin of the data" is not explicitly stated for each test, but the applicant, Ossvis Co., Ltd., is based in the Republic of Korea. The data is retrospective in the sense that the tests were completed before this submission.

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

This information is not applicable to the provided document. The "ground truth" in this context is established through adherence to recognized international standards (ISO, ASTM) and national regulations (FDA guidance documents). These standards typically involve scientific and engineering principles, and the "experts" are the scientific and engineering professionals who developed these standards and those who conducted the tests in accordance with them. There is no mention of a ground truth established by a panel of clinical experts for a test set in a diagnostic or clinical performance study for this device.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable. Adjudication methods (like 2+1, 3+1) are typically used in clinical studies involving interpretation of results by multiple readers (e.g., radiologists, pathologists) to establish a consensus ground truth. Since the reported studies are non-clinical performance and safety tests, a human adjudication method is not used. The "adjudication" is essentially the determination of whether the device passed the specified test according to the defined acceptance criteria in the relevant standards.

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The document focuses on non-clinical performance and safety to demonstrate substantial equivalence, not on the comparative effectiveness of human readers with or without AI assistance. This device is a physical dental implant system, not an AI/software as a medical device.

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

No, this is not applicable. This device is a physical medical device (dental implant system), not an algorithm or software. The concept of "standalone performance" without human-in-the-loop is relevant to AI/software applications, not to this type of medical device.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests is based on established scientific and engineering standards and regulatory guidance limits. For example:

• Sterility: Defined by ISO 11137 with an SAL of 10-6.
• Biocompatibility: Defined by ISO 10993 standards.
• Fatigue: Defined by ISO 14801.
• Bacterial Endotoxin: Defined by USP and .
• Surface Characteristics: Defined by FDA special controls guidance for dental implants.

The comparison is also made against the performance and characteristics of legally marketed predicate devices, implying that their established safety and effectiveness serve as a practical "ground truth" for substantial equivalence.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable. The LW Implant System is a physical medical device. The concept of a "training set" typically applies to machine learning algorithms where data is used to train a model.

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

This information is not applicable, as there is no "training set" for this physical medical device.

Ask a specific question about this device

Bonafix TiBase abutments are intended for use with dental implants as a support for single-unit or multi-unit prostheses in the maxillary or mandibular arch of a partially or fully edentulous patient.

The Bonafix TiBase abutment is composed of two-piece abutment that is a titanium base at the bottom and a zirconia superstructure (CAD/CAM patient specific superstructure) at the top. The dental restoration and mesostructure are fabricated using a CAD/CAM process. The subject device abutment platform diameters range from 3.0 mm to 5.7 mm, and the corresponding compatible implant body diameters also range from 3.3 mm to 7.0 mm. The apical end is prefabricated to match the compatible implant platform and is available with implant connections for crowns (engaging) or bridges (non-engaging). Each abutment is provided with a screw designed to match the compatible implant.

The titanium base abutment and screw are manufacturated from titanium alloy conforming to ASTM F136. The superstructure is to be manufactured from zirconia conforming to ISO 13356. The subject devices are provided non-sterile to the end user. All digitally designed superstructures, and/or hybrid crowns for use with Bonafix TiBase abutments are to be sent to a Zentek validated Milling center for manufacture. The zirconia superstructure in straight only and is not to be designed to provide an angle or divergence correction.

The provided text is related to a 510(k) premarket notification for a dental device called "Bonafix TiBase." This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting a study proving a device meets specific performance acceptance criteria for a new clinical claim.

Therefore, the input document does not contain the information requested regarding:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance.
• Sample sizes or data provenance for a test set.
• Number or qualifications of experts for ground truth establishment.
• Adjudication method for a test set.
• Information on a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study.
• Information on a standalone algorithm performance study.
• The type of ground truth used (beyond what might be inferred from the "Non-Clinical Testing Summary" referring to standards compliance).
• Sample size for the training set.
• How ground truth for the training set was established.

The document primarily focuses on non-clinical testing for biocompatibility, sterilization, and engineering/dimensional analysis to support substantial equivalence.

The "Non-Clinical Testing Summary" mentions an "Engineering and dimensional analysis... for determination of compatibility" and compliance with ISO 10993-5 (cytotoxicity) and ANSI/AAMI/ISO 17665-1 (sterilization). It also refers to an MRI review based on scientific rationale and published literature. However, these are evaluations of the device's characteristics against standards and existing knowledge, not a study proving a specific performance metric against a defined acceptance criterion in the way an AI/ML device might be evaluated for diagnostic accuracy.

The document explicitly states: "Clinical testing was not required to demonstrate the substantial equivalence of the Bonafix TiBase to its predicate device." This further confirms that the type of study you're asking about (e.g., related to diagnostic accuracy, clinical outcomes for a new claim, or AI performance) was not conducted or deemed necessary for this 510(k) submission.

Ask a specific question about this device