Search Results

The TiGEN Abutment, ZrGEN Abutment and Scan Healing Abutment are intended for use on endosseous dental implants in the edentulous or partially edentulous maxilla or mandible, as an aid in prosthetic rehabilitation.

For TiGEN Abutment and ZrGEN Abutment, all digitally designed abutments for use with TiGEN Abutment and ZrGEN Abutment are intended to be sent to a MegaGen-validated milling center for manufacture.

The TiGEN Abutment is machined with the final prosthetic in accordance with the intraoral structure. It is machined by using dental CAD/CAM technology in accordance with customized patient's information in MegaGen-validated milling center. The TiGEN Abutment is made of Ti-6Al-4V ELI alloy. And It is provided with abutment screw. All TiGEN Abutment is provided non-sterile. The milled TiGEN Abutment must be sterilized by users prior to use.

The ZrGEN Abutment is a two-piece abutment composed of the stock titanium base cemented together with the zirconia top-half to complete the final finished device. This abutment is to be used only with implants placed straight. It is made of Ti-6Al-4V ELI alloy. It is provided with abutment screw. All ZrGEN Abutment is provided non-sterile. Therefore, the ZrGEN Abutment must be sterilized by users prior to use after the cementation of the Zirconia top-half.

The Scan Healing Abutment designed to aid in soft tissue contouring the healing period after implant placement, creating an emergence profile for the final prosthesis. And they have the added design feature to be scannable an intraoral impression by digital scanner. The Scan Healing Abutment is provided with abutment screw and is provided gamma-sterile.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a medical device submission to the FDA. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on comparisons of indications for use, design, materials, and non-clinical testing. It explicitly states that no clinical studies were submitted (Section 9). Therefore, the document does not contain information about acceptance criteria for device performance as would be demonstrated by a study with ground truth data.

However, it does describe the non-clinical tests performed to support substantial equivalence. Here's a breakdown of what the document provides regarding tests and an explanation for the absence of other requested information:

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

Since no clinical studies with performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, or effect sizes were performed, a table of acceptance criteria for diagnostic performance cannot be extracted from this document. The document describes non-clinical testing for safety and mechanical integrity.

However, the document does mention criteria for these non-clinical tests:

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

This information is not applicable as no clinical studies with human test sets were conducted or referenced. The non-clinical tests involved physical samples of the devices. For example, fatigue testing was performed on "worst-case TiGEN Abutment and compatible implant fixture constructs" but the specific number of samples is not provided. Data provenance for non-clinical lab tests is typically the manufacturing facility or a contracted lab, but specific details are not in this summary.

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 as no clinical studies with ground truth established by experts were conducted.

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

This is not applicable as no clinical studies requiring expert adjudication were conducted.

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 as this device is a dental abutment and not an AI-powered diagnostic device. No MRMC study was performed.

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

This is not applicable as this device is a dental abutment and not an algorithm.

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

For the non-clinical tests:

• Sterilization Validation: Ground truth is achieving the specified Sterility Assurance Level (SAL), verified through standard microbiological testing methods (e.g., bioburden and sterility testing).
• Pyrogen and Endotoxin Test: Ground truth is meeting the specified endotoxin limit, verified through standard endotoxin testing (e.g., LAL test).
• Biocompatibility: Ground truth is compliance with ISO 10993 series through tests like cytotoxicity, sensitization, irritation, etc., performed in a lab setting.
• Fatigue Testing: Ground truth is the device (abutment-implant construct) withstanding specified dynamic loading for a certain number of cycles without failure, as defined by ISO 14801.
• Accelerated Shelf Life Test: Ground truth is the maintenance of device properties over the projected shelf life, extrapolated from accelerated aging test data per ASTM F1980.
• MR Compatibility: Ground truth is the device behaving predictably and safely in an MRI environment, based on physics principles and empirical measurements of magnetic displacement and torque.

8. The sample size for the training set

This is not applicable as no machine learning or AI algorithm development was involved.

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

This is not applicable as no machine learning or AI algorithm development was involved.

Ask a specific question about this device