Search Results
Found 2 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(267 days)
JDZygoma Dental implant is a JDentalCare implant system.
JDZygoma Dental implant System is intended to be implanted in the upper jaw arch to provide support for fixed or removable prosthetic devices in patients with partially or fully edentulous maxilla, in order to restore patient esthetics and chewing function.
The JDZygoma Implants are appropriate for immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading.
JDZygoma dental implants are implantable devices produced in commercially pure titanium, intended to be integrated in the Zygomatic bone to support prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, in order to restore chewing function.
The JDZygoma implant bodies are single use, gamma sterilized devices that shall be used by qualified medical personnel. The abutments are supplied non sterile and must be sterilized prior to use.
The JDZYGOMA DENTAL IMPLANTS includes 2 lines of devices with different body diameters of implants (3.9 mm and 4.3 mm) with different implant lengths:
- Diameter(mm) 3.9 Lengths (mm): 30 / 35 / 37.5 / 40 / 42.5 / 45 / 47.5 / 50 / 52.5 / 55 / 57.5 ●
- Diameter(mm) 4.3 Lengths (mm): 30 / 35 / 37.5 / 40 / 42.5 / 45 / 47.5 / 50 / 52.5 / 55 / 57.5 .
The surfaces JDZYGOMA DENTAL IMPLANTS, both 3.9 mm and 4.3 mm of diameter, is machined in the distal part of the fixture while the apical part, the threaded part, is characterized by a surface that is a SLA surface obtained through a sandblasting process followed by acid etching.
Machined surface has been analyzed form a morphological point of view using scanning electron microscope (SEM) with different level of magnification (100x, 500x, 1000x and 250x) and also performing a 3D analysis, that allow to define roughness profile with an average height of selected area (Sa) equal to 0.64 um, with a Root mean square gradient (Sdq) of 1.06 and a developed interfacial area ratio (Sdr) of 47.64%.
The abutments are made of titanium grade 5 and have the following angulations:
- . 45° 52.5° and 60°
The connection implant / abutment is done through an internal hexagon.
The conical abutments surface is completely treated with anodic oxidation resulting in perception of yellow color.
The anodization process is performed by immersing the anodization solution and by providing an electrical voltage for a time necessary to activate the process with the material (titanium grade 5) and then performing washing process and drying the devices.
The result of this process has been evaluated from a morphological point of view using scanning electron microscope (SEM), measuring the roughness parameters and performing qualitative analysis of the chemical composition of the abutments surface with X-Ray detector considering and comparing both a non anodized abutments and the same anodized abutments in their finished forms.
These evaluations show a relatively uniform surface with characteristic textures of typical machined titanium, clean and free from significant residues or contaminants, with a morphology of the surface before and after anodization that doesn't show appreciable differences also for roughness and X-ray analysis identify a presence of only of Ti, Al, V, O, as expected.
The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the JDZygoma dental implants, which is a medical device. This type of document is a submission to the FDA demonstrating that the device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device. The information required in the prompt (acceptance criteria, study details, etc.) is typically found in performance studies used to support substantial equivalence.
Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:
1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
The document does not explicitly present a table of acceptance criteria for specific performance metrics with corresponding reported values in a pass/fail format. However, it describes several performance tests and their outcomes:
Performance Test / Criterion Type | Reported Device Performance (Implied Acceptance) |
---|---|
Biocompatibility | Conducted according to ISO 10993-1:2018 and ISO 10993-5. (Implies compliance with these standards, meaning the device is biocompatible). |
Washing Process | Demonstrated that no residual substances were present on implant or abutment surface. (Implies successful cleaning and absence of harmful residuals). |
Packaging Shelf Life | Accelerated aging testing conducted according to ISO 11607-1. (Implies meeting the shelf-life requirements of this standard). |
Mechanical Fatigue | Comparative mechanical fatigue testing was performed according to a method modified from ISO 14801. Results confirm that fatigue performances of the subject device are comparable to or better than both predicate and reference Devices. (Implies the device meets or exceeds the mechanical durability of predicate/reference devices). |
Gamma Ray Sterilization | Validation in accordance with ISO 11137-1:2006 and ISO 11137-2: 2013. (Implies effective sterilization and compliance with these standards). |
Endotoxin Tests | Performed on all batches to demonstrate that pyrogen limit specifications through LAL test according to the United States Pharmacopeial Convention is always respected. (Implies the device is non-pyrogenic). |
Clinical Survival Rate | Survival rates of the 3.9mm and 4.3mm implants which met the criteria for successful implant osseointegration, were 100% for both studies. (Implied acceptance based on comparison with existing clinical expectations for dental implants. High survival rates are a key indicator of clinical success). |
Clinical Complications | No differences were registered among clinical indices related to the different abutments inclinations (modified Plaque Index (mPLI), modified Bleeding Index (mBI), Mucosal Seal Efficacy Evaluation (MSEE) and Zygomatic Implants Classification Level (ZICL)). (Implies that different abutment angles do not lead to increased complications). |
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 (Clinical): 143 JDZygoma dental implants in a total of 66 patients.
- Data Provenance: The studies were retrospective studies. The country of origin of the data is not specified in the provided text.
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)
The document does not provide details on the number or qualifications of experts used to establish ground truth for the clinical studies. It states that "Outcome measures were evaluated," but doesn't specify who performed these evaluations or their credentials.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set
The document does not describe any specific adjudication method for the clinical study outcomes.
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 to the provided document. The JDZygoma dental implant is a physical medical device (dental implant and abutments), not an AI/software device that would involve human readers or AI assistance in interpretation.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
This section is Not Applicable for the same reasons as point 5.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)
For the clinical studies, the ground truth was outcomes data including:
- Implant/abutment success (defined by criteria for successful implant osseointegration)
- Prosthetic survival
- General postoperative complications
- Secondary outcomes: Modified Plaque Index (mPLI), modified Bleeding Index (mBI), Mucosal Seal Efficacy Evaluation (MSEE), and Zygomatic Implants Classification Level (ZICL).
8. The sample size for the training set
The document refers to retrospective studies and does not mention a separate "training set" in the context of device development or validation. The "143 JDZygoma dental implants in a total of 66 patients" represent the clinical data used for validation, not a separate training set as would be typical for AI/machine learning.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
As there is no described "training set" in the context of AI/machine learning, this point is Not Applicable. The clinical "ground truth" (outcomes data) for the retrospective studies was established by evaluating the performance of the implants in patients post-surgically, as described in point 7.
Ask a specific question about this device
(184 days)
For Strong SW HE Implants
S.I.N. Dental Implant System is intended for placement in the maxillary or mandibular arch to provide support for single-unit or multi-unit restorations. When a one-stage surgical approach is applied, the S.I.N. Dental Implant System is intended for immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading.
S.I.N. Dental Implant System implants with lengths of 18, 20, 22, or 24 mm when placed in the maxilla are only indicated for multiple unit restorations in splinted applications that utilize at least two implants.
For Zygomatic Implants and Abutments
S.I.N. Dental Implant System Zygomatic implants are intended for placement in the maxillary arch to provide support for fixed or removable dental prostheses in patients with partially or fully edentulous maxillae. When a one-stage surgical approach is applied, the S.I.N. Dental Implant System Zygomatic implants are intended for immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading.
The purpose of this submission is to add components to the S.I.N. Dental Implant System cleared in K170398, including a line of zygomatic dental implants and abutments.
The subject device Strong SW HE dental implants are nearly identical to the Strong SW HE dental implants cleared in K170398, with a cylindrical design that tapers slightly to the apex, a body/endosseous thread diameter of 3.75 mm, and a platform diameter of 4.1 mm. This submission adds overall lengths of 18, 20, 22, and 24 mm. The endosseous threads have a uniform trapezoidal design and have an acidetched surface. The implants have an external hexagon ("HE") abutment interface connection, internal threads, and an internal hexolobular feature for instrument attachment.
The subject device Zygomatic dental implants have a body diameter of 4.5 mm at the coronal end and a body diameter of 3.85 mm at the apical end with additional tapering to the apex. The abutment platform is 4.1 mm and is angled 45° to the long axis of the implant. The coronal end of the Zygomatic implants have a micro-channel surface feature starting at approximately the angled abutment platform extending over a length of approximately 2.9 mm; the micro-channel blends to a micro-thread and extends apically over a length of 2.15 mm. The micro-thread major diameter is 4.5 mm. All Zygomatic implants also are threaded over a length of 10.7 mm at the apical end with a major thread diameter of 3.85 mm. The endosseous threads at the apical aspect of the Zygomatic implants have the same uniform trapezoidal design and acid-etched surface as the Strong SW HE implants are provided in a range of lengths from 34 mm to 59 mm increments. The implant length is measured from the start of the micro-threads to the apex.
This submission includes an implant cover for the subject Zygomatic implants, with a coronal diameter of 4.1 mm that matches the implant platform, and is threaded to match the internal thread of the Zygomatic implants. This submission also includes Mini Abutment Zygomatic Standard and Mini Abutment Zygomatic Conical; these abutments are straight, multi-unit, non-indexed abutments for the external hex connection of the Zygomatic implants. Mini Abutment Zygomatic Standard and Mini Abutment Zygomatic Conical are straight, multi-unit, non-indexed abutments for the external hex connection of the Zygomatic implants. Mini Abutment Zygomatic Standard are provided in one platform diameter (4.1 mm), one prosthetic platform diameter (4.5 mm), and in gingival heights of 3 mm, and 5.5 mm. Mini Abutment Zygomatic Conical are provided in one platform diameter (4.1 mm), one prosthetic platform diameter (4.8 mm), and in gingival heights of 2 mm, 3 mm, and 4 mm. Each abutment requires a corresponding subject device abutment screw to match the gingival height of the abutment. The Mini Abutment Standard and Mini Abutment Conical are the only abutments that are compatible with the subject device Zygomatic implants. For the Mini Abutment Zygomatic Standard, this submission also includes an Abutment Protector and a castable Co-Cr Base. For the Mini Abutment Zygomatic Conical, this submission also includes an Abutment Protector, Temporary Titanium Cylinder, and a castable Co-Cr Base. A Coping Screw is also included for use with all zygomatic abutments.
The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (S.I.N. Dental Implant System), which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than proving performance against specific acceptance criteria in a clinical study. Therefore, much of the requested information (e.g., sample size for test set, number of experts, adjudication method, MRMC study, training set size, ground truth for training set) is not typically included in such a submission.
However, the document does contain information about performance data used to support the substantial equivalence claim.
Here's a breakdown of the available information relevant to your request:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
No explicit "acceptance criteria" are stated in terms of clinical performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) for a diagnostic AI device. Instead, the performance data provided relates to the safety and mechanical integrity of the dental implants. The device performance is demonstrated through conformance to relevant standards and established methods for dental implants.
Performance Characteristic | Acceptance Criteria (Implicit from Standards/Methods) | Reported Device Performance (as stated in the submission) |
---|---|---|
Sterility | Sterility Assurance Level (SAL) of 10⁻⁶ (according to ISO 11137-1 and ISO 11137-2). | Gamma irradiation sterilization for all subject devices (to a sterility assurance level of 10⁻⁶ by selecting and substantiating a 25 kGy dose using method VDmax25, according to ISO 11137-1 and ISO 11137-2, referenced from K170398). All subject device components are provided sterile by gamma irradiation, the same sterilization method used in K170398. |
Bacterial Endotoxin | Limit of |
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1