Search Results

ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic is intended for use with dental implants as a support for single or multiple-unit prosthetic restorations in the maxilla or mandible of partially or fully edentulous patient. It is including; cemented retained, screw-retained, or overdenture restorations.

It is compatible with the following systems:

• · Astra OsseoSpeed EV(K130999) 3.0
• · Astra OsseoSpeed EV(K120414) 3.6, 4.2, 4.8, 5.4 mm
• Tapered Internal Implants (K071638) (K143022) 3.4. 3.8. 4.6. 5.8 mm
• · BioHorizons Laser-Lok Implant System (K093321) 3.0 mm
• · Conelog Screw-Line (K113779) 3.3, 3.8, 4.3, 5.0 mm
• Osstem TSIII SA (K121995) 3.5 (3.7) , 4.0 (4.2) , 4.5 (4.6) , 5.0 (5.1), 6.0 (6.0), 7.0 (6.8) mm (Mini. Regular)
• · Megagen AnyRidge Internal Implant System (K140091) 4.0, 4.4, 4.9, 5.4 (3.1)
• · Neodent Implant System GM Helix (K163194, K180536) 3.5, 3.75, 4.0, 4.3, 5.0 (3.0) 6.0 (3.0)
• · Nobel Active 3.0 (K102436) 3.0
• · Nobel Active Internal Connection Implant (K071370) NP RP
• · Nobelactive Wide Platform (Wp) (K133731) WP
• Straumann BLX Implant (K173961, K181703, K191256) 3.5, 3.75, 4.5, 5.5, 6.5 (RB, WB)
• · Straumann 02.9 mm Bone Level Tapered Implants, SC CARES Abutments (K162890) 2.9 (SC)
• · Straumann® Bone Level Tapered Implants (K140878) 3.3, 4.1, 4.8 (NC, RC)
• · Zimmer 3.1mmD Dental Implant System (K142082) 3.1 (2.9)
• (Ti-base only) Screw Vent® and Tapered Screw Vent® (K013227) 3.7(3.5), 4.7(4.5), 6.0(5.7)

All digitally designed abutments and/or coping for use with the abutments are intended to be sent to a ALLONUS Tech-validated milling center for manufacture.

ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic is made of titanium alloy (Ti-6AI-4V ELI, ASTM F136) intended for use as an aid in prosthetic restoration. It consists of Pre-Milled Blank abutment, Ti-Base Abutment, and Multi-unit Abutment and Components (Multi-unit Healing Cap, Multi-unit Temporary cylinder, Multi-unit Ti-cylinder).

Pre-Milled Blank has a pre-manufactured implant interface connection interface with a customizable cylindrical area-by CAD/CAM- above the implant-abutment interface.

Ti Base consists of a two-piece abutment, where the titanium base is a pre-manufactured component of the abutment that will be used to support a CAD/CAM-designed zirconia superstructure (the second part of the two-piece abutment) that composes the final abutment.

Multi-unit Abutment which are placed into the dental implant to provide support for the prosthetic restoration. The abutments are made of Titanium grade Ti-6A1-4V ELI (meets ASTM Standard F-136). Multi-unit Abutment includes abutments and components (Multi-unit Healing Cap, Multi-unit Temporary cylinder, Multi-unit Ti-cylinder). Multi-unit Abutment - are provided in various gingival cuff height ranging from 1 to 6 mm.

All digitally designed abutments and/or coping for use with the abutments are intended to be sent to a ALLONUS Tech-validated milling center for manufacture.

The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for the ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic, which is an endosseous dental implant abutment. It details the device's technical characteristics and compares it to predicate devices to establish substantial equivalence, rather than describing a study that proves the device meets specific acceptance criteria for a new and novel performance claim.

Therefore, many of the requested categories for acceptance criteria and study details are not directly applicable or available in this type of submission. The information provided primarily focuses on demonstrating equivalence through comparison to existing legally marketed devices, material properties, and standard performance tests for similar devices.

However, I can extract the relevant information that is available from the document for each type of device within the ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic family: Pre-Milled Blank, Ti Base, Multi-Unit Abutment, Multi-Unit Healing Cap, Multi-Unit Temporary Cylinder, and Multi-Unit Ti-Cylinder.

General Information on Acceptance Criteria and Studies for ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic (as inferred from the 510(k) Summary):

The ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic is claiming substantial equivalence to predicate devices, meaning it does not need to establish new performance criteria but rather demonstrate that it is as safe and effective as existing legally marketed devices. The "acceptance criteria" here are largely implied by the performance of the predicate devices and the relevant ISO standards for dental implant abutments. The studies performed are non-clinical bench tests.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria (Inferred from Comparison) and Reported Device Performance:

The document presents comparisons to predicate devices to establish substantial equivalence rather than explicit acceptance criteria and corresponding performance metrics for novel claims. However, the design limits of the subject devices are compared to the design limits of the predicate devices, which act as de facto acceptance criteria in the context of substantial equivalence. The device's performance is demonstrated by meeting the standards in non-clinical testing.

Here's a generalized table summarizing this approach:

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

• Test Set Sample Size:
  • The document does not specify the exact sample sizes used for the non-clinical bench tests (fatigue, sterilization, biocompatibility, or dimensional analysis). It only states that tests were performed "for the subject device" and "of the worst-case scenario through fatigue testing."
• Data Provenance:
  • The 510(k) submission is from ALLONUS Tech Co., LTD. in the REPUBLIC OF KOREA. This implies the testing was likely conducted in or overseen by this entity.
  • The studies were non-clinical bench tests, not clinical studies involving human patients. Therefore, terms like "retrospective" or "prospective" clinical dataProvenance are not applicable here.

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

• This information is not provided in the 510(k) Summary. For non-clinical bench testing, "ground truth" is typically established by recognized international standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM) and engineering principles, rather than expert consensus on clinical cases.
• The document mentions "Dimensional analysis and reverse engineering... were performed" and "assessment of maximum and minimum dimensions... along with cross-sectional images." This suggests engineering expertise, but specific numbers or qualifications of experts are not stated.

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

• This is not applicable as the studies were non-clinical bench tests. Adjudication methods like 2+1 (two readers plus one adjudicator) are used in clinical studies, particularly for diagnostic imaging, to resolve discrepancies in expert interpretations of patient data.

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

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study (MRMC) is relevant for diagnostic AI devices that assist human interpretation of medical images or data. The ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic is a physical medical device (dental implant abutment), not an AI diagnostic tool.

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

• No, a standalone (algorithm-only) performance study was not done. This question is also typically relevant for AI/software as a medical device (SaMD). The ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic is a physical device that integrates with human dental procedures.

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

• For the non-clinical tests (fatigue, sterilization, biocompatibility), the "ground truth" is adherence to recognized international standards (ISO, ASTM) and established engineering specifications.
• For implant-to-abutment compatibility, the "ground truth" was based on dimensional analysis and reverse engineering of OEM implant bodies, abutments, and screws, comparing the subject device's design to established OEM specifications.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• This is not applicable. "Training set" refers to data used to train machine learning algorithms. The ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic is a physical medical device, not an AI/ML algorithm.

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

• This is not applicable as there is no training set for a physical medical device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Zfx Abutments are intended to be used in conjunction with endosseous dental implants in the maxillary or mandbular arch to provide support for prosthetic restorations.

All digitally designed custom abutments or superstructures and/or hybrid abutment crowns for use with Zfx TiBase or Pre-Milled Blank Abutments are intended to be sent to a Zfx validated milling center for manufacture.

The Zfx TiBase abutments for the 03.25 mm Certain implant bodies, and 03.1 mm Eztetic implant bodies are indicated for maxillary lateral and mandibular central/lateral incisors only.

The subject device, Zfx Abutments, consists of two abutment types, a TiBase and a Pre-milled Abutment Blank, with corresponding retaining screws. Zfx Abutments are offered in a variety of connections compatible with ZimVie dental implants. All abutments and screws are provided non-sterile.

TiBase Abutments: Subject device TiBases are two-piece abutments. The pre-manufactured titanium base component is the apical part. The coronal part of the two-piece abutment is a CAD/CAM designed and manufactured superstructure. The subject device TiBase abutments are available in hexed/engaging and non-hexed/nonengaging configurations. The engaging TiBase abutments are intended for single and multi-unit restorations and the non-engaging TiBases are intended for multi-unit restorations. The superstructure is intended to be manufactured at a Zfx validated milling center.

Pre-milled Abutment Blanks: The Pre-milled Abutment Blank is a cylindrical titanium alloy abutment designed for patient-specific abutment fabrication with CAD/CAM technology. The patient-specific abutment milled from a Pre-milled Abutment Blank is secured directly to the implant using a retaining screw. Pre-milled Abutment Blanks are available in an engaging/hexed design only for single-unit and multi-unit restorations.

Retaining Screws: Corresponding retaining screws are packaged with the abutment and replacement screws are available individually. All screws are compatible with the corresponding ZimVie dental implants.

Material Composition: All subject device abutments are made of titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V ELI conforming to ASTM F136. Screws are made of either titanium alloy Ti-6A1-4V ELI conforming to ASTM F136, or Gold-Tite® screws with stainless steel conforming to ASTM F138. Gold-Tite screws have a gold-plating conforming to ASTM B488 and ASTM B571. Zirconia superstructures for use with the TiBase Abutments are made of zirconia conforming to ISO 13356.

The provided text is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for Zfx Abutments, and as such, it focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting a performance study with detailed acceptance criteria and supporting data in the way a clinical study report or a formal performance evaluation report would.

Therefore, the information required to answer many of the questions regarding acceptance criteria, sample sizes, expert involvement, and ground truth establishment is not present in this document. The document primarily outlines the device's technical specifications, indications for use, and a comparison to predicate devices, supported by non-clinical testing data (mechanical testing, biocompatibility, sterilization, etc.).

However, I can extract the information that is available and explain why other requested details are missing.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (Based on "Equivalence to Marketed Devices" and "Performance Data" sections):

This document describes a substantial equivalence submission, meaning the acceptance criteria are primarily demonstrated by showing the device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device. The performance is assessed through non-clinical testing to ensure it meets established standards comparable to the predicate.

Missing Information and Explanations:

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

   • Not provided. This document details a 510(k) submission based on non-clinical testing for substantial equivalence, not a clinical trial or performance study with human data. The "Performance Data" section explicitly states: "No clinical data were included in this submission." Therefore, there is no "test set" in the context of clinical images or patient data to analyze. The "samples" used were physical samples for mechanical, sterilization, and biocompatibility testing. The data provenance would be from laboratory tests.

2. 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/Not provided. As no clinical data or clinical "test set" was used, there was no need for expert adjudication to establish ground truth from patient data. The ground truth for mechanical and material properties is established by engineering specifications and industry standards.

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

   • Not applicable/None. No clinical test set to adjudicate.

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:

   • Not applicable. This device (Zfx Abutments) is a physical dental implant component, not an AI software/device. Therefore, an MRMC study or AI assistance is not relevant to its performance evaluation for this submission.

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

   • Not applicable. As above, this is a physical medical device, not an algorithm or AI.

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

   • The "ground truth" for demonstrating substantial equivalence for this device relies on engineering specifications, material standards (e.g., ASTM, ISO), mechanical test results (e.g., forces to fracture), and comparative analysis with the predicate device's established safe and effective performance. There is no clinical outcomes ground truth cited here.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. This refers to a dataset for training an AI model. This device is not an AI/software.

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

   • Not applicable. As above, no training set for an AI model.

In summary, this document is a regulatory clearance letter focused on substantial equivalence for a physical dental device. The "study" proving it meets acceptance criteria consists of various non-clinical bench tests and a comparison to a predicate device's specifications and performance, rather than a clinical study with patients or an AI model's performance evaluation.

Ask a specific question about this device

Inclusive® Titanium Abutments are premanufactured prosthetic components connected to endosseous dental implants in edentulous or partially edentulous maxilla or mandible to provide support for cement-retained prosthetic restorations. All digitally designed abutments for use with Inclusive® Titanium Abutments for CAD/CAM are intended to be sent to a Prismatik Dentalcraft validated milling center for manufacture.

Compatible Implant System: Neoss® ProActive® Narrow, Neoss® ProActive® Standard, MIS® SEVEN®, Zimmer® Eztetic®

Inclusive® Titanium Abutments are premanufactured prosthetic components directly connected to endosseous dental implants and are intended for use as an aid in prosthetic rehabilitation. Inclusive® Titanium Abutments are designed and fabricated to be compatible with Neoss® ProActive® Narrow Implant System, Neoss® ProActive® Standard Implant System, MIS® SEVEN® Implant System, and Zimmer® Eztetic® Implant System. The products are made from titanium alloy Ti-6A1-4V ELI, which meets ASTM standard F136. They include Inclusive® Titanium Abutment Blanks intended to be used to fabricate one-piece, all-titanium, patient-specific abutments using CAD/CAM technology and Inclusive® Titanium Abutments 4.5mmH intended to be used for support of fabricated crowns/bridges or a zirconia coping to complete the two-piece abutment. Inclusive® Titanium Abutments are a two-piece abutment with a titanium base and a ceramic top-half which when cemented together (Shofu MonoCem K020481) constitutes the final finished abutment. Each patient-specific abutment is prescribed by a clinician and manufactured by an authorized milling center validated by Prismatik Dentalcraft Inc. Inclusive® Titanium Abutments are provided non-sterile and intended for single use and prescription use.

Inclusive® Multi-Unit Coping is manufactured from titanium alloy, Ti-6A1-4V ELI conforming to ASTM F136 and used in conjunction with the Neoss® ProActive® Standard and MIS® SEVEN® multi-unit abutment. Inclusive® Multi-Unit Coping is bonded with the dental restoration prior to being seated on the multi-unit abutment via a multi-unit prosthetic screw. The non-engaging configuration of the multi-unit coping does not have an internal connection feature and seats onto the flat mating surface of the multi-unit abutment. The multi-unit coping is used in combination with screw-retained multi-unit dental prosthetics, e.g. bridges and bars, which are used to reconstruct the function and aesthetics of lost teeth. The multi-unit coping is straight with no angle correction and provided non-sterile. The device is intended for singe use and prescription use.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for Inclusive® Titanium Abutments. It describes the device, its intended use, and provides a comparison to a predicate device to demonstrate substantial equivalence, rather than standalone performance criteria. Therefore, the information typically requested in your prompt regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving device meeting those criteria (especially for AI/software devices) is not directly applicable to this submission.

This is a submission for a physical medical device (dental abutments), and the "acceptance criteria" here refer to demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than the performance metrics of a diagnostic or AI algorithm.

However, I can extract the relevant information regarding the performance data and the aspects that were tested to demonstrate substantial equivalence, which serves a similar purpose in this context:

Summary of Performance Data (to demonstrate Substantial Equivalence):

Additional Information based on the provided text:

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

   • Biocompatibility: The text does not specify a separate "test set" sample size for dedicated biocompatibility testing on this specific device, as it leverages existing data. It states, "additional biocompatibility testing was not conducted" due to identical materials, manufacturing, and facility as the predicate (K191222) and reference device (K160979). Cytotoxicity testing (ISO 10993-5) was referenced from K160979.
   • Mechanical Properties: The document states that static load and fatigue testing was performed "with the worst-case scenario." It does not specify the number of samples tested for this specific submission, but it would have been a sufficient number to meet the requirements of ISO 14801:2016. Data provenance is implied to be internal testing by Prismatik Dentalcraft, Inc.
   • Sterilization: No sample size is specified, as "additional sterilization was not conducted" for this submission due to identical materials, manufacturing, and parameters as predicate and reference devices. Validation was referenced from K083192 and K160979.
   • Packaging: "A packaging validation according to ASTM D4169-16 was conducted" but no specific sample size is mentioned.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. This is a physical device submission relying on established engineering standards and material properties, not an AI or diagnostic device that requires expert-established ground truth for its performance assessment.

3. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable for a physical device submission for dental abutments.

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: Not applicable. This pertains to AI/software performance, not a physical dental implant component.

5. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This pertains to AI/software performance.

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

   • "Ground truth" in this context is based on established engineering standards (e.g., ISO 14801:2016 for dynamic loading, ISO 10993-1 for biocompatibility, ISO 17665-1/2 for sterilization, ASTM D4169-16 for packaging), material specifications (e.g., ASTM F136 for Ti-6Al-4V ELI), and dimensional analysis / reverse engineering for compatibility with OEM implant systems. Biocompatibility also referenced cytotoxicity testing (ISO 10993-5) from a previous submission.

7. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device.

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

Ask a specific question about this device

AOT & T-L Abutment is intended for use in conjunction with the fixture in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae, in support of multiple-unit restorations.

It is compatible with the following systems:

• · Astra OsseoSpeed EV(K130999) 3.0
• · Astra OsseoSpeed EV(K120414) 3.6, 4.2, 4.8, 5.4 mm
• · Dentium Company Limited Implantium (K041368): 3.6, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0 (Regular)
• · Implant Direct Legacy2(K192221) 3.0
• · Megagen AnyRidge Internal Implant System (K140091) 3.5, 4.0, 4.4, 4.9, 5.4 (3.1)
• Neodent Implant System GM Helix (K163194, K180536) 3.5, 3.75, 4.0, 4.3, 5.0 (3.0) 6.0 (3.0)
• · Nobel Active 3.0 (K102436) 3.0
• · Nobel Active Internal Connection Implant (K071370) NP RP 3.5, 4.3, 5.0
• · Nobelactive Wide Platform (Wp) (K133731) WP 5.5
• · TS Fixture System (K121995) 3.5 (3.75), 4.0 (4.2), 4.5 (4.6) , 5.0 (5.1) mm (Mini, Regular)
• Straumann BLX Implant (K173961, K181703, K191256) 3.5, 3.75, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, 5.5, 6.5 (RB, WB)
• · Straumann 02.9 mm Bone Level Tapered Implants, SC CARES Abutments (K162890) 2.9 (SC)
• · Straumann® Bone Level Tapered Implants (K140878) 3.3, 4.1, 4.8 (NC, RC)
• · Zimmer 3.1mmD Dental Implant System (K142082) 3.1 (2.9)
• · Screw Vent® and Tapered Screw Vent® (K013227) 3.7(3.5), 4.1(3.5), 4.7(4.5), 6.0(5.7)

AOT & T-L Abutment which are placed into the dental implant to provide support for the prosthetic restoration. The abutments are made of Titanium grade Ti-6A1-4V ELI (meets ASTM Standard F-136). AOT abutment is a straight multi-unit abutment that connect implant fixtures to a restoration, such as a dental bridge or a denture. AOT products includes abutments and components (AOT Base, AOT Temporary, AOT Base Screw, AOT Plus Screw). T-L abutment is for partial and full arch restorations on endosseous dental implants. AOT & T-L abutments are provided in various gingival cuff height ranging from 1 to 3 mm for AOT , 1 to 6 mm for T-L.

The provided document describes the TruAbutment Inc. AOT & T-L Abutment and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device. This document focuses on the non-clinical testing for dental implant abutments, primarily mechanical and sterilization performance, rather than clinical efficacy involving human readers or AI.

Therefore, many of the requested categories related to human-in-the-loop performance, statistical measures like effect size, and large-scale clinical study methodologies are not applicable to this 510(k) submission.

Here's a breakdown of the available information based on your request:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are implicitly defined by compliance with specified ISO standards and FDA guidance documents. The reported device performance is that it met these criteria.

Study Details

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

   • Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for specific tests. For mechanical fatigue testing (ISO 14801), it mentions "worst-case constructs" were subjected to testing, implying a representative selection rather than a large clinical sample. Industry standards typically specify minimum sample sizes for such tests (e.g., 5-10 samples per test group for fatigue).
   • Data Provenance: Not specified, but likely from laboratory testing conducted by the manufacturer or a contracted third-party lab. It's a non-clinical, bench-top study.
   • Retrospective or Prospective: Non-clinical laboratory testing is neither retrospective nor prospective in the clinical sense. It's a controlled experimental study.

2. 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 is a non-clinical, bench-top engineering and materials performance study, not a diagnostic or clinical efficacy study requiring expert human interpretation of data for ground truth. Compliance with engineering standards and material specifications forms the basis of "ground truth."

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

   • Not applicable. Adjudication methods are typically used in clinical trials or studies involving subjective human interpretation (e.g., image reading) to resolve discrepancies. This study involves objective measurements from laboratory tests.

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:

   • Not applicable. This is a non-clinical technical performance study for dental implant abutments, not a study evaluating human reader performance or AI assistance.

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

   • Not applicable. This device is a physical dental abutment, not a software algorithm. The "standalone" performance here refers to the device's inherent mechanical properties and material characteristics as tested against engineering standards.

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

   • Ground Truth: Engineering standards (ISO 14801, ISO 17665, ISO 10993), material specifications (ASTM F136), and dimensional compatibility with OEM implant systems. Performance is measured objectively against these established criteria.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of this non-clinical performance evaluation. This is not a machine learning or AI device.

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

   • Not applicable for the same reason as above.

Ask a specific question about this device

DESS Dental Smart Solutions abutments are intended to be used in conjunction with endosseous dental implants in the maxillary or mandibular arch to provide support for prosthetic restorations.

The purpose of this submission is to add components to the DESS Dental Smart Solutions system, which includes abutments compatible with a variety of original equipment manufacturers (OEM) of dental implants. This submission adds abutments, designated DESS Multi-Unit Abutments, for implant lines from Zimmer Dental and Biomet 31 (now collectively, ZimVie Dental). The subject device abutments include Multi-Unit Abutments in straight, 17° angled, and 30° angled designs, which are compatible with implants having internal hex connections. This submission is also to change how previously cleared devices are provided; the change is from previously provided nonsterile to now provided sterile. All abutments are provided with the appropriate abutment screw (if applicable) for attachment to the corresponding implant. The subject device is only intended for multi-unit restorations such as bridges and bars.

It appears there might be a misunderstanding of the provided text. The document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a dental implant abutment, not an AI/ML medical device. Therefore, the information typically required for describing an AI/ML device's acceptance criteria and study data (like sample sizes for test and training sets, expert qualifications, ground truth establishment, MRMC studies, or standalone performance) is not present.

The document discusses the substantial equivalence of the DESS Dental Smart Solutions abutment to legally marketed predicate devices. The "performance data" section refers to non-clinical testing to demonstrate the device's physical properties and compatibility, not a study evaluating an AI algorithm's diagnostic or predictive performance.

Let's break down what can be extracted from the provided text relevant to the device's acceptance, and then explain why the AI/ML specific questions cannot be answered.

Understanding the Device and its "Acceptance":

The "acceptance" in this context refers to the FDA's determination that the new DESS Dental Smart Solutions abutments are "substantially equivalent" to predicate devices already on the market. This determination is based on the device having the same intended use and similar technological characteristics (design, materials, performance via non-clinical testing).

Here's a summary of the information available in the document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria (or rather, Equivalence Criteria) and Reported Device Performance:

The document doesn't present acceptance criteria in a quantitative table with performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy, as would be common for an AI/ML device. Instead, "acceptance" is based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices across several characteristics. The performance is shown through non-clinical testing to ensure safety and functionality.

Important Note: The "acceptance criteria" here are qualitative statements of substantial equivalence, backed by quantitative non-clinical engineering and materials testing, not performance metrics from a clinical study or an AI model's accuracy.

Regarding the AI/ML Specific Questions:

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

• Not applicable. This document is for a physical medical device (dental implant abutment), not an AI/ML algorithm. There is no "test set" in the context of data for an AI/ML model. The "testing" refers to mechanical, material, and sterilization validation.

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

• Not applicable. Ground truth establishment by experts is relevant for AI/ML diagnostic devices. This device's performance is assessed through engineering standards and material properties. Compatibility with implant systems is established through design agreements and reverse engineering data (referenced from K170588).

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

• Not applicable. Adjudication methods are used in clinical studies or for establishing ground truth labels for AI/ML datasets.

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. MRMC studies are for evaluating diagnostic efficacy, particularly with AI assistance. This device is a passive prosthetic component.

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

• Not applicable. There is no algorithm.

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

• Not applicable. The "ground truth" for this device's performance is its adherence to engineering standards (e.g., ISO 14801 for mechanical properties, ASTM for materials/MR safety) and its demonstrated compatibility with specified implant systems, rather than a clinical ground truth like disease presence.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. There is no AI model or training set.

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

• Not applicable. As above, no AI model or training set.

Conclusion from the document:

The provided document describes a 510(k) submission for a Class II medical device, DESS Dental Smart Solutions abutments. The "acceptance criteria" revolve around demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing legally marketed predicate devices. This is achieved through:

• Identical intended use.
• Similar technological characteristics: This includes materials (Titanium alloy), design (multi-unit, screw-retained), and geometric parameters (diameters, gingival heights).
• Performance via non-clinical testing: This includes mechanical testing (ISO 14801), MR safety testing (ASTM standards), sterilization validation (ANSI/AAMI/ISO standards), bacterial endotoxin testing (ANSI/AAMI ST72), shelf-life testing (ASTM F1980), and biocompatibility testing (ISO 10993-5).
• Compatibility with specified implant systems: This is supported by contractual agreements with OEMs (ZimVie/Terrats Medical SL) and referenced reverse engineering data.

The document explicitly states: "No clinical data were included in this submission." This further confirms that the evaluation framework is entirely non-clinical and does not involve AI/ML performance metrics, studies with human readers, or expert ground truthing as one would see for an AI-powered diagnostic tool.

Ask a specific question about this device

The TSX Implants are designed for use in the maxilla or mandible for immediate loading after a conventional healing period. Implants may be used to replace one or more missing teeth. Immediate loading is indicated when there is good primary stability and an appropriate occlusal load. Implants may be placed immediately following an extraction or loss of natural teeth provided there is sufficient volume of alveolar bone to minimally support the implant (minimum 1mm circumferential and 2mm apical) and provide good primary stability.

The 3.1mmD TSX Implants should be splinted to additional implants when used in the pre-molar region and should not be used in the molar region.

TSX Dental Implants are manufactured from biocompatible titanium alloy. TSX Dental Implants surface consists of a Contemporary Hybrid Surface Treatment (Dual Acid Etch + MTX™ Textured Surface). The implants are available in different platform diameters and feature an internal hex connection for mating with associated Zimmer Dental and Biomet 3i internal connection restorative components.

For specific product descriptions, please refer to individual product labels.

The provided text is a Premarket Notification (510(k)) for the Biomet 3i LLC TSX Implants. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on technological characteristics and non-clinical testing. It does not contain information about an AI/ML powered device, nor does it include data from a clinical study on device performance against acceptance criteria.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, reported device performance, sample size for test/training sets, data provenance, expert ground truth establishment, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone algorithm performance, or ground truth types.

The document explicitly states: "No clinical data were included in this submission." This means that the information needed to answer most of your detailed questions about device performance validation against specified criteria is not present in the provided text.

The closest relevant information is under "XI. Non-Clinical Testing," which describes mechanical testing (ISO 14801:2016), sterility validation, pyrogenicity testing, SEM/EDS imaging for surface assessment, and biocompatibility testing. These are non-clinical tests to show the device's physical and biological properties are equivalent to predicate devices, not performance against clinical acceptance criteria for an AI/ML algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

The PRE-MILLED 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.

It is compatible with the following systems:

• Zimmer 3.1mmD Dental Implant System (K142082)
• Screw Vent® and Tapered Screw Vent® (K013227)

All digitally designed abutments for use with the PRE-MILLED Abutments must be designed and milled through the 3Shape CAD/CAM System and are intended to be sent to a validated milling center for manufacture.

The PRE-MILLED Abutment is compatible with the following devices:
Zimmer 3.1mmD Dental Implant System (K142082) Implant Body Diameter 3.1/ Implant Platform Diameter 2.9 / Internal Hex
Screw Vent® and Tapered Screw Vent® (K013227)
Implant Body Diameter 3.7/ Implant Platform Diameter 3.5 / Internal Hex
Implant Body Diameter 4.1/ Implant Platform Diameter 3.5 / Internal Hex
Implant Body Diameter 4.7/ Implant Platform Diameter 4.5 / Internal Hex
Implant Body Diameter 6.0/ Implant Platform Diameter 5.7 / Internal Hex

The PRE-MILLED Abutment is used in fabricating a patient-specific abutment in titanium alloy. It has a pre-manufactured connection interface that fits directly to an endosseous dental implant. It is made of Titanium grade Ti-6A1-4V ELI (meets ASTM Standard F-136).

The abutment is placed over the implant shoulder and mounted into the implant with the provided screw. The design and manufacturing of the patient-specific abutments take into consideration the shape of the final prosthesis based on the patient's intra-oral indications using CAD/CAM system.

Mechanical resistance of the implant-abutment connection is essential to ensure the correct longterm functional performance of the complete dental restoration. Dimensional compatibility and mechanical performance of abutments and screws together with the underlying implant are of primary importance. These concepts are the basis upon which the system design characteristics and functional performance are established.

The PRE-MILLED is a device that can only be sold, distributed, or used upon the order of an authorized healthcare provider, generally referred to as prescription (Rx) devices.

The proposed abutments are available in internal connection, and are compatible with Zimmer 3.1mmD Dental Implant System (K142082) and Screw Vent® and Tapered Screw Vent® (K013227).

The provided text does not contain information about acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets those criteria. The document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device (PRE-MILLED Abutment) and focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

The document discusses:

• Device Description: The PRE-MILLED Abutment is used for fabricating patient-specific abutments from titanium alloy, designed via CAD/CAM, and connected to an endosseous dental implant.
• Indications for Use: Support for single or multiple tooth prostheses in partially or fully edentulous patients, compatible with specific Zimmer implant systems.
• Non-clinical Testing:
  • Fatigue Test (ISO 14801:2016)
  • End User Steam Sterilization Test (ISO 17665-1:2006, 17665-2:2009 and ANSI/AAMI ST79:2010)
  • Biocompatibility tests (ISO 10993-1:2009, ISO 10993-5:2009, and ISO 10993-10:2010)
  • Dimensional analysis and reverse engineering of the implant-to-abutment connection platform.
• Conclusion: The non-clinical tests demonstrated substantial equivalence to the primary predicate device, meeting the criteria of the standards. Clinical testing was deemed unnecessary.

However, the document does not explicitly state specific acceptance criteria (e.g., a numerical threshold for fatigue life) and then present detailed results proving those criteria were met. It generally states that "The results of the above tests have met the criteria of the standard and demonstrated the substantial equivalence with the primary predicate."

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested table and detailed study information because it is not present in the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Eztetic™ BellaTek® Encode® Healing Abutments are intended for use as an accessory to endosseous dental implants during endosseous and gingival healing to prepare gingival tissue for acceptance of a final abutment and restoration.

The Eztetic™ BellaTek® Encode® Healing Abutment is a healing abutment designed to facilitate gingival tissue healing. It consists of an abutment and a retaining screw that are assembled together. Both components are machined from Titanium Alloy (Ti-6AL-4V ELI). The shelf life of the Eztetic™ BellaTek® Encode® Healing Abutment is 5 years and they are intended for single use only. The device is packaged in a sealed nylon bag and sold sterile. The device is sterilized using gamma irradiation method.

This document, a 510(k) summary for the Eztetic™ BellaTek® Encode® Healing Abutments, describes non-clinical testing performed to establish substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than a clinical study evaluating the device's performance against specific acceptance criteria.

Therefore, I cannot provide the information requested regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets those criteria, as these are typically associated with clinical performance studies, which are not detailed in this document.

However, I can extract information about the non-clinical testing performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence:

Non-Clinical Testing Information:

Since this is a non-clinical evaluation for substantial equivalence, the concepts of "acceptance criteria," "reported device performance," "sample size for test set," "data provenance," "number of experts," "adjudication method," "MRMC study," "standalone study," "type of ground truth," "sample size for training set," and "how ground truth for training set was established" are not directly applicable in the way they would be for a clinical efficacy or safety study.

Instead, the document describes tests conducted to ensure the new device is comparable to existing, legally marketed devices.

Here's a breakdown of the non-clinical testing mentioned:

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Non-Clinical Equivalence):

2. Sample Size for Test Set and Data Provenance:

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for any of the non-clinical tests.
• Data Provenance: The data is primarily derived from "leveraged" data from previously tested Biomet 3i devices and predicate devices, as well as new bench testing. There is no mention of country of origin as it's non-clinical lab testing. All testing appears to be prospective in the sense that the tests were conducted for this submission, although some rely on retrospective leveraging of prior data.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications (for Ground Truth):

• This concept is not directly applicable to the non-clinical tests described. The "ground truth" here is adherence to engineering specifications, material properties, and regulatory standards, evaluated by qualified personnel within the company and verified by regulatory bodies.

4. Adjudication Method for Test Set:

• Not applicable as these are non-clinical engineering and material tests, not expert-adjudicated clinical data.

5. MRMC Comparative Effectiveness Study:

• No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is for evaluating human performance, often with AI assistance, in interpreting medical images or data. The device in question is a physical dental healing abutment, not an AI diagnostic tool.

6. Standalone Study (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance):

• No, a standalone study in this context (algorithm performance) was not done as the device is a physical medical device, not an algorithm or software. The "standalone" performance here refers to the physical and material characteristics themselves, which are addressed by the non-clinical bench testing.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

• For the non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" is based on:
  • Regulatory Standards: ISO 11137-1, ISO 11137-2, ISO 11607-1, ASTM D4169, ASTM F 136.
  • Engineering Specifications: Design inputs, tolerance ranges, recommended torque values.
  • Material Science Properties: Known characteristics of Ti-6Al-4V ELI.
  • Prior Validated Test Data: From predicate and previously tested Biomet 3i devices (e.g., for MR compatibility, biocompatibility).

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device that would have a "training set."

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

• Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device