Search Results

IPD Dental Implant Abutments are intended to be used in conjunction with endosseous dental implants in the maxillary or mandibular arch to provide support for single or multiple dental prosthetic restorations.

IPD Dental Implant Abutments is a dental implant abutment system composed of dental abutments, screws, as well as other dental abutment accessories, intended to be placed into dental implants to provide support for dental prosthetic restorations.

Abutments provide basis for single or multiple tooth prosthetic restorations. They are available in a variety of connection types to enable compatibility with commercially available dental implants systems.

IPD Dental Implant Abutments includes the following categories of dental abutment designs:

• Titanium base (Interface) abutments (INC3D);
• Multi-Unit abutments (MUA);
• Overdenture Abutments (PSD);
• Temporary Abutments (PP);
• Healing Abutments (TC).

The system also includes the use of the corresponding screws intended to attach the prosthesis to the dental implant. Specifically:

• Ti Screw (TT): Used during restoration fabrication.
• TiN Screw (TTN): Used in finished restorations, with TiN coating.
• TPA Screw (TPA): Used in finished angulated restorations, with TiN coating.

The metallic components of the subject abutments and screws are made of titanium alloy conforming to ISO 5832-3 "Implant for surgery – Metallic materials – Part 3: Wrought titanium 6-aluminium 4-vanadium alloy".

The purpose of this submission is to expand IPD Dental Implant Abutments offerings with:
• New IPD's compatible dental implant systems,
• New angulations available abutment-category specific.
• New in-house TiN coating.

IPD dental implant abutments and screws are compatible with the following commercially available dental implant systems:
(Table 2. Summary of IPD abutments categories with compatibilized OEM Implant/Abutment Systems with specific reference to maximum angulation specifically included in this submission. provided in original text)

Ti Base (Interface) abutments are attached (screw-retained) to the implant/abutment and cemented to the zirconia superstructure.

The Ti Base is a two-piece abutment composed of the titanium component, as the bottom-half, and the zirconia superstructure, as the top-half. It consists of a pre-manufactured prosthetic component in Titanium alloy per ISO 5832-3, as well as the supporting digital library file for FDA-cleared design software (3Shape Abutment Designer™ Software, cleared under K151455) which enables the design of a patient-specific superstructure by the laboratory/clinician and which will be manufactured in FDA-cleared Zirconia (e.g., DD Bio Z, K142987) according to digital dentistry workflow at the point of care, or at a dental laboratory.

The design and fabrication of the zirconia superstructure for Ti Base (Interface) will be conducted using a digital dentistry workflow requiring the use of the following equipment, software and materials:
Scanner: 3D Scanner D850.
Design Software: 3Shape Abutment Designer Software, K151455.
Zirconia Material: DD Bio Z, K142987.
Milling machine/Brand: Dental Concept System Model: DC1 Milling System.
Cement: Multilink® Automix, K123397.

Ti Base (Interface) abutment design parameters for the zirconia superstructure are defined as follows:
Minimum gingival height: 1.5 mm
Minimum wall thickness: 0.43 mm
Minimum post height for single-unit restorations: 4.75 mm (1)
Maximum gingival height: 6.0 mm
Maximum angulation of the final abutment 30° (2)

The resulting final prosthetic restoration is screwed to the dental implant. All subject abutments are single-use and provided non-sterile. Final restoration (which includes the corresponding screw) is intended to be sterilized at the dental clinic before it is placed in the patient.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter pertains to IPD Dental Implant Abutments, a medical device, not an AI/ML-driven software product. Therefore, the information requested regarding acceptance criteria and study data for an AI/ML device (e.g., sample size for test/training sets, expert ground truthing, MRMC studies, standalone performance) is not applicable to this document.

The document describes the device, its intended use, comparison to predicate devices, and the non-clinical performance testing conducted to demonstrate substantial equivalence. These tests are physical and chemical in nature, not related to the performance of an AI/ML algorithm.

Here's a breakdown of why an AI/ML-focused response is not possible, based on the provided text:

• Device Type: The device is "IPD Dental Implant Abutments," which are physical components used in dentistry (titanium alloy abutments, screws, designed for zirconia superstructures). It is not software, a diagnostic imaging tool, or an AI/ML algorithm.
• Purpose of Submission: The submission aims to expand compatibility with new dental implant systems and include new angulations and in-house TiN coating. This is a modification of a physical medical device, not a new AI/ML development.
• Performance Data (Section VII): This section explicitly lists non-clinical performance testing such as:
  • Sterilization validation (ISO 17665-1)
  • Biocompatibility testing (Cytotoxicity, Sensitization, Irritation per ISO 10993)
  • Reverse engineering and dimensional analysis for compatibility
  • Validation of the digital workflow and software system (but this refers to the CAD/CAM software used to design the physical abutments, not an AI/ML diagnostic tool)
  • Static and dynamic fatigue testing (ISO 14801)
  • Modified Surfaces Information
  • MRI safety review

Conclusion:

The provided document describes a 510(k) clearance for a physical dental implant component. It does not contain any information about the acceptance criteria or study design for an AI/ML driven medical device. Therefore, a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance related to AI/ML, sample sizes for test/training sets, details on expert ground truthing, MRMC studies, or standalone performance of an algorithm cannot be extracted from this text.

Ask a specific question about this device

Dynamic TiBase abutments are intended to be used in conjunction with endosseous dental implants in the maxillary or mandibular arch to provide support for prosthetic restorations.

Compatible Implant Systems:

All digitally designed custom abutments for use with Dynamic TiBase abutments are to be sent to a Talladium Medical validated milling center for manufacture.

Dynamic TiBase abutments are two-piece abutments composed of a CAD-CAM fabricated zirconia superstructure and a prefabricated titanium base component where the final two-piece abutment (base and cemented superstructure) is the finished device used for the prosthetic restoration. All subject device bases are made of titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) conforming to ISO 5832-3 and ASTM F136. The Dynamic TiBase abutments are provided in engaging and non-engaging designs for single-unit and multi-unit restorations, respectively.

For each of the compatible OEM implant lines, the prefabricated titanium base components are provided with a gingival height (in the titanium base) ranging from 0.3 mm to 4 mm, and a platform diameter ranging from 4.30 mm to 5.50 mm. Angulation and additional gingival height may be provided in the zirconia superstructure. All Dynamic TiBase prefabricated titanium base components have a post with a cut-out to accommodate a restoration with an angled channel for screw access when clinically necessary. The post height of the prefabricated titanium base component ranges from 3.8 mm to 5.40 mm, and from 2.3 mm to 3.8 mm (cut-out height). The cementable post height of the final patient-matched abutment design, measured above the total combined gingival collar, shall be no less than 4 mm.

All zirconia superstructures (copings) used to complete the final two-piece subject device Dynamic TiBase abutment will be made at a Talladium España, SL validated milling center under FDA quality system regulations, and the material will conform to ISO 13356.

The design parameters for the CAD-CAM zirconia superstructure for the Dynamic TiBase vary slightly among the compatible OEM implants. The design parameters for the CAD-CAM zirconia superstructure are summarized in the following table:

(1) for the compatible sizes shown in Table 1
(2) minimum gingival height in the titanium base, not the zirconia superstructure

The required cement for bonding the zirconia superstructure to the Dynamic TiBases to create the final two-piece abutment is Nova Resin Cement cleared in K213609.

Also, the subject of this submission are seven (7) abutment screws for use with the subject abutments.

This FDA 510(k) clearance letter pertains to a dental implant abutment — the Dynamic TiBase — not an AI-powered diagnostic device or software. Therefore, the information typically requested about acceptance criteria and study designs for validating AI/ML-based medical devices (such as sample size, expert ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and training set details) is not applicable to this document.

The "performance data" section in this 510(k) summary refers to traditional engineering and biocompatibility testing for a physical medical device, not performance metrics for an algorithm.

Here's how to interpret the provided document in the context of "acceptance criteria" and "proof":

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (as inferred for a physical device):

For a physical device like the Dynamic TiBase, the "acceptance criteria" are generally met through demonstrating substantial equivalence to a previously cleared predicate device. This involves validating material properties, manufacturing processes, functional performance (e.g., mechanical strength, compatibility), and biocompatibility.

The "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" refers to the non-clinical testing performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

Regarding the specific questions about an AI/ML context:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: Provided above, adapted for a physical medical device.
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. The "test set" for this physical device refers to the number of physical abutment samples or material samples subjected to mechanical, biocompatibility, and MRI testing. The document does not specify exact sample numbers for these engineering tests, only the standards used (e.g., ISO 14801 typically specifies minimum sample sizes). Data provenance is "non-clinical data" generated from laboratory testing.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. Ground truth for a dental abutment's performance is established by engineering standards, material specifications, and physical testing, not by expert human interpretation of images or clinical outcomes in the same way as an AI diagnostic.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable. This is a concept used in evaluating human reader performance in AI studies.
5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance: Not applicable. This is for AI-assisted diagnostic devices.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This refers to an AI algorithm's performance.
7. The type of ground truth used: For a physical device, "ground truth" is defined by adherence to established engineering standards (e.g., ISO 14801 for mechanical strength), material properties, and biocompatibility standards. "Reverse engineering dimensional analysis" served as a form of "ground truth" for compatibility. No pathology or outcomes data was used for this premarket notification.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. There is no "training set" as this is not an AI/ML device.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

In summary, this 510(k) clearance is for a physical medical device (dental abutment), and the "performance data" section details the engineering and material testing conducted to demonstrate its safety and effectiveness, primarily through substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices. It does not involve AI/ML validation methodologies.

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.

All digitally designed custom abutments for use with DESS Bases or Pre-milled Blanks are to be sent to a Terrats Medical validated milling center for manufacture, or to be designed and manufactured according to the digital dentistry workflow. The digital dentistry workflow integrates multiple components: scan files from intra-oral and lab (desktop) scanners, CAD software, CAM software, ceramic material, milling machine, and associated tooling and accessories.

The purpose of this submission is to expand the DESS Dental Smart Solutions abutment system cleared under K221301 and K240982 to allow additional options of zirconia material, scanners, CAM software, and milling machines to the digital dentistry workflow. The subject devices are to be sent to Terrats Medical validated milling centers for manufacture, or to be designed and manufactured via a digital dentistry workflow. The digital dentistry workflow integrates multiple components: scan files from intra-oral and lab (desktop) scanners, CAD software, CAM software, titanium and ceramic material, milling machine, and associated tooling and accessories. There are no changes to the abutment design, implant compatibilities, or design parameters. All part numbers have been cleared for manufacturing via a validated milling center and digital dentistry workflows (also referred to as point of care) under K221301 and K240982.

The subject device DESS Dental Smart Solutions abutments provide a range of prosthetic solutions for dental implant restoration. DESS abutments are offered in a variety of connection types to enable compatibility with currently marketed dental implants. All abutments are provided non-sterile, and each abutment is supplied with the appropriate abutment screw (if applicable) for attachment to the corresponding implant.

Subject device Base Abutments are designed for fabrication of a patient-specific CAD/CAM zirconia superstructure on which a crown may be placed. They are two-piece abutments for which the second part (or top half) is the ceramic superstructure. They also may be used for support of a crown directly on the abutment.

All patient-specific custom abutment fabrication for Base Abutments and Pre-milled (Blank) Abutments is by prescription on the order of the clinician. The subject device Pre-milled (Blank) Abutments and all zirconia superstructures for use with the subject device Ti Base Interface, DESS Aurum Base, ELLIPTIBase, and DESS C-Base will be manufactured using a validated milling center or a digital dentistry workflow. A validated milling center will be under FDA quality system regulations. The digital dentistry workflow scans files from intra-oral and lab (desktop) scanners, CAD software, CAM software, titanium and ceramic material, milling machine and associated tooling and accessories.

The digital dentistry workflow uses scan files from intra-oral and lab (desktop) scanners, CAD software, CAM software, ceramic material, milling machine and associated tooling and accessories.

The provided 510(k) summary for DESS Dental Smart Solutions focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices for dental implant abutments. It primarily addresses the expansion of compatible materials, scanners, CAM software, and milling machines within an existing digital dentistry workflow. The document does not describe an AI/ML-based device that would typically have acceptance criteria related to diagnostic performance.

Therefore, many of the requested items related to AI/ML device performance (like acceptance criteria for diagnostic metrics, sample size for test sets, data provenance, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and training set details) are not applicable to this submission.

The acceptance criteria and supporting "study" (non-clinical data) for this device are related to its mechanical performance, biocompatibility, and integration within the digital workflow, demonstrating that the expanded components maintain the safety and effectiveness of the previously cleared predicate devices.

Here's a breakdown based on the information provided and the non-applicability of AI/ML-specific questions:

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

Since this is not an AI/ML diagnostic device, the acceptance criteria are not in terms of traditional diagnostic metrics (sensitivity, specificity, AUC). Instead, they are related to material properties, mechanical integrity, and the digital workflow's accuracy.

• Abutment design library validated to demonstrate established design limitations are locked and cannot be modified by the user. (Implies successful implementation and verification of design constraints.) |
  | CAM Restriction Zones / Manufacturing Accuracy | - Validation testing of CAM restriction zones conducted, including verification to show avoidance of damage or modifications of the connection geometry, and locking of restriction zones from user editing in CAM software. (Implies successful validation to ensure manufacturing precision and prevent damage.) |
  | Material Conformance | - Zirconia materials conform to ISO 6872.
• Titanium alloy conforms to ASTM F136.
• Co-Cr-Mo alloy conforms to ASTM F15337. (Implies materials meet standards.) |
  | Physical Dimensions | - Device encompasses the same range of physical dimensions as the predicate device. (Implies dimensional equivalence.) |

2. 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 in terms of a "test set" for diagnostic performance. The validation involved physical testing of components (e.g., fatigue testing) and software verification. The specific number of abutments or digital design instances used for these non-clinical tests is not detailed in this summary.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of patient data for an AI/ML device. The "data" here refers to engineering and material testing results, likely conducted in controlled lab environments (implied to be in accordance with international standards like ISO and ASTM). The manufacturer is Terrats Medical SL, in Spain, so testing would likely originate from their facilities or contracted labs.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

Not applicable. This is not a diagnostic device requiring expert interpretation for ground truth. The "ground truth" for this device relates to engineering specifications and material science.

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

Not applicable. This is not a diagnostic device involving expert review 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

Not applicable. This device is 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 not an AI/ML algorithm.

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

For this device, the "ground truth" is based on:

• Engineering Specifications: Defined design parameters (e.g., minimum wall thickness, post height, angulation limits).
• Material Standards: Conformance to international standards such as ASTM F136, ISO 6872.
• Benchmarking/Predicate Equivalence: Performance is assessed against established performance of the predicate devices and OEM implant systems.
• Software Validation Logic: Verification that software correctly enforces design rules and CAD/CAM restrictions.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This device does not involve a machine learning training set.

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

Not applicable. This device does not involve a machine learning training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Surcam Dental Implant System is indicated for use in surgical and restorative applications for placement in the bone of the upper or lower jaw to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, in order to restore the patient's chewing function. The Dental Implant System is indicated also for immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading. The C Type 3.3mm diameter implants are indicated for use with only straight abutments.

Temporary cylinders must be used in a splinted restoration only and are not for single crown restorations.

The Surcam Dental Implant System consists of endosseous dental implants in conical and internal hex connections along with abutments, cover screws, healing caps and abutment systems for each connection type. Conical devices come in two platforms, NP and RP. Implants and abutments are made from ASTM F136 Ti6AL4V ELI. Multi-unit abutments are for multi-unit restorations only.

The provided text does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving that an AI-powered device meets such criteria. The document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called the "Surcam Dental Implant System," which is a traditional dental implant system, not an AI device.

The document discusses:

• Device Name: Surcam Dental Implant System
• Indications for Use: Surgical and restorative applications for placement in the bone of the upper or lower jaw to support prosthetic devices (artificial teeth) to restore chewing function. It also indicates immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved.
• Device Description: Consists of endosseous dental implants (conical and internal hex connections), abutments, cover screws, healing caps, and abutment systems. Made from ASTM F136 Ti6AL4V ELI.
• Testing Summary: Dynamic fatigue testing (ISO 14801), surface cleanliness analysis, sterilization (ISO 11137-1 and 11137-2 for implants; ISO 17665-1 and -2 for abutments), material compliance (ASTM F136), endotoxin testing (USP 161), shelf life and package integrity testing (ASTM F1980, ASTM F1929, ASTM 2338, ASTM D3078, ISO 11607-1) for a shelf life of 5 years.
• MR Environment Condition: Non-clinical worst-case MRI review performed based on scientific rationale and published literature.
• Predicate and Reference Devices: Comparison with other legally marketed dental implant systems to establish substantial equivalence.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving an AI device meets them, as the subject of this document is a conventional dental implant system.

Ask a specific question about this device

ZENEX Implant System Long is indicated for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae, 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.

ZENEX Implants in the 20 mm length when placed in the maxilla are only indicated for multiple unit restorations in splinted applications that utilize at least two implants.

ZENEX Implant System_Long is a thread type implant made of pure titanium according to ASTM F 67 and supplied sterile, which will be placed in the alveolar bone in order to support or maintain the prosthetic tooth or denture when a patient's teeth are partially or totally lost.

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

There are 2 types of fixtures, and the dimensions are as following:

The subject devices are compatible with the following abutments made by Izenimplant Co., Ltd.

ZENEX Implant System_Long is provided sterile, and valid for 5 years.

This document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the ZENEX Implant System Long, an endosseous dental implant. This type of submission relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving safety and effectiveness through extensive clinical trials. Therefore, the information provided focuses on non-clinical testing and comparisons to predicate devices, rather than a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria in a clinical setting.

Here's an analysis of the provided information based on your requested points:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Since this is a 510(k) submission for substantial equivalence based primarily on non-clinical testing, there isn't a direct "acceptance criterion" table in the sense of clinical performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity). Instead, the "acceptance criteria" are the successful completion of various non-clinical tests according to established standards, demonstrating that the new device is as safe and effective as the predicate devices.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not explicitly stated as a single "test set" in the context of a clinical study. For non-clinical tests:
  • Fatigue Testing: The number of implant samples subjected to fatigue testing according to ISO 14801 is not specified (e.g., "n="). The standard usually specifies minimum sample sizes.
  • For other tests (Biocompatibility, Sterilization, Shelf Life, Bacterial Endotoxin, Surface Modification), the sample sizes are not provided as these were either leveraged from the predicate device or conducted per standard protocols without explicit counts in this document.
• Data Provenance: The document generally refers to "non-clinical testing data." Specific countries of origin for the non-clinical testing are not provided. The main submitter (Izenimplant Co., Ltd.) is from the Republic of Korea. The testing itself would typically be performed by accredited labs. The studies were retrospective in the sense that data from already cleared predicate devices were leveraged. The fatigue testing for the subject device was newly performed, making it prospective for that specific test on the new design.

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

This information is not applicable in this context. Since this is a 510(k) submission based on non-clinical testing for substantial equivalence, there is no "ground truth" derived from expert clinical assessment of patient data (e.g., radiologists interpreting images) for a "test set" in the way it would be for an AI/CADe device. The "ground truth" for non-clinical tests is established by adhering to recognized international standards and laboratory protocols.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable. There was no "test set" in a clinical diagnostic sense requiring expert adjudication. Non-clinical tests typically involve objective measurements according to defined standards.

5. If a Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, If So, What Was the Effect Size of How Much Human Readers Improve with AI vs Without AI Assistance

This information is not applicable. The device is an endosseous dental implant, not an AI or CADe diagnostic tool. Therefore, MRMC studies involving human readers and AI assistance are not relevant to this submission.

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

This information is not applicable. The device is a physical medical implant, not a software algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

For non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" is defined by the established international or national standards and protocols for each test (e.g., ISO 14801 for fatigue testing, ISO 10993 for biocompatibility). The results are compared against these benchmarks or against the performance of predicate devices tested under the same conditions.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable. The device is an endosseous dental implant. There is no concept of a "training set" as would be used for machine learning models.

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

This information is not applicable. As there is no training set for a machine learning model, there is no ground truth established for one.

Ask a specific question about this device

TruAbutment DS is a patient-specific CAD/CAM abutment, which is directly connected to endosseous dental implants and is intended to be used as an aid in prosthetic rehabilitation. It is compatible with the following systems: Astra OsseoSpeed EV (K130999, K120414), Biomet 3i Full OSSEOTITE Tapered Certain (K130949), DIO UF (II) Internal Submerged (K161987, K170608, K173975), Neoss ProActive® (K083561), Osstem TS (K161604), Camlog Screw-Line (K083496), Conelog Screw-Line (K113779), Implant Direct Legacy2 (K192221), BioHorizons Internal Implant System (K093321, K143022, K071638), MegaGen AnyRidge Internal Implant (K140091). All digitally designed abutments and/or copings for use with the TruAbutments are intended to be sent to a TruAbutment-validated milling center for manufacture.

TruBase is a titanium component that is directly connected to endosseous dental implants to provide support for patient-specific prosthetic restorations, such as copings or crowns. It is indicated for a screw-retained single tooth or cement-retained single tooth and bridge restorations. It is compatible with the following systems: Astra OsseoSpeed EV (K130999), Biomet 3i Full OSSEOTITE Tapered Certain (K130949), DIO UF(II) Internal Submerged (K161987, K170608, K173975), Neoss ProActive® (K083561), Camlog Screw-Line (K083496), Conelog Screw-Line (K113779), Implant Direct Legacy2 (K192221). All digitally designed abutments and/or copings for use with the TruAbutment are intended to be sent to a TruAbutment-validated milling center for manufacture.

TruAbutment DS, TruBase and abutment screw are made of Titanium grade Ti-6A1-4V ELI (meets ASTM Standard F136). TruAbutment DS, TruBase are supplied with two identical screws which are used: (1) For fixing the abutment into the endosseous implant. (2) For dental laboratory use during construction of related restoration. TruAbutment DS, TruBase are provided non-sterile. Therefore, it must be sterilized before use. TruAbutment DS, TruBase are devices that can only be sold, distributed, or used upon the order of an authorized healthcare provider, generally referred to as prescription (Rx) devices.

TruAbutment DS system includes patient-specific abutments that are placed into the dental implant to provide support for the prosthetic restoration. The subject abutments are indicated for serew-retained restorations. 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 during the manufacturing. All manufacturing processes of TruAbutment DS are conducted at the TruAbutment milling center.

TruBase is a two-piece abutment. The base component is premanufactured and is used to support a cemented CAD/CAM zirconia superstructure. The base and the zirconia superstructure together form the final abutment. CAD/CAM customized superstructure that composes the final abutment is intended to be sent to a TruAbutment-validated milling center to be designed and milled, according to the prosthetic planning and patient clinical situation. The superstructure is cemented to the TruBase in the lab. Use "RelyX Unicem 2Automix" as an adhesive extra orally to connect.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the TruAbutment DS and TruBase devices. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (TruAbutment DS, K203649) and does not detail an acceptance criteria table with reported device performance in the manner of a clinical study. The text describes non-clinical testing performed, but not a study designed to prove the device meets acceptance criteria related to a specific clinical outcome or diagnostic accuracy.

Therefore, many of the requested items (acceptance criteria table, sample size for test/training sets, data provenance, expert ground truth, adjudication, MRMC studies, standalone performance, type of ground truth) are not applicable based on the content of this 510(k) summary, which is a premarket notification for a medical device primarily based on demonstrating substantial equivalence through engineering and mechanical testing, not clinical performance or AI algorithm validation studies.

However, I can extract the information provided regarding non-clinical testing for the devices.

Acceptance Criteria and Study for TruAbutment DS & TruBase

Based on the provided 510(k) summary, the "acceptance criteria" and "study" described are focused on non-clinical mechanical performance testing and demonstration of substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than a clinical study proving performance against specific clinical or diagnostic accuracy metrics with human or AI components.

Here's the relevant information extracted and presented based on the document:

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

The document does not provide a table with specific quantitative acceptance criteria alongside actual reported numerical performance results for the new devices in the context of a comparative study proving their performance against such criteria. Instead, it states that "The results of the above tests have met the criteria of the standard and demonstrated substantial equivalence with the reference devices." This implies a qualitative "met standard" outcome rather than specific numerical performance data.

The tables provided describe the design limits of the devices and compare them to the predicate device, not performance data from a test:

TruAbutment DS Design Parameters (Acceptance Criteria are implied by meeting these limits)

TruBase Design Parameters (Acceptance Criteria are implied by meeting these limits)

For mechanical performance, the document states:
"Mechanical performance testing was performed according to ISO 14801. For compatible OEM implant line, worst-case constructs were subjected to static compression and compression fatigue testing. The fatigue limit data for all other implant lines demonstrated the construct strengths to be sufficient for their intended use."

This confirms that the acceptance criteria for mechanical performance were "sufficient for their intended use" as defined by ISO 14801 and worst-case testing, but quantitative results are not provided.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: The document mentions "worst-case constructs" were tested for mechanical performance, and "the entire system including all variations (all compatible implant bodies, dental abutments, and fixation screws)" was evaluated for MRI environment conditions. However, specific numerical sample sizes for these tests are not provided.
• Data Provenance: The data comes from non-clinical laboratory testing following international standards (ISO 14801, ISO 17665-1/2, ISO 10993 series). The country of origin and retrospective/prospective nature are not applicable as it's not a clinical data study.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

• This is not applicable. The "ground truth" for this type of device (dental abutments) is established through adherence to engineering design specifications, material standards (ASTM F136), and performance under mechanical stress tests (ISO 14801), as well as compliance with sterilization and biocompatibility standards. It does not involve expert interpretation of images or clinical outcomes in the same way an AI diagnostic device would.

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

• This is not applicable as there is no human interpretation or subjective assessment of data requiring adjudication. Testing is based on objective measurements against engineering standards.

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 is not applicable. The device is an endosseous dental implant abutment, not an AI diagnostic tool.

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

• This is not applicable. The device is a physical dental component, not an algorithm.

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

• The "ground truth" for validating these devices is adherence to engineering specifications, material properties, and performance standards (e.g., passing specific load-bearing and fatigue tests per ISO 14801, meeting biocompatibility requirements, maintaining dimensional accuracy). "Dimensional analysis and reverse engineering" were used to confirm compatibility.

8. The sample size for the training set

• This is not applicable. There is no "training set" as this is a physical medical device, not an AI/machine learning algorithm.

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

• This is not applicable for the reason above.

Summary of the Study Proving Device Meets Criteria (Based on Provided Text):

The "study" conducted was primarily non-clinical laboratory testing to demonstrate the mechanical performance, sterilization efficacy, and biocompatibility of the TruAbutment DS and TruBase devices. The objective was to show substantial equivalence to an existing legally marketed device (TruAbutment DS, K203649) by proving that the new devices meet established design limits and performance standards relevant to dental implant abutments.

• Mechanical Testing: Performed on "worst-case constructs" according to ISO 14801 for static compression and compression fatigue. The outcome was that "construct strengths [were] sufficient for their intended use."
• Sterilization Testing: Performed per ISO 17665-1:2006, 17665-2:2009 and ANSI/AAMI ST79:2010.
• Biocompatibility Testing: Performed per ISO 10993-1:2009, ISO 10993-5:2009, and ISO 10993-10:2010.
• MRI Environment Evaluation: A non-clinical worst-case MRI review was done using scientific rationale and published literature to assess magnetically induced displacement force and torque.
• Dimensional Analysis and Reverse Engineering: Conducted on the implant-to-abutment connection platform to assess critical design aspects and tolerances, confirming compatibility.

The overall conclusion was that the devices "met the criteria of the standard and demonstrated substantial equivalence with the reference devices," thus indicating they met their implied acceptance criteria for safety and performance as medical devices. Clinical testing was explicitly stated as "not necessary."

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 expand the DESS Dental Smart Solutions abutment system cleared under K221301 to add the ability for the subject device Base Abutments and Pre-milled (Blank) Abutments to be designed using AbutmentCAD software in the digital dentistry workflow, as well as add angulation to some of the Pre-Milled (Blank) Abutments. The subject devices are to Terrats Medical validated milling centers for manufacture, or to be designed and manufactured via a digital dentistry workflow. The digital dentistry workflow integrates multiple components: scan files from intra-oral and lab (desktop) scanners, CAD software, CAM software, titanium and ceramic material, milling machine, and associated tooling and accessories. The proposed change is to allow the subject devices to be designed using AbutmentCAD by exocad GmbH, the current workflow allows only the use of 3Shape by 3Shape A/S for the design software. Another purpose of this submission is to expand the design parameters to allow angulation (up to 30°) on Pre-milled (Blank) Abutments that are compatible with Neodent Grand Morse, Nobel Active/Nobel Parallel Conical 3.0 mm, and Straumann BLX implants. There are no changes to the abutment design or implant compatibilities. All part numbers have been cleared for manufacturing via a validated milling center and digital dentistry workflows in under K221301.

The subject device DESS Dental Solutions abutments provide a range of prosthetic solutions for dental implant restoration. DESS abutments are offered in a variety of connection types to enable compatibility with currently marketed dental implants. All abutments are provided non-sterile, and each abutment is supplied with the appropriate abutment screw (if applicable) for attachment to the corresponding implant.

Subject device Base Abutments are designed for fabrication of a patient-specific CAD/CAM zirconia superstructure on which a crown may be placed. They are two-piece abutments for which the second part (or top half) is the ceramic superstructure. They also may be used for support of a crown directly on the abutment.

All patient-specific custom abutment fabrication for Base Abutments and Pre-milled (Blank) Abutments is by prescription on the order of the clinician. The subject device Pre-milled (Blank) Abutments and all zirconia superstructures for use with the subject device Ti Base Interface, DESS Aurum Base, ELLIPTIBase, and DESS C-Base will be manufactured using a validated milling center or a digital dentistry workflow. A validated milling center will be under FDA quality system regulations. The digital dentistry workflow scans files from intra-oral and lab (desktop) scanners, CAD software, titanium and ceramic material, milling machine and associated tooling and accessories.

The digital dentistry workflow uses scan files from intra-oral and lab (desktop) scanners, CAD software, CAM software, ceramic material, milling machine and associated tooling and accessories. The digital workflow includes the following products (not subject devices of this submission):

• Ceramic material: VITA YZ ST and VITA YZ XT (K180703)
• . Cement: Ivoclar Vivadent Multilink Hybrid Abutment Cement (K130436)
• . Intraoral Scanner: 3Shape TRIOS A/S Series Intraoral Scanner (510(k) exempt under 21 CFR 872.3661)
• Desktop scanner: 3Shape D900 Dental Lab Scanner (510(k) exempt under 21 CFR 872.3661)
• Abutment design software: 3Shape Abutment Designer Software (K151455) and AbutmentCAD ● (K193352)
• . Milling machine: VHF R5 by vhf camfacture AG with DentalCAM and DentalCNC 7 software

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for DESS Dental Smart Solutions, which are dental implant abutments. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving a device's effectiveness through clinical performance studies with specific statistical acceptance criteria for accuracy, sensitivity, or specificity.

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

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance (in terms of clinical metrics like accuracy, sensitivity, specificity).
• Sample size used for the test set or its provenance.
• Number of experts used to establish ground truth or their qualifications.
• Adjudication method for the test set.
• Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study or its effect size.
• Standalone (algorithm only) performance.
• Type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data).
• Sample size for the training set.
• How the ground truth for the training set was established.

The study described in this document focuses on non-clinical performance data to demonstrate substantial equivalence, specifically:

1. Sterilization validation: According to ISO 17665-1, ISO 17665-2, and ISO 14937.
2. Biocompatibility testing: According to ISO 10993-5 and ISO 10993-12.
3. Fatigue testing and reverse engineering analysis: Of OEM implant bodies, OEM abutments, and OEM abutment screws to confirm compatibility. This includes fatigue testing of OEM implant bodies with patient-specific abutments made at worst-case angled conditions.
4. MR Conditional labeling.
5. Validation testing of CAM restriction zones: Including verification to show avoidance of damage or modifications of the connection geometry, and locking of restriction zones from user editing in the CAM software.
6. Software verification: Included testing of restrictions that prevent design of components outside of the stated design parameters. The abutment design library was validated to demonstrate that established design limitations and specifications are locked and cannot be modified by the user.

The acceptance criteria and reported "performance" for this submission are based on these engineering and design validations, ensuring the device meets safety and performance standards equivalent to the predicate device, K221301. The key "performance" metrics are about maintaining physical and material integrity and compatibility.

The core of the submission is to expand the DESS Dental Smart Solutions abutment system to:

• Allow design using AbutmentCAD software (in addition to 3Shape software).
• Add angulation (up to 30°) to some Pre-milled (Blank) Abutments for specific implant systems.

The document explicitly states: "No clinical data were included in this submission." and "The subject device, the predicate device, and reference devices have the same intended use, technological characteristics, and are materials. The subject device, the predicate device, and reference devices encompass the same range of physical dimensions, manufactured by similar methods, are packaged in similar materials, and are to be sterilized using similar methods. The data included in this submission demonstrate substantial equivalence to the predicate devices listed above."

Therefore, this FDA submission is for a physical medical device (dental implant abutment) and its manufacturing/design software modifications, not an AI or diagnostic device that would involve clinical performance metrics like sensitivity or specificity.

Ask a specific question about this device

IPD Dental Implant Abutments are intended to be used in conjunction with endosseous dental implants in the maxillary or mandibular arch to provide support for single or multiple dental prosthetic restorations.

IPD Dental Implant Abutments is a dental implant abutment system composed of dental abutments and screws intended to be placed into dental implants to provide support for dental prosthetic restorations. Abutments provide basis for single or multiple tooth prosthetic restorations. They are available in a variety of connection types to enable compatibility with commercially available dental implants systems. IPD Dental Implant Abutments includes the following categories of dental abutment designs: Healing abutments; Temporary abutments; Cementing titanium abutments; Titanium base (interface) abutments; The system also includes the corresponding Titanium Screws intended to attach the prosthesis to the dental implant.

This is a Premarket Notification (510(k)) summary for the IPD Dental Implant Abutments. This document does not describe a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria as would be found in a clinical trial for a novel AI device with specific performance metrics. Instead, it demonstrates substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on bench testing and engineering analysis.

Here's an breakdown of the information provided, tailored to your request, but emphasizing that this is not a typical AI/ML performance study:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Since this is a 510(k) for dental abutments, the "acceptance criteria" are not reported as specific performance metrics (like sensitivity/specificity for an AI model), but rather as compliance with recognized standards and demonstration of substantial equivalence to predicate devices. The "reported device performance" refers to successful completion of various non-clinical tests.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not applicable in the context of human data or AI model test sets. The "test set" here refers to the physical samples of the IPD Dental Implant Abutments (and their components, potentially in various configurations) that were subjected to the specified bench and biocompatibility tests. The exact number of physical abutments, screws, or zirconia superstructures tested for each specific criterion is not detailed in this summary but would be found in the full test reports.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of country of origin for patient data. The tests were performed on the manufactured device components. The materials are specified (e.g., Titanium alloy conforming to ISO 5832-3).

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

Not applicable. "Ground truth" in this context would generally refer to expert-derived labels for clinical data, which is not part of this 510(k) submission. The "truth" for the performance tests is established by adherence to recognized international standards (e.g., ISO, FDA Guidance) and objective measurements from engineering or biological tests.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not applicable. Adjudication methods (like 2+1 or 3+1) are used for resolving disagreements among human readers or expert labelers of clinical data, which is not relevant here. The evaluation criteria for the bench tests are objective and defined by established standards.

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. This device is a dental implant abutment, not an AI software. Therefore, MRMC studies and AI assistance effect sizes are not relevant to this submission.

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

No. This is a physical medical device (dental abutments), not a standalone algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used

The "ground truth" for this device's performance is established by:

• Compliance with international standards (e.g., ISO 14801 for fatigue testing, ISO 10993 series for biocompatibility, ISO 17665-1 for sterilization).
• Engineering specifications and dimensional analysis to ensure compatibility with other specified dental implant systems.
• Validated digital dentistry workflow parameters (e.g., minimum gingival height, wall thickness, post height, angulation for zirconia superstructures), which are based on established dental prosthetic principles.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable. No training set is used for this physical device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The NB Mini Implant System is indicated for use in surgical and restorative applications for placement in the mandibular central, lateral incisor and maxillary lateral incisor regions of partially edentulous jaws where the horizontal space is limited by the adjacent teeth and roots, to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, in order to restore the patient's chewing function. The NB Mini Implant System is indicated also for immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading.

The NB Mini Implant System consist of below: Fixture - NB Fixture Mini Abutment - Cover Screw - . Healing Abutment - Scan Healing Abutment - Scan Healing Abutment Screw - Cemented Abutment Mini - . Angled Abutment Mini - Abutment Screw The NB Fixture Mini is made of Ti-6AI-4V Eli (Conforming to ASTM F136) which will be placed in the alveolar bone to replace the function of the missing tooth. The NB Mini Implant System consists of dental implants, abutments for use in one or two-stage dental implant placement and restorations. The implant-abutment connection is tight and precise fitting with internal hex and morse taper bevel. The surface of the fixture is treated with SLA (Sandblasted with Large-grit and Acid-etching). It is only part to be implanted into bone, and to provide connection of prosthetic devices or other components of a dental implant set with human body (mandibular or maxillary bone).

This document is a 510(k) summary for the NB Mini Implant System by Arum Dentistry Co., Ltd. It declares that the device is substantially equivalent to existing predicate devices. Consequently, it does not contain a typical acceptance criteria table with reported device performance as would be found in a study demonstrating novel device performance. Instead, it provides a comparison to predicate devices to establish substantial equivalence.

Based on the provided text, here’s an analysis of the "acceptance criteria" and "study" information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

As noted, this document is a 510(k) summary for substantial equivalence, not a standalone performance study with explicit acceptance criteria. The "acceptance criteria" in this context are implicitly that the subject device's performance is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices. The "reported device performance" is presented through direct comparison of features and results of non-clinical benchtop tests against these predicate devices.

The table below summarizes the comparative information provided for the NB Fixture Mini (one component of the NB Mini Implant System) against its primary predicate and a reference device. Similar comparative summaries are provided for other components (Cover Screw, Healing Abutment, Scan Healing Abutment, Cemented Abutment Mini, Angled Abutment Mini, and Abutment Screw), all concluding substantial equivalence.

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

The document refers to a variety of non-clinical testing data for various components of the NB Mini Implant System:

• Mechanical performance testing (Fatigue test): "For each compatible implant line, worst-case constructs were subjected to static compression and compression fatigue testing." No specific numerical sample size is provided.
• Bone to Implant Contact (BIC) analysis: Conducted with NB Fixture Mini implants of diameters less than 3.25mm. No specific numerical sample size is provided.
• Surface area analysis: Conducted with NB Fixture Mini implants of diameters less than 3.25mm. No specific numerical sample size is provided.
• Pullout test: Conducted with NB Fixture Mini implants of diameters less than 3.25mm. No specific numerical sample size is provided.
• Biocompatibility: Demonstrated by reference to ARUM DENTISTRY submission K213506.
• Sterilization validation: Performed according to ISO 11137-1 and ISO 11137-2 (method VDmax25 for 25 kGy dose, referenced from K213506), End User Moist Heat Sterilization Test (ANSI/AAMI ST79, ISO 17665-1, -2, ISO 11737-1, -2 and ISO 11138-1, referenced from K213506), and LAL endotoxin testing (AAMI / ANSI ST72:2011/(R)2016).
• Shelf-Life: Accelerated aging method in accordance with ASTM F1980.

The data provenance is not explicitly stated as country of origin, retrospective or prospective, but all tests are non-clinical, meaning they were performed in a lab setting, likely by the manufacturer or a contract lab. The referenced 510(k) submissions (K213506, K190849, K220079, etc.) indicate these are devices marketed in the US, but the company (Arum Dentistry Co., Ltd.) is from the Republic of Korea.

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

This section is not applicable as the studies described are non-clinical benchtop tests, not clinical studies involving expert interpretation of patient data to establish ground truth.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

This section is not applicable as the studies described are non-clinical benchtop tests, not clinical studies requiring adjudication of human reader interpretations.

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 section is not applicable. The device is an endosseous dental implant system, not an AI or software-based diagnostic tool that would typically be evaluated with MRMC studies or AI assistance.

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

This section is not applicable as the device is a physical medical implant, not an algorithm or AI system.

7. The type of ground truth used

For the non-clinical performance tests:

• Mechanical fatigue: The "ground truth" or reference for evaluating performance is the established mechanical properties and fatigue resistance standards (e.g., ISO 14801), and the performance of the predicate devices.
• Biocompatibility: Demonstrated via material testing and reference to previous submissions, ensuring the material meets established safety standards for biological interaction.
• Sterilization: Ground truth is defined by sterility assurance levels (e.g., SAL of 10^-6) and adherence to recognized standards (ISO 11137, ANSI/AAMI ST79).
• Shelf-Life: Ground truth is established by test methods (ASTM F1980) that predict long-term stability and integrity.
• BIC, Surface Area, Pullout: These are physical measurements compared against predicate device performance, implying the predicate's performance serves as the reference for "substantially equivalent" ground truth.

8. The sample size for the training set

This section is not applicable as the device is a physical medical implant, not an AI or software system that requires a training set.

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

This section is not applicable as the device is a physical medical implant, not an AI or software system that requires a training set and corresponding ground truth.

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.

All digitally designed custom abutments for use with DESS Ti Base abutments or Pre-Milled Blank abutments are to be sent to a Terrats Medical validated milling center for manufacture.

The purpose of this submission is to add components to the DESS Dental Smart Solutions system, which includes dental implants, abutments, and prosthetic components cleared previously in various submissions. The previously cleared abutments and prosthetic components are compatible with a variety of original equipment manufacturer (OEM) dental implants as well as DESS Dental Smart Solutions dental implants.

This submission adds various abutments to the DESS and OEM implant lines as summarized on the following pages in Table 1 Summary of Subject Device Abutment Designs, and Table 2 Summary of Subject Device Abutment Sizes.

The subject device abutment designs include Cover Screws, Healing Abutments, Temporary Abutments, Ti Base Abutments, AURUM Base Abutments (Ti Base abutments with a screw channel design that allows easier instrument access to the abutment screw), CoCr Base Abutments, Pre-Milled Blank Abutments, Multi-Unit Abutments (straight and angled), DESSLoc Abutments (Locator-type abutments), and abutment screws.

This document is a 510(k) summary for the DESS Dental Smart Solutions, a line of endosseous dental implant abutments. It details the device's characteristics, intended use, and a comparison to predicate devices to establish substantial equivalence.

Based on the provided text, the device itself is a physical medical device (dental implant abutments and associated components), not a software or AI-driven system. Therefore, the questions related to AI acceptance criteria, training/test sets, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, and ground truth establishment for AI would not be directly applicable to this product as described.

The document focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices through:

• Identical Intended Use: The device is intended for "functional and esthetic rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible or maxilla" by providing support for prosthetic restorations, which is the same as the predicate devices.
• Similar Technological Characteristics: The device utilizes similar designs, materials (Ti-6Al-4V, Co-Cr-Mo alloy), manufacturing processes, and sterilization methods as its predicates.
• Performance Data: Non-clinical testing (mechanical testing per ISO 14801, MR environment assessment) and comparison to existing data from predicate devices are used to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Therefore, many of the requested elements for describing AI acceptance criteria and studies are not present or applicable in this document.

However, I can extract information relevant to the device's performance assessment and criteria for its type of submission.

Here's an attempt to answer the questions based solely on the provided text, acknowledging that the nature of the device (a physical implant component) means many AI-specific questions will be answered as "Not Applicable" (N/A):

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

The document does not explicitly state quantifiable "acceptance criteria" in a table format with corresponding "reported device performance" metrics for this specific 510(k) submission. Instead, it relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices.

The underlying "acceptance criteria" for demonstrating substantial equivalence for this device type are primarily through:

• Mechanical Testing (ISO 14801): This is a critical performance standard for dental implants and abutments. The document states that mechanical testing was "conducted according to ISO 14801 to support the performance." The acceptance criteria would be successful completion of these tests, demonstrating the device's mechanical strength and fatigue resistance are comparable to or better than predicate devices. The reported performance is simply that the tests supported the performance.
• Material Conformance: Materials must conform to specific ASTM standards (e.g., ASTM F136 for Ti-6Al-4V, ASTM F1537 for Co-Cr-Mo). The reported performance is that the materials conform to these standards.
• Biocompatibility: While not detailed in this excerpt, the mention of "biocompatibility" in relation to predicates implies conformance to relevant biocompatibility standards (e.g., ISO 10993 series). The reported performance is that it is compatible.
• Sterilization Validation: Demonstrated sterility assurance level (SAL) of 10⁻⁶ via validated methods (moist heat or gamma irradiation). The reported performance is that validation was performed and met this SAL.
• Dimensional Compatibility: The abutments must fit the corresponding OEM implants correctly. The reported performance is that reverse engineering dimensional analysis confirmed compatibility.

Due to the nature of the document being a 510(k) summary focusing on substantial equivalence rather than a full study report, specific numerical performance results for the device tests are not provided in this text.

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

• Sample Size for Mechanical Testing: The document states "mechanical testing conducted according to ISO 14801." For such tests, ISO 14801 typically specifies minimum sample sizes (e.g., 10-11 samples for static strength, typically more for fatigue). The exact number of samples used for this specific submission is not explicitly stated, but it would have followed the standard's requirements.
• Data Provenance: The mechanical testing and material analyses are assumed to be "non-clinical data submitted or referenced" by the manufacturer, Terrats Medical SL, based in Barcelona, Spain. The "reverse engineering dimensional analysis" was done by Terrats Medical SL or through contractual agreement. This is prospective testing performed to support the 510(k). The document itself does not specify the country of origin for the underlying OEM implant data used for reverse engineering, although the OEM companies are listed (e.g., Astra Tech AB, BioHorizons).

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

N/A. This is a physical device. Ground truth, in the context of AI, refers to validated labels for data used to train and test an algorithm. For a physical device, performance is evaluated through engineering and biocompatibility testing against defined standards. There are no "experts" establishing ground truth in the AI sense. Testing would be performed by qualified engineers and technicians.

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

N/A. Adjudication methods are typically used in clinical studies involving interpretation (e.g., by radiologists) to resolve discrepancies. This document describes non-clinical performance testing of a physical device.

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

N/A. This product is a dental implant abutment, not an AI software intended to assist human readers.

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

N/A. This is a physical device, not an algorithm.

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

N/A. For engineering tests of physical devices, the "ground truth" is typically derived from established engineering principles, international standards (e.g., ISO 14801 for mechanical properties, ASTM for materials), and the physical properties of the materials and designs themselves. There isn't "expert consensus" or "pathology" in the AI or clinical trials sense.

8. The sample size for the training set

N/A. This is a physical device; there's no "training set" in the machine learning sense. The device is manufactured based on established engineering designs and material specifications.

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

N/A. No training set for AI. For device manufacturing, the "ground truth" for design and production parameters comes from established engineering best practices, prior successful device designs (predicate devices), and adherence to quality systems regulations (21 CFR Part 820).

Ask a specific question about this device