Search Filters

Search Results

Found 2 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K231305
    Date Cleared
    2024-01-23

    (263 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    872.3930
    Panel
    Dental
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Reference Devices :

    K192042, K092096, K130547/ K153633, K153632/ K181935

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    Endoform Dental Membrane is specifically intended for use in extraction sockets and soft tissue grafting. The device contains and prevents migration of guided bone regeneration graft material and prevents loss of alveolar height and ridge following tooth extraction. The device is provided sterile and intended for one-time use.

    Device Description

    Endoform Dental Membrane is an ovine derived bioabsorbable extracellular matrix intended for application in dental and periodontal procedures. The device is composed of non-cross linked and non-reconstituted collagen. The device is supplied sterile in a variety of sizes and thicknesses which may be trimmed by a licensed dentist or oral surgeon to meet individual patient needs.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text describes the non-clinical testing performed on the Endoform Dental Membrane to demonstrate its safety and performance. However, it does not include information about acceptance criteria for all the tests, nor does it detail a study that defines "device performance" in terms of clinical or comparative effectiveness against specific criteria in the way you've outlined.

    Based on the available text, here's a breakdown of the information that is present, and what is not:


    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    Note: The document details numerous non-clinical tests. For many, it states that the device "met the pre-defined specification" or "meets the specification," but it often does not explicitly list the numerical acceptance criteria in this summary. The table below compiles the criteria where they are explicitly mentioned.

    TestAcceptance CriteriaReported Device Performance
    Collagen ContentAbove 70% total collagen in mass percentage.Verified to be above 70%.
    GAG ContentMinimum GAG content specification (value not explicitly stated).Subject device meets the minimum GAG content specification.
    DNA ContentPre-defined DNA content specification (value not explicitly stated).All EDM devices met the pre-defined DNA contentment specification.
    Moisture ContentStipulated moisture content (value not explicitly stated).Subject device meets the stipulated moisture content.
    DSC (Melting Point Onset)Pre-defined melting point onset temperature specification (value not explicitly stated).Pre-defined melting point onset temperature specification was met.
    Rehydration TimeRehydration in less than 5 minutes.Demonstrated that the subject device can be rehydrated in less than 5 minutes.
    Tx-100 ResidualsBelow predetermined specifications (values not explicitly stated).Tx-100 residuals were found to be below the predetermined specifications.
    EDTA ResidualsBelow predetermined specifications (values not explicitly stated).EDTA residuals were found to be below the predetermined specifications.
    PAA ResidualsBelow predetermined specifications (values not explicitly stated).PAA residuals were found to be below the predetermined specifications.
    Bioburden0).Found to be permeable to aqueous solutions (PI>0).
    Suture Retention Strength≥ 1.5 N.Found to meet the defined of = 1.5 N.
    Modulus of ElasticityDesign specification of modulus of elasticity (value not explicitly stated).Test results demonstrate that the design specification of modulus of elasticity.
    ThicknessSpecification for all EDM devices (value not explicitly stated).Found to meet the specification for all EDM devices.
    Sterilization (SAL)Sterility assurance level (SAL) of 10-6.Validated using a 1/2 cycle (overkill) method, all tested devices from three 1/2 cycles and one full cycle were 'sterile'.
    EO/ECH ResidualsBelow specification limits.Found to present residuals below the specification limits.
    PackagingPouches meet pre-defined specifications for dye penetration, T-peel, and visual inspection (values not explicitly stated).All pouches meeting the pre-defined specifications.
    Shelf LifeAll devices meet design specifications across all time points tested for biochemical composition, moisture content, suture retention, DSC, and visual inspection.All devices met the design specifications across all time points tested.
    BiocompatibilityBiocompatible in accordance with ISO 1099 standards.Biocompatibility testing data demonstrates that the subject device is biocompatible.
    Animal Performance (Resorption)Non-inferior to the reference collagen membrane (Bio-Gide).Endoform Dental Membrane was found to pass the acceptance criterion.
    Animal Performance (Cellular Infiltration/Inflammatory Response)Non-inferior to Bio-Gide.Endoform Dental Membrane was found to pass the acceptance criterion.
    Animal Performance (Retention of Bone Grafting Material)Non-inferior to that of Bio-Gide.Endoform Dental Membrane was found to pass the acceptance criterion.
    Animal Performance (Adverse Events)No adverse events.No adverse events occurred during execution of the protocol.

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

    The document describes several non-clinical tests but does not explicitly state the specific numerical sample sizes for each test set. It mentions "All EDM devices" or "all samples" in some contexts.

    For the Animal Performance Testing:

    • Sample Size (Test Set): Not explicitly stated how many animals were used, but it was an ovine (sheep) defect model study using "selected timepoints (week 4, 8 and 16)".
    • Data Provenance: Prospective animal study conducted in an ovine (sheep) defect model. The country of origin is not specified, but the applicant's address is New Zealand.

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

    This information is not provided in the document. The non-clinical tests described rely on validated laboratory methods and specifications, which are based on scientific standards rather than expert consensus on a test set in the way clinical diagnostic devices might.

    For the animal study, the assessment criteria (resorption, cellular infiltration, inflammatory response, retention of bone grafting material, hard tissue infill) would likely be evaluated by veterinarians or pathologists, but the number and qualifications of these experts are not mentioned.


    4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

    This information is not provided as the document focuses on laboratory and animal study results rather than human-read test sets.


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

    No. A MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not performed or described. The document explicitly states: "Clinical data was not required to demonstrate substantial equivalence."


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

    Not applicable. This device is a bioabsorbable extracellular matrix (Endoform Dental Membrane), not an AI algorithm. Therefore, "standalone algorithm" performance is not relevant.


    7. Type of Ground Truth Used

    The "ground truth" for the various tests conducted for the Endoform Dental Membrane is based on:

    • Validated Test Methods: For biochemical content (collagen, GAG, DNA), physical properties (moisture, DSC, permeability, suture retention, modulus, thickness), residual substances (Tx-100, EDTA, PAA), bioburden, endotoxin, and shelf-life. These are quantitative measurements against predefined specifications.
    • Standards Compliance: For biocompatibility (ISO 10993 series), sterilization (ISO 11135), and packaging (ASTM standards).
    • Histopathological and Macroscopic Assessment: For the animal performance study, evaluating resorption, cellular infiltration, inflammatory response, and bone graft retention based on examinations at specific time points. This likely involves expert evaluation of tissue samples, but it's not "expert consensus" on a diagnostic task, rather assessment of biological outcomes compared to a reference device.
    • "Critically sized" defects: The animal study also demonstrated that untreated controls did not completely regenerate bone, indicating the defects were appropriately sized for evaluating the device's performance.

    8. Sample Size for the Training Set

    Not applicable. This device is a physical medical device, not an AI algorithm. Therefore, there is no "training set."


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

    Not applicable. As above, there is no training set for this type of device.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    K Number
    K183398
    Date Cleared
    2019-04-11

    (125 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    878.3300
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Reference Devices :

    K130547, K153632

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    Endoform Restella is for implantation to reinforce soft tissue where weakness exists in patients requiring soft tissue repair or reinforcement in plastic and reconstructive surgery. The device is supplied sterile and is intended for one-time use.

    Device Description

    Endoform Restella is a surgical mesh manufactured by layering sheets of ovine forestomach matrix to create multi-layer configurations of devices laminated with absorbable polyglycolic acid (PGA) and non-absorbable polypropylene (PP) suture material for use in plastic and reconstructive surgery. The 3-ply devices are available in sizes up to 400 cm² in arced rectangle, contour, and oval shapes.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the medical device "Endoform Restella." This document describes the device, its intended use, and how it demonstrates substantial equivalence to a predicate device for FDA clearance.

    Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, based only on the provided text:

    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    Acceptance Criteria CategoryReported Device Performance (Summary)
    Material CompositionEquivalent to predicate device.
    BiocompatibilityEquivalent to predicate device.
    SterilizationEquivalent to predicate device.
    Packaging MaterialsEquivalent to predicate device.
    Packaging ProcessesEquivalent to predicate device.
    Mechanical StrengthMeets product specifications.
    EndotoxinMeets product specifications.
    Dimensional VerificationMeets product specifications.

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

    The document does not specify the exact sample sizes (e.g., number of devices, number of tests performed) for the bench testing.
    The data provenance is from non-clinical bench testing. The text does not provide country of origin or whether it's retrospective or prospective, though bench testing is inherently prospective in nature.

    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 document. Bench testing typically relies on predefined engineering specifications rather than expert consensus on a 'ground truth' in the same way clinical data would.

    4. Adjudication method for the test set

    This information is not applicable/not provided. Adjudication methods are typically relevant for human-interpreted data (e.g., imaging studies, clinical endpoints), not for objective bench test results like mechanical strength or endotoxin levels.

    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, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is a surgical mesh; the concept of "human readers" and "AI assistance" is not relevant to its type of evaluation.

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

    This question is not applicable to this medical device. The "Endoform Restella" is a physical surgical mesh, not an algorithm or AI performing a task. Its performance is evaluated through physical and material properties, not by an algorithm's output.

    7. The type of ground truth used

    The ground truth used for the non-clinical performance evaluation was based on product specifications and the characteristics of the predicate device. The device was deemed acceptable if it met these predefined specifications and demonstrated equivalence in key properties to the legally marketed predicate.

    8. The sample size for the training set

    This information is not applicable/not provided. The "Endoform Restella" is a physical device, not a machine learning algorithm that requires a "training set."

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

    This question is not applicable to this medical device.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1