Search Results

MIS dental implant system is intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw arches to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, in order to restore masticatory function. When a one-stage surgical procedure is applied, the implant may be immediately loaded when good primary stability is achieved and the occlusal load is appropriate.

Narrow implants (Ø3.30mm) are indicated for use in surgical and restorative applications for placement only in the mandibular central, lateral incisor and maxillary lateral incisor regions of partially edentulous jaws, to provide support for prosthetic devices such as artificial teeth. Mandibular central and lateral incisors must be splinted if using two or more narrow implants adjacent to one another.

The subject devices, MIS Implants, are supplied sterile and packaged together with a cover screw which can be connected to the implant during the initial healing period after implant placement.

The implants and cover screws are made of titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V ELI complying with standard ASTM F136-13 - Standard Specification for Wrought Titanium-6Aluminum-4Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) Alloy for Surgical Implant). The design and material of the implants and cover screws remain unchanged since most recently cleared 510(k).

The implants are also used with a wide range of previously cleared abutments which are sold separately.

This document is a 510(k) clearance letter for dental implants, not an AI/software as a medical device (SaMD) submission. Therefore, it does not contain the information requested regarding acceptance criteria and study proving device meets acceptance criteria for an AI/SaMD product.

The document discusses dental implants and their physical and material characteristics, regulatory classifications, predicate devices, and performance testing for mechanical properties, sterility, and packaging. The "Performance Data" section specifically mentions "Hydrophilicity testing" for "wet-packed implants" and other physical tests, but none of these relate to AI/SaMD performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or reader studies.

Therefore, I cannot provide a table of acceptance criteria, sample sizes for test sets, expert qualifications, or details on MRMC studies, standalone performance, or ground truth establishment relevant to an AI/SaMD product based on the provided text.

The prompt asks for information that this type of medical device submission (dental implants) would not typically include.

Ask a specific question about this device

UniFit Dental Implant System is intended for surgical placement in the maxillary and or mandibular arch to support crowns, bridges or overdentures in partially or completely edentulous patients in order to restore masticatory function. UniFit Dental Implants may be immediately loaded when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading.

UniFit short implants (6 mm L) are intended to be used only with straight abutments.

All digitally designed custom abutments for use with Ti Base abutments or Pre-milled Blank abutments are to be sent to an Adin Dental validated milling center for manufacture.

Adin's UniFit Dental Implant System is a new model that provides an additional connection platform to Adin's legally marketed Dental Implant Systems, indicated for use in surgical and restorative applications for placement in the maxillary and/or mandibular arch to provide support for prosthetic devices such as crowns, bridges, or overdentures in order to restore masticatory function.

This new UniFit model is identical to Adin's cleared Touareg™ CloseFit (RP- Regular Platform, and WP- Wide Platform) and Adin's Touareg™-S implant systems (cleared under K112585 and K081751, respectively) except for the "Star" (Torx) connection and new 6mm length for specific diameters.

The UniFit Dental Implant System includes dental implants, screws and prosthetic components for CAD/CAM restorations.

The UniFit dental implants are tapered core implants with a spiral tap, and a dome apex and double lead thread design.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and supporting studies for the UniFit Dental Implant System.

Please Note: The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than proving the device meets strict numerical acceptance criteria against a pre-defined performance target. The studies described are primarily to ensure safety, functionality, and equivalence to already cleared devices.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Since this is a submission focused on substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than meeting a specific performance target for AI, the "acceptance criteria" here refer to meeting the established performance standards of the predicate devices and general safety/performance testing for the type of medical device. The document does not provide a traditional table of AI-specific acceptance criteria (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC) or corresponding numerical performance for the device's AI component. Instead, it describes a series of engineering and biocompatibility tests to ensure the new device is as safe and effective as previously cleared devices.

The "device performance" reported is that the device successfully meets the internal protocols and relevant ISO/ASTM standards, indicating it performs comparably to the predicate devices and is safe for its intended use.

No AI is mentioned in the provided text for the UniFit Dental Implant System. The document describes a physical dental implant system and components, not a software or AI-driven medical device. Therefore, the subsequent questions regarding AI-specific criteria (sample size for test/training sets, experts, MRMC studies, standalone performance) are not applicable based on this document.

• Pyrogenic Material-Mediated and chemical extractions conducted.
• Biocompatibility tests were conducted in accordance with referenced standards. |
  | Connection Design Effectiveness | Stable connection and all measurements within component's specification, following tolerance analysis. | All tested specimens showed stable connection and all measurements were found to be within each component's specification. |
  | Maximal Applicable Torque Resistance (Implant) | Withstand maximal insertion torque as predefined in implant specification, considering safety margins and device design. | Test conducted in accordance with internal protocol; implies meeting criteria (no explicit numerical value reported as metric). |
  | Tool to Implant Connection Lifetime Performance | Maximal applied torque and deformation test met predefined acceptance criteria; no mechanical or visual damages observed at end of reusable tool's recommended lifetime. | Met predefined acceptance criteria; no mechanical or visual damages observed. |
  | Implant-Abutment Connection Degree of Rotation | Predefined acceptance criterion for degree of free rotation after applying closure torque. | All tested specimens met the predefined acceptance criterion. |
  | Abutment Screw Performance - Maximum Applicable Torque | Torque resistance of connecting screw such that breakage occurs above acceptance criteria and at the desired location (under the screw head/groove). | All tested screws failed in values above the acceptance criteria and at the desired location. |
  | Screw Loosening and Abutment Extraction by Retrieval Tool | Ability to screw and loosen with no deformation or fracture; abutment easily retrieved from implant under lateral pressure; screw retrieval torque withstands predefined torque. | All tested screws and abutments were successfully unscrewed and retrieved; screw retrieval torque withstood predefined torque. |
  | Regular Platform Dynamic Loading (Fatigue) | Meet requirements of ISO 14801:2016 for fatigue load (fatigue limit) for endosseous dental implants under "worst case" conditions and prosthetic components. | All of the success criteria were met. |
  | Torsion Testing | Meet acceptance criteria for torsional performance as per YY0315:2016 for torsional yield strength and maximum torque of worst-case implant/connecting part joints. | All tested specimens met acceptance criteria for UniFit implant system torsional performance per YY0315:2016. |
  | 6.00mm Implants Pull-Out Test | Axial pull-out strength comparable to or better than predicate devices (MIS short implants K103089), per ASTM F543. | The test met its acceptance criteria (comparison with legally marketed device). |
  | Comparative Surface Area Analysis (before treatment) | UniFit Short Implant's actual surface area (before surface treatment) greater than or equivalent to legally marketed reference item (MIS short implants K103089) at worst-case implant variation. | The total surface area measurements of the tested items were greater than the legally marketed reference item, the acceptance criteria was met. |
  | Comparative Bone to Implant Contact (BIC) Surface Area Analysis | Test article (Adin's UniFit short implant, 6.0 mm) BIC volume and surface area comparable to or exceeding reference item (MIS SEVEN MF7-06420) for Hard Bone (Type I) and Soft Bone (Type IV) conditions. | Test article, at both conditions of the bone, exceeded the MIS reference item in terms of B.I.C. volume and surface area. |
  | Single TMA Fatigue Rationale | Fatigue limit of Single TMA abutments assembled to designated Dental Implants (including compatible screw) conforms to ISO 14801:2016, and does not present new worst-case compared to existing and approved TMA system. | The Single TMA and designated superstructures do not present any new worst-case when compared to the existing and approved TMA system (Rationale provided). |
  | Fatigue testing of TiBase Abutments | Worst-case combination of subject device implants, TiBase abutments, and zirconia superstructure is strong enough for clinical application per ISO 14801. | Tested according to ISO 14801; implies meeting strength requirements (no explicit numerical value reported as metric). |
  | Gamma Irradiation Sterilization | Assurance of SAL (Sterility Assurance Level) of 10^-6 using VDmax 20kGy according to ISO 11137-2:2013 and ISO/TS 13004. | Sterilization validated in accordance with ISO 11137-2:2013, assuring SAL of 10^-6. |
  | Cleaning and Steam Sterilization (End-User) | Assurance of SAL of 10^-6 for steam sterilization (for non-sterile components) using full cycle approach as detailed in Annex D4 of ISO 17665-1:2006, in accordance with ISO 17665-1:2006 and ISO 17665-2:2009. | Steam sterilization validated in accordance with ISO 17665-1:2006 and ISO 17665-2:2009, assuring SAL of 10^-6. |
  | Disinfection (End-User) | Disinfection process validated in accordance with ISO 17664-1:2021 and AAMI TIR12:2020. | Disinfection process validation conducted with accordance with ISO 17664-1:2021 and AAMI TIR12:2020. |
  | Shelf-Life, Packaging and Transportation | Ensure 5 years shelf life under accelerated and real-time aging, and confirmed sterility throughout shelf life and after packaging/transportation per ISO 11607-1. | Shelf-life tests conducted to ensure 5 years shelf life, confirming sterility after packaging and transportation. |

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

As no AI component is described, this question is not directly applicable. The performance data section describes various engineering tests.

• Test Set Description: The "test set" for the engineering evaluations consists of physical samples of the UniFit Dental Implant System.
• Sample Sizes:
  • For most tests (connection design effectiveness, torque resistance, tool life, rotation, screw performance, screw loosening/extraction, torsion testing, fatigue testing of TiBase abutments), the document states "All tested specimens" or "All tested screws," implying all manufactured or a representative sample of components tested met the criteria. It does not provide specific numerical counts for these "specimens" or "screws."
  • For the UniFit 6.00mm Implants Pull-Out test, comparison was made to "proposed predicate devices MIS short implants (K103089)." The sample size for UniFit is not explicitly stated but implies sufficient numbers for comparison.
  • For Comparative Surface Area Analysis and Comparative Bone to Implant Contact Surface Area Analysis, comparison was made against "legally marketed devices (MIS short implants cleared under 510(k) K103089) at worst case implant variation" and "MIS's SEVEN MF7-06420." Again, specific sample sizes for the UniFit components are not given, but "tested items" is used.
• Data Provenance: The data comes from internal testing conducted by Adin Dental Implant Systems Ltd. (implied by "Adin internal protocol") and potentially external accredited labs for biocompatibility and sterilization (e.g., "Tests have been conducted at MDT Medical Device Testing GmbH"). The tests are in accordance with international standards (ISO, ASTM, YY) and FDA guidance. The implants are compared to predicate devices already marketed in the US.

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

This question is not applicable as the document does not describe the use of experts to establish a "ground truth" for an AI algorithm's performance on a test set. The validation is through engineering, materials, and biocompatibility testing against established standards and comparisons to predicate devices, which generally do not involve human "experts" establishing ground truth in the AI sense.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable, as there is no AI component or subjective human interpretation of results requiring adjudication for ground truth.

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, as no AI component is described.

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

Not applicable, as no AI component is described.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

For this device, "ground truth" is established through:

• Compliance with International Standards: Adherence to ISO and ASTM standards for material properties, mechanical performance, fatigue, sterility, and biocompatibility.
• Comparison to Predicate Devices: Performance characteristics (e.g., implant design, connection types, material, dimensions, sterilization methods, clinical indications) are compared against several legally marketed predicate and reference devices (e.g., Adin's Touareg™ CloseFit Dental Implant System, MIS C1 implants, Straumann BLX System, etc.). The "ground truth" implicitly aligns with the documented safety and effectiveness of these predicate devices.
• Internal Protocols: Performance data is generated and evaluated against Adin's internal protocols and specifications.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable, as no AI component or machine learning model is described that would require a training set.

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

Not applicable, as no AI component or machine learning model is described that would require a training set with established ground truth.

Ask a specific question about this device

Inclusive® Titanium Abutments are premanufactured prosthetic components connected to endosseous dental implants in edentulous or partially edentulous maxilla or mandible to provide support for cement-retained or screw-retained prosthetic restorations. All digitally designed abutments for use with Inclusive® Titanium Abutments for CAD/CAM are intended to be sent to a Prismatik Dentalcraft validated milling center for manufacture.

Compatible Implant Systems: Straumann® Bone Level SC, BioHorizons® Tapered Internal, MIS® C1

Inclusive® Titanium Abutments are premanufactured prosthetic components directly connected to endosseous dental implants and are intended for use as an aid in prosthetic rehabilitation. Inclusive® Titanium Abutments are designed and fabricated to be compatible with Straumann® Bone Level SC Implant System, BioHorizons® Tapered Internal Implant System and MIS® C1 Implant System. The products are made from titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V ELI, which meets ASTM standard F136. They include Inclusive® Titanium Abutment Blanks intended to fabricate one-piece, alltitanium, patient-specific abutments using CAD/CAM technology and Inclusive® Titanium Abutments 4.5mmH and 6mmH intended to be used for support of fabricated crowns/bridges or zirconia copings. Inclusive® Titanium Abutments are a two-piece abutment with a titanium base and a ceramic top half. Each patient-specific abutment is prescribed by a clinician and manufactured by Prismatik Dentalcraft, Inc. or a qualified validated milling center. Inclusive® Titanium Abutments are provided non-sterile and intended for single use and prescription use.

Inclusive® Multi-Unit Coping is manufactured from titanium alloy, Ti-6Al-4V ELI conforming to ASTM F136 and used in conjunction with the OEM BioHorizons® Tapered Internal and OEM MIS® C1 multi-unit abutment. Inclusive® Multi-Unit Coping is bonded with the dental restoration prior to being seated on the multi-unit abutment via a multi-unit prosthetic screw. The non-engaging configuration of the multi-unit coping does not have an internal connection feature and seats onto the flat mating surface of the multi-unit abutment. The multi-unit coping is used in combination with screw-retained multi-unit dental prosthetics, e.g. bridges and bars, which are used to reconstruct the function and aesthetics of lost teeth. The multi-unit coping is straight with no angle correction and provided non-sterile. The device is intended for singe use and prescription use.

The provided text describes a medical device called "Inclusive® Titanium Abutments" and details its substantial equivalence to a predicate device. However, it does not include information about acceptance criteria or a study that proves the device meets those criteria in the context of an AI/ML powered medical device.

The document is a 510(k) summary for a dental implant abutment, which is a physical component, not a software device or an AI/ML powered device. The "performance data" section focuses on physical and material properties (Biocompatibility Evaluation, Mechanical Properties, Sterilization Validation, Shelf Life and Packaging Validation, Use in MR Environment) to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device, as opposed to functional performance metrics for an AI/ML algorithm.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information as it is not present in the provided text.

Specifically, the following information is not available:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance (for an AI/ML device): The document discusses performance related to physical properties and material compatibility, not AI/ML metrics.
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable to this type of device.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable.
4. Adjudication method: Not applicable.
5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, and the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance: Not applicable.
6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable.
7. The type of ground truth used: Not applicable in the AI/ML sense. "Ground truth" here relates to established standards for material science and dental mechanics.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

MIS dental implant systems are intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw arches to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, in order to restore masticatory function. When a one-stage surgical procedure is applied, the implant may be immediately loaded when good primary stability is achieved and the occlusal load is appropriate.

Narrow implants (Ø3.30mm) are indicated for use in surgical and restorative applications for placement only in the mandibular central, lateral incisor and maxillary lateral incisor regions of partially edentulous jaws, to provide support for prosthetic devices such as artificial teeth. Mandibular central and lateral incisors must be splinted if using two or more narrow implants adjacent to one another. The long MIS (18 & 20mm) implants can be used in a tilted manner. MIS short implants are to be used only with straight abutments. M4 short implants are indicated for delayed loading only.

The proposed MIS Angulated multi-unit abutments are endosseous dental implant abutments that are connected to MIS dental implants and used as an aid in prosthetic rehabilitation, for anchoring screw retained multiple-unit restorations.

MIS Angulated multi-unit abutments consist of a one-piece abutment and a prosthetic multi-unit screw, both made of Titanium complying with ASTM F136-13 (Standard Specification for Wrought Titanium-6 Aluminum-4 Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) Alloy for Surgical Implant Applications (USN R56401). The proposed abutments are available in 17° and 30° angulations and connected to the implant by a prosthetic multi-unit screw supplied with the proposed abutments. The proposed abutments are also supplied with a titanium gripping bar used to position the multi-unit abutment on the implant. The proposed abutments are supplied sterile to the user.

The proposed MIS cementing cap is a superstructure that has a standard connection design intended to be directly connected to all MIS straight and angulated multi-unit abutments with a prosthetic screw. The proposed cementing cap and prosthetic screw are made of Titanium complying with ASTM F136-13. Multi-unit cementing caps are delivered non-sterile, and are intended to be cleaned and steamsterilized by a professional user according to the instructions before use.

The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for a medical device (MIS Angulated multi-unit abutments). It outlines how the device demonstrates substantial equivalence to predicate devices, primarily through non-clinical performance data.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

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

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

• Sample Size (Test Set): The document does not specify the exact number of units tested for fatigue. It refers to "representative worst-case MIS Angulated multi-unit abutment-implant combinations." For sterilization and shelf life, it refers to "validation" and "study" without giving specific unit counts.
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin of the data or whether the studies were retrospective or prospective. Given that it's a 510(k) submission to the FDA, it is expected that the data would be generated in compliance with relevant international standards (like ISO 14801 for fatigue testing) and potentially reflect a global manufacturing and testing approach.

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 section is not applicable as the document describes non-clinical performance testing for a dental implant abutment, not a diagnostic device requiring expert interpretation for ground truth. The "ground truth" here is the physical performance and material properties meeting established engineering and biological standards.

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

This is not applicable. Adjudication methods are typically used in clinical studies involving human readers or interpretation, not for mechanical or sterilization 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

This is not applicable. The device is a physical dental implant abutment, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool. No human reader or AI assistance is involved.

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 implant abutment, not an algorithm.

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

For the non-clinical tests described:

• Fatigue Testing: The "ground truth" is established by the specified performance requirements of ISO 14801:2016 and FDA guidance (e.g., ability to withstand 5,000,000 cycles without failure at a specific load). This is a predetermined engineering performance standard.
• Sterilization: The "ground truth" is the achievement of a Sterility Assurance Level (SAL) of 10-6, which is an industry standard for sterility.
• Shelf Life: The "ground truth" is a 5-year shelf life, supported by real-time aging study data.
• Biocompatibility: The "ground truth" is the determination that the material and manufacturing process are safe for human contact based on established biocompatibility standards and equivalence to a previously cleared device.

8. The sample size for the training set

This is not applicable. The device is a physical product, not a machine learning model that requires a training set.

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

This is not applicable as there is no training set for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Osteon Precision Milled Suprastructure is indicated for attachments in the treatment of partially orfully edentulous for the purpose of restoring chewing function. The Osteon Precision Milled Suprastructures are intended for attachment to a minimum of two (2) abutments.

The Osteon Milled Suprastructure is indicated for compatibility with the following abutment systems:

• · Nobel Biocare Multi Unit Abutment Plus, 4.8mm, max 30°
• · Nobel Biocare Xeal Abutments, 4.8mm, max 30°
• · Nobel Biocare Multi Unit Abutment, 4.8mm, max 30°
• MIS Multi-unit Abutments, 4.8mm
  • · C1 Conical Connection Implant System, max 30°
  • · V3 Conical Connection Implant System, max 30°
  • · Internal Hex Implant System, max 30°
  • · Conical Connection, max 30°
• Southern Compact Conical Abutments, 4.8mm
  • · MAX Implant System, 0°
  • · Provata Implant System, max 30°
  • · Deep Conical (DC) Implants, 0°
  • · Piccolo Implants, 0°
  • · External Hex Implants, max 30°
• · Astra Tech Implant System® Multi Base Abutment EV, 4.8mm, max 30°
• Keystone Multi Unit Abutment, 4.8mm, 0°
• · Neodent GM Mini Conical Abutment, 4.8mm, max 30°
• · Implant Direct GPS® Angled Abutment, 5.0mm, max 30°
• · Dentium SuperLine® Abutments, 4.5-5.5mm, max 30°
• · Zimmer Angled Tapered Abutments, 4.5mm, max 30°
• · Paltop Multi Unit Abutment, 5.0mm, max 17°

The Osteon Precision Milled Suprastructures (also referred as superstructures) are metallic dental restorative device that is intended for attaching by screw retention to dental abutments to aid in the treatment of partial and totally edentulous patients for the purpose of restoring their chewing function. These suprastructures attach to previously-cleared original equipment manufacturers (OEM) dental abutments using the (OEM) prosthetic screws. The abutmentborne subject devices are indicated for placement only on OEM implant/abutment constructs placed according to the labeling of the previously-cleared systems, and not to exceed the maximum angulation allowed for each OEM implant/abutment construct as identified in the Indications for Use Statement of the subject system.

The Osteon Precision Milled Suprastructure is designed for an individual patient from scans of the patient's impression. The suprastructure is manufactured in biocompatible Titanium alloy with the aid of Computer Aided Design (CAD) and Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAM) technology. All CAD/CAM fabrication is performed by Osteon Medical, within our premises.

Osteon Precision Milled Suprastructures facilitate the attachment of both removable and fixed dental prosthesis and hence categorized as type A and type B.

This document is a 510(k) summary for a dental device, the Osteon Precision Milled Suprastructure. It outlines the regulatory process and demonstrates substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than presenting a study that proves the device meets specific performance acceptance criteria. Therefore, most of the requested information about acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, expert involvement, and ground truth establishment is not available in this document.

Here's why and what information can be extracted:

• This is a 510(k) submission: The primary goal of a 510(k) is to demonstrate that a new device is "substantially equivalent" to a legally marketed predicate device, not necessarily to prove its performance against a set of novel acceptance criteria through a clinical trial.
• Focus on Substantial Equivalence: The document compares features like indications for use, materials, design, and manufacturing processes to existing devices.
• Non-Clinical Testing Mentioned: The document refers to non-clinical tests performed, but these are primarily for demonstrating compatibility, material safety, and sterility, not performance against specific clinical efficacy or accuracy metrics.

Information that can be extracted or inferred:

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

This document does not present explicit "acceptance criteria" in the traditional sense of performance metrics for an AI/algorithm-driven device. Instead, it demonstrates similarity to predicate devices based on design specifications and material properties. The "performance" is implicitly deemed acceptable if it's shown to be substantially equivalent to the established predicate devices.

(Note: "Similar" indicates that the values or characteristics fall within or are comparable to those of the predicate/reference devices, with stated differences not impacting safety/efficacy from the manufacturer's perspective.)

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

• Test Set Sample Size: Not applicable. This submission relies on "non-clinical tests" (dimensional analysis, biocompatibility, sterilization validation) and comparison to existing predicate marketing clearances. It does not describe a "test set" in the context of an AI/ML algorithm evaluation with human interpretation or image analysis. The "test" consists of demonstrating manufacturing conformance and material properties for the physical device.
• Data Provenance: The device is manufactured by Implant Solutions PTY LTD (trading as Osteon Medical) in Mulgrave, Victoria, 3170 Australia. The non-clinical tests (e.g., biocompatibility and sterilization validation) would have been performed there or at certified labs. These are bench tests, not clinical data sets.

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

• Not applicable. There's no "ground truth" to establish in the context of an AI/ML algorithm or diagnostic accuracy study. The assessment is based on physical device characteristics and established standards.

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

• Not applicable. This is not a study requiring adjudication of expert 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:

• Not applicable. This is a physical dental device (suprastructure), not an AI algorithm.

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

• Not applicable. This is a physical dental device (suprastructure), not an AI algorithm.

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

• Not applicable. The "ground truth" for this medical device submission is compliance with engineering specifications, material standards (e.g., ASTM F136), and validated manufacturing processes, all demonstrated through non-clinical bench testing.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This is a physical dental device. While it is manufactured using CAD/CAM technology, it does not involve an AI/ML model that requires a training set of data.

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

• Not applicable. See point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

TruAbutment DS is a patient-specific CAD/CAM abutment, directly connected to endosseous dental implants and is intended for use as an aid in prosthetic rehabilitation. It is compatible with the following systems:

• · MIS C1 Conical Connection Implant (K172505, K112162)
• : 3.3 (NP) 3.75, 4.2, 5.0 (SP, WP)
• · Neodent Implant System GM Helix (K163194, K180536)
• : 3.5, 3.75, 4.0, 4.3, 5.0 (3.0) 6.0 (3.0)
• · Nobel Biocare Groovy Implants (K050258)
• : 3.5. 4.3, 5.0, 6.0 (NP, RP, WP, 6.0)
• · Straumann BLX Implant (K173961, K181703, K191256)
• : 3.5, 3.75, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, 5.5, 6.5 (RB, WB)
• · Straumann Tissue Level Implant (K111357)
• : 3.3(NNC)

All digitally designed abutments and/or coping 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 screw-retained single tooth or cement-retained single tooth and bridge restorations. It is compatible with the following systems:

• · MIS C1 Conical Connection Implant (K172505, K112162)
• : 3.3 (NP) 3.75, 4.2, 5.0 (SP, WP)
• · Neodent Implant System GM Helix (K163194, K180536)
• : 3.5, 3.75, 4.0, 4.3, 5.0 (3.0) 6.0 (3.0)
• · Nobel Biocare Groovy Implants (K050258)
• : 3.5. 4.3, 5.0, 6.0 (NP, RP, WP, 6.0)
• · Straumann BLX Implant (K173961, K181703, K191256)
• : 3.5, 3.75, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, 5.5, 6.5 (RB, WB)
• · Straumann Tissue Level Implant (K111357)
• : 3.3(NNC)

All digitally designed zirconia superstructure for use with the TruBase are intended to be sent to a TruAbutment-validated milling center for manufacture.

TruAbutment DS system includes patient-specific abutments which are placed into the dental implant to provide support for the prosthetic restoration. The subject abutments are indicated for cemented or screw-retained restorations. The patient-specific abutment and abutment screw are made of Titanium grade Ti-6A1-4V ELI (meets ASTM Standard F-136). Each patientspecific abutment is supplied with two identical screws which are used for:

(1) For fixing into the endosseous implant

(2) For dental laboratory use during construction of related restoration.

The abutment is placed over the implant shoulder and mounted into the implant with the provided screw. 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 and provided to the authorized end-user as a final patient-specific abutment.

TruBase consists of a two-piece abutment, where the titanium base is a pre-manufactured abutment that will be used to support a CAD/CAM designed superstructure (the second part of the two-piece abutment) that composes the final abutment. The system also includes a TruBase screw for fixation to the implant body.

TruBase abutments are made of titanium alloy conforming to ASTM F136 Standard Specification for Wrought Titanium-6Aluminum-4Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) Alloy for Surgical Implant Applications and are provided in various prosthetic platform diameters. The TruBase screws are composed of titanium alloy per ASTM F136.

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.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the TruAbutment DS and TruBase devices, which are endosseous dental implant abutments. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting detailed "acceptance criteria" and results from a study proving the device meets those specific criteria in the way one might find for a novel AI/software medical device.

The document discusses performance in terms of mechanical resistance and dimensional compatibility to ensure long-term functional performance with dental implants. However, it does not outline distinct "acceptance criteria" that are then verified by a specific study with a defined sample size, ground truth, or expert adjudication as typically seen in AI/ML validation. Instead, it relies on demonstrating compliance with recognized standards and comparability to a predicate device.

Given the information provided, here's an attempt to answer the questions based on the context of this 510(k) summary, interpreting "acceptance criteria" as the performance expectations set by the applicable standards and "study" as the non-clinical testing performed:

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

The document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in a tabular format with corresponding reported performance for a comparative AI study. Instead, it refers to compliance with established standards for dental implant abutments. The closest equivalent to "acceptance criteria" for the mechanical performance is meeting the requirements of ISO 14801.

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

The document does not specify a "test set" sample size in the context of an AI/ML model for image analysis or diagnostics. The testing described is primarily non-clinical mechanical testing, dimensional analysis, and biocompatibility testing of physical devices.

• Sample Size: Not specified in terms of "number of cases" or "patients" for a diagnostic study. For mechanical testing, samples would be physical devices/constructs. The number of samples for ISO 14801 fatigue testing is typically defined by the standard itself (e.g., typically 3 samples for static and 15 samples for fatigue for each configuration).
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the sense of patient data or images. The "data" comes from physical testing of manufactured devices.

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 to the type of device and testing described. The "ground truth" for mechanical properties is established by physical measurement against engineering specifications and performance under defined load conditions, not by expert human interpretation.

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

Not applicable. There is no human interpretation or subjective assessment involved that would require an adjudication method.

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. The device is a physical dental implant abutment, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

Not applicable. The device is a physical dental implant abutment, not an AI algorithm.

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

The "ground truth" for this medical device is based on engineering specifications, material science standards (e.g., ASTM F136), and mechanical testing standards (e.g., ISO 14801). For example, mechanical strength and fatigue life are measured directly, and dimensional compatibility is assessed against design tolerances.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that requires a training set. The "design" of the abutments is based on CAD/CAM systems informed by engineering principles, not machine learning from large datasets.

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

Not applicable. As this is not an AI/ML device, there is no "training set" or "ground truth for the training set" in the context of machine learning. The knowledge base for the CAD/CAM design and manufacturing is derived from established dental and engineering principles, material science, and regulatory standards.

Ask a specific question about this device

MIS Dental Implant System is intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper and lower jaw arches to provide support for prosthetic device, such as artificial teeth, in order to restore masticatory function. When a one-stage surgical procedure is applied, the implant may be immediately loaded when stability is achieved and the occlusal load in appropriate.

Narrow implants (03.3mm) are indicated for use in surgical and restorative applications for placement only in the mandibular central, lateral incisor and maxillary lateral incisor regions of partially edentulous jaws, to provide support for prosthetic devices such as artificial teeth. Mandibular central and lateral incisors must be splinted if using two or more narrow implants adjacent to one another.

The proposed MIS Lance+ Conical Connection Implant are dental implants with a cvlindrical and conical shaped outer profile. The implants have an internal conical implant-abutment connection geometry with an anti-rotation index of six positions for standard and wide platforms and four positions for narrow platform. The conical implant-abutment connection is identical to the internal conical connection geometry incorporated in the design of the reference device MIS C1 Conical Connection Implants (K172505). The implant abutment connection surface of the MIS Lance+ Conical Connection Implant is anodized for coloring coding purposes to indicate the platform. The color coding is identical to the reference devices MIS C1 Conical Connection Implant System (K172505).

The MIS Lance+ Conical Connection Implants are intended to be used in combination with a variety of conical connection abutments (cover screws, healing caps, cement-retained abutments and screwretained abutments, which were previously cleared for use with the MIS C1 Conical Connection Dental Implant System (K172505 for NP abutments and K112162 for SP and WP abutments). These abutments are manufactured with a conical connection compatible with the implants interface. Dental implant abutments are intended to be used in the upper or lower jaw used for supporting tooth replacements to restore chewing function. The abutments in combination with two-stage endosseous implants are intended to be used as a foundation for anchoring tooth replacements in either jaw. Restorations range from replacing one single tooth to fixed partial dentures using cementretained supra-constructions. No new Abutments are being proposed as part of this submission.

In addition, the proposed MIS Lance+ Conical Connection Implants will be provided in a wet package configuration immersed in NaCl solution as cleared under K200102 and branded as "CLEAR". The MIS CLEAR Lance+ Conical Connection Implants which are intended to be packaged in NaCl solution are not anodized.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a dental implant system (MIS Lance+ Conical Connection Dental Implant System) seeking FDA clearance. It describes the device, its intended use, and comparison to predicate devices, focusing on non-clinical performance data to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

There is no information in the provided text regarding acceptance criteria or a study that proves a device meets specific acceptance criteria in the context of an AI/ML medical device submission.

The document discusses:

• Device Type: Dental implants (physical medical device, not an AI/ML software device).
• Performance Testing: Mechanical fatigue testing (ISO 14801:2016), biocompatibility, sterilization, and shelf-life testing. These are standard tests for physical implants.
• Comparison to Predicate Devices: The submission aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence to existing dental implants (MIS Lance+ Internal Hex Dental Implant System and MIS C1 Conical Connection Dental Implant System).
• Absence of Clinical Data: The document explicitly states, "No human clinical data were included to support substantial equivalence."
• Absence of AI/ML components: The device described is a physical dental implant. There is no mention of any AI or machine learning components.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information (acceptance criteria for AI/ML performance, study details for AI/ML, human expert involvement, MRMC studies, standalone AI performance, ground truth for AI, training/test set sizes, etc.) from this document, as it pertains to a different type of medical device lacking AI/ML features.

Ask a specific question about this device

MIS Dental Implant Systems are intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw arches to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, in order to restore masticatory function. When a one-stage surgical procedure is applied, the implant may be immediately loaded when good primary stability is achieved, and the occlusal load is appropriate.

Narrow implants (Ø3.3mm) are indicated for use in surgical and restorative applications for placement only in the mandibular central, lateral incisor and maxillary lateral incisor regions of partially edentulous jaws, to provide support for prosthetic devices such as artificial teeth. Mandibular central and lateral incisors must be splinted if using two or more narrow implants adjacent to one another.

The long MIS (18 & 20 mm) implants can be used in a tilted manner.

MIS short implants are to be used only with straight abutments. M4 short implants are indicated for delayed loading only.

The subject MIS Dental Implant Systems are endosseous dental implant devices which are modified as subject to this premarket notification with a revised sterile packaging configuration. There are no modifications subject to this premarket notification which relate to the geometric or material composition design of the subject dental implant devices themselves. The individual product variants of the MIS Dental Implant Systems which are modified as subject to this premarket notification will be rebranded "MIS CLEAR". The subject implants are identical to the predicate and reference MIS implant systems in terms of their indications for use, design, constituent materials and manufacturing process. The subject MIS Dental Implants Systems only differ in their final packaging configuration, as subject to this premarket notification. The subject, predicate and reference MIS Dental Implants Systems are supplied in a double tube packaging configuration, wherein the outer tube serves as the sterile barrier, and the implant device is located within the inner tube. While the predicate and reference MIS Dental Implants Systems are supplied within a "dry" inner package tube, the subject devices as modified in this premarket notification are supplied in a modified inner tube containing liquid, in the form of NaCl solution. The liquid environment is intended to maintain the super-hydrophilic property (contact angle exhibited by water in contact with the surface is equal to zero degrees) of the subject MIS Dental Implants Systems, as subject to this premarket notification, until their use in patients. The outer tube serving as the sterile barrier is unchanged compared to the predicate and reference devices.

The provided context describes a 510(k) premarket notification for MIS Dental Implant Systems. The primary change being assessed is a modification to the inner packaging of the implants, specifically, the introduction of an NaCl solution to maintain the super-hydrophilic property of the implants.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and supporting studies based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly present a table of predetermined acceptance criteria. Instead, it describes various non-clinical tests performed and states that the data supports the desired outcome. The device's performance, as reported, is that it meets the requirements of these tests.

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

The document does not specify the sample sizes used for each non-clinical test mentioned (e.g., number of implants tested for cytotoxicity).

The data provenance is from non-clinical bench testing performed to support this premarket notification. The country of origin of the data is not specified, but the applicant, Dentsply Sirona, is based in York, Pennsylvania, USA, and MIS Implants Technologies Ltd. (a Dentsply Sirona company) is listed as the manufacturer.

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

This section is not applicable because the studies detailed are non-clinical (bench testing) rather than clinical studies involving human observers or expert interpretation. Therefore, there was no ground truth requiring expert consensus.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This section is not applicable as the studies are non-clinical bench tests and do not involve human adjudication.

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

No. A Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. The document explicitly states: "No human clinical data was included in this premarket notification to support the substantial equivalence..."

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

This question is not applicable as the device is a physical dental implant system, not an algorithm or AI software for which standalone performance would be assessed.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

For the non-clinical performance data, the "ground truth" or reference criteria would be defined by the standards and methods used for each test:

• Cytotoxicity: Negative control or established biocompatibility standards.
• Chemical Characterization: Baseline material composition and absence of unexpected leachables.
• Sterilization: Sterility assurance level (SAL) of 10^-6^ as per ISO 11137-1:2015 and ISO 11137-2:2015.
• Transportation: No damage or compromise to packaging or device integrity after simulated transport, as per ASTM 4332-14 and ASTM D 4169-16.
• Hydrophilicity: Maintenance of super-hydrophilic properties (contact angle of water is zero degrees).
• Fatigue Testing: Mechanical endurance limits established by ISO 14801:2016 for dental implants (referenced from predicate devices).

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

This section is not applicable. There is no "training set" as this is a physical medical device, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires training data.

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

This section is not applicable for the same reason as above.

Ask a specific question about this device

MIS Ti-base abutment is a titanium base placed onto MIS dental implants to provide support for customized cement-retained or screw retained single or multiple-unit restorations.

It is used with a digitally designed mesostructure. MIS Ti-base and the mesostructure make up a two-piece abutment used in conjunction with MIS dental implants, to be placed in the upper or lower jaw arches, in order to restore masticatory function.

Narrow platform Ti-bases are indicated for use only in the mandibular central, lateral incisor and maxillary lateral incisor regions of partially edentulous jaws.

MIS short implants are to be used only with straight abutments.

Mesostructures for use with the MIS Ti-base abutment are to be made from inCoris ZI, designed and manufactured using Sirona CEREC SW version 4.6.1 Software.

MIS Ti-base abutments are intended for use with the following MIS implants:

C1 conical connection implant system. V3 conical connection implant system. SEVEN internal hex implant system. M4 internal hex implant system and Lance+ internal hex implant system.

The subject MIS Ti-base abutments are endosseous dental implant abutments intended to be connected to MIS dental implants and used to support CAD/CAM customized cement-retained or screw retained single or multiple-unit restorations.

MIS Ti-base abutments consist of a titanium base and a prosthetic screw, both made of TI-6AI-4V ELI complying with ASTM F136. The prosthetic screw tightens the finished CAD/CAM abutment to the dental implant.

MIS Ti-base abutments are the bottom-half/base of a two-piece custom zirconia-titanium abutment consisting of a zirconium coping/mesostructure and a titanium base.

The top-half custom zirconia coping/mesostructure or crown is intended to be fabricated from Sirona inCoris ZI zirconium oxide ceramic block and designed and milled using Sirona chairside Dental CAD/CAM System, with software version: CEREC SW version 4.6.1. The mesostructure design will be subject to the Sirona system controls, such as: A maximum angulation of 20° and minimum wall thickness of 0.5mm. The InCoris Zi mesostructure is to be cemented to the subject MIS Ti-base abutments using PANAVIA F 2.0 dental cement in order to complete the two-piece, CAD/CAM abutment.

lt is not permitted to reduce the Ti-base's diameter, shorten the Ti-base or modify its implant-abutment connection and emergence profile in any way.

The subject pre-fabricated titanium base abutment is designed with interface compatibility to specific MIS dental implant systems. The subject MIS Ti-base abutments are MIS conical connection and internal hex connection Ti-base abutments, and their connection is compatible with MIS conical connection C1 and V3 implants, and MIS SEVEN, M4 and Lance+ internal hex implants, which are not subject to this submission and were previously cleared.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided FDA 510(k) document for the MIS Ti-base Abutment.

Important Note: This document describes a dental abutment, not an AI/ML device. Therefore, many of the requested fields regarding AI/ML-specific study aspects (e.g., sample size for training set, number of experts for ground truth, MRMC study, standalone algorithm performance) are not applicable to this type of medical device submission. The FDA 510(k) process for a device like this focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, primarily through non-clinical performance testing.

Device Name: MIS Ti-base Abutment
Regulation Number: 21 CFR 872.3630
Regulation Name: Endosseous Dental Implant Abutment
Regulatory Class: Class II
Product Code: NHA

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

For non-AI/ML medical devices like this, "acceptance criteria" are tied to demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, often through mechanical and material testing against established standards. The performance is assessed against these standards and comparative data from the predicate.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set:
  • For Fatigue Testing (ISO 14801:2016), samples were tested. While a specific number isn't explicitly stated on the provided pages, ISO 14801 typically requires a sufficient number of samples (often 5-10 per test group) to achieve statistically meaningful results for fatigue curves. The document refers to testing "worst case abutments" from both narrow and standard platforms.
  • For Sterilization Testing, an unspecified number of representative samples would have been used for validation.
  • For Software Verification & Validation, the "test set" would be various design scenarios and inputs used to confirm software functionality and adherence to design constraints. The specific "sample size" of test cases is not quantified here.
• Data Provenance: The studies were non-clinical performance tests conducted by MIS Implants Technologies (manufacturer). The location of testing is not specified, but the manufacturer (Dentsply Sirona / MIS Implants Technologies Ltd.) is located in the USA (York, Pennsylvania) and Israel, respectively. These are prospective tests performed specifically for this 510(k) submission.

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

• N/A (Not Applicable for this device type). Ground truth based on expert consensus is typically relevant for AI/ML diagnostic or prognostic devices. For a dental implant abutment, "ground truth" is established by adherence to engineering standards, material specifications, and mechanical performance limits. The "experts" involved would be engineers and quality control personnel responsible for developing and conducting the tests, interpreting standard requirements, and designing robust products. Their qualifications would be in relevant engineering, materials science, and quality assurance fields.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• N/A (Not Applicable for this device type). Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used in clinical studies, especially for AI/ML devices, where human readers (often physicians) independently evaluate medical images or data, and a tie-breaking or consensus process is needed. For mechanical and software performance testing, adjudication is based on objective measurements and established pass/fail criteria from international 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 is not an AI/ML device, so an MRMC study comparing human reader performance with and without AI assistance was not conducted and is not relevant.

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

• N/A. This is not an AI/ML algorithm. Its "performance" is mechanical and procedural, not algorithmic. The software component (CEREC SW) is for design and manufacturing, not for automatic diagnosis or interpretation.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• For this device, the "ground truth" is established by:
  • Engineering Standards: Adherence to established international voluntary consensus standards (e.g., ISO 14801:2016 for fatigue, ANSI/AAMI/ISO 17665 for sterilization).
  • Material Specifications: Compliance with material standards (e.g., ASTM F136 for TI-6Al-4V ELI).
  • Validated Design & Manufacturing Parameters: Verification that the CAD/CAM software maintains design limitations and that the manufacturing process yields correct physical properties.
  • Predicate Device Performance: Comparative performance data against the legally marketed predicate devices serves as a benchmark for substantial equivalence.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• N/A. This is not an AI/ML device, so there is no "training set." The development process relies on engineering design, material science, and established manufacturing practices, not machine learning.

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

• N/A. As there is no training set for an AI/ML model, this question is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

MIS Dental Implant Systems are intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw arches to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, in order to restore masticatory function.

When a one-stage surgical procedure is applied, the implant may be immediately loaded when good primary stability is achieved and the occlusal load is appropriate.

Narrow implants (Ø3.3mm) are indicated for use in surgical and restorative applications for placement only in the mandibular central, lateral incisor and maxillary lateral incisor regions of partially edentulous jaws, to provide support for prosthetic devices such as artificial teeth, in order to restore the patient chewing function. Mandibular central and lateral incisors must be splinted if using two or more narrow implants adjacent to one another.

The proposed devices consist of dental abutments and represent a line extension to the MIS CONNECT Conical Connection System.

The proposed MIS CONNECT Conical Connection Abutments are intended for use by dental clinicians in the support of prosthetic dental restorations in the upper or lower jaw and used in conjunction with MIS conical connection implants, MIS V3 and MIS C1 (K163349 and K112162, respectively).

The abutment is placed above the bone level and within the gingival tissue, and is designed to be fitted with a variety of complementary abutment superstructures, including caps, temporary abutments, aesthetic abutments, final abutments, and angulated abutments. Prosthetic screws are included as a system component for use with the subject abutments.

Once connected to the implant, the MIS CONNECT Conical Connection Abutment is not intended to be removed.

The abutments are provided in 4.0 and 5.7 mm platform diameters, with an angulation of up to 20°, and at gingival heights of 1.5, 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0 mm.

The proposed MIS CONNECT Conical Connection Superstructures are mounted over the proposed and predicate MIS CONNECT Conical Connection Abutment (Ø4 mm or Ø5.7 mm) and intended for use as an aid in prosthetic dental restoration. The proposed superstructures consist of healing caps, temporary abutments, aesthetic abutments, final abutments, and angulated abutments. Prosthetic screws are included as a system component for use with the subject superstructures.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a dental device, the "MIS CONNECT Conical Connection System." This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving direct clinical effectiveness or establishing performance criteria based on an AI model or diagnostic accuracy. Therefore, many of the typical acceptance criteria and study components related to AI/ML medical devices (such as MRMC studies, ground truth establishment for a test set, etc.) are not applicable to this submission.

The "device" in this context is a physical dental implant component (abutments and superstructures), not a software or AI/ML-driven diagnostic tool. The "acceptance criteria" here refer to demonstrating that the new device is as safe and effective as the predicate device.

Here's an analysis of the "acceptance criteria" and "study" as implied by a 510(k) submission for a physical medical device, addressing the relevant points from your request:

Device Name: MIS CONNECT Conical Connection System (dental abutments and superstructures)

Nature of Device: Physical dental implant components, not an AI/ML-driven diagnostic tool.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

For a 510(k) submission of a physical device like this, "acceptance criteria" typically relate to demonstrating the new device performs equivalently to the predicate devices through non-clinical testing (e.g., mechanical testing, biocompatibility, sterilization). There are no "performance metrics" in the sense of accuracy, sensitivity, or specificity as would be for a diagnostic AI.

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

• Test Set Sample Size: Not specified in terms of number of cases/patients. For physical device performance testing (fatigue, sterilization), samples would refer to the number of physical devices or batches tested, not patient data. The document mentions "worst case representative samples."
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of patient data (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). The data submitted for this 510(k) are from non-clinical laboratory testing (e.g., mechanical fatigue testing, sterilization validation).

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

• Not Applicable. This is not a study assessing diagnostic accuracy or clinical decision-making based on expert consensus. The "ground truth" for mechanical performance is established by engineering standards (e.g., ISO 14801 for fatigue) and laboratory measurements.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not Applicable. There is no "test set" of patient cases requiring adjudication as in a diagnostic accuracy or clinical trial setting.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done

• No. An MRMC study is relevant for evaluating the performance of diagnostic tools (especially those involving human readers and AI assistance). This 510(k) is for a physical dental implant component, not a diagnostic tool, and involves no human readers or AI assistance in its function.

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

• Not Applicable. This is a physical device, not an algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• For Fatigue Testing: Ground truth is defined by the ISO 14801:2016 standard specifications for dynamic fatigue of endosseous dental implants. The "truth" is whether the device withstands specified forces for a specified number of cycles.
• For Biocompatibility: Ground truth is established by ISO 10993-1, and the "truth" is that the materials and manufacturing processes are identical to a previously cleared device.
• For Sterilization: Ground truth is defined by ISO 11137-2:2013 (radiation) and ANSI/AAMI/ISO 17665-1:2006/(R)2013 (moist heat) standards, ensuring a specific sterility assurance level.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not Applicable. There is no "training set" as this is not an AI/ML device requiring machine learning training.

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

• Not Applicable.

Summary of Study Proving Substantial Equivalence:

The study proving the device meets the acceptance criteria is a collection of non-clinical performance tests and comparisons to predicate devices, rather than a clinical trial or a study assessing diagnostic accuracy. The key components of the "study" are:

• Fatigue Testing: Performed on "worst case representative samples" of the proposed abutments and superstructures according to ISO 14801:2016. The results demonstrated comparable performance to ensure the new dimensions/designs maintain mechanical integrity.
• Biocompatibility Assessment: No new testing was conducted. Substantial equivalence was demonstrated by asserting that the proposed device uses "identical materials" and is "manufactured in the identical manufacturing facility and under the identical manufacturing processes" as the primary predicate device (K173326), and that the intended use and patient contact are identical. This relies on the prior biocompatibility clearance of the predicate.
• Sterilization Validation: For both sterile and non-sterile configurations (for end-user sterilization), validation was conducted on "worst-case construct" samples following ISO 11137-2:2013 (radiation) and ANSI/AAMI/ISO 17665-1:2006/(R)2013 (moist heat), respectively, to achieve a SAL of 10^-6.
• Packaging and Shelf Life: Assessed by demonstrating identity to the predicate device's packaging and material, therefore relying on the predicate's established shelf-life data.

Key Conclusion from the Submission:

"The comparison of the indications for use, technological characteristics, with the inclusion of the results of non-clinical testing, support a conclusion of substantial equivalence of the proposed MIS CONNECT Conical Connection Abutments and Superstructures to the predicate devices." (Page 13)

Ask a specific question about this device