Search Results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ask a specific question about this device