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 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

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

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