Search Results

The Angulated Screw Channel (ASC) Solution Abutments and SI-BASE Abutments are premanufactured prosthetic components directly connected to endosseous dental implants and are intended for use as an aid in prosthetic rehabilitation. The ASC Solution Abutments and SI-BASE Abutments consist of two major parts. Specifically, the titanium base and mesostructure components make up a multi-piece abutment. The system integrates multiple components of the digital dentistry workflow: Scan files from desktop scanners, CAD software, CAM software, ceramic material, milling machine and associated tooling and accessories.

The intended use for the engaging ASC Solution Abutments and SI-BASE Abutments used with the Ø3.0 External-Hex implants, Ø3.3 PROVATA implants and Ø3.5/Ø4.0 Deep Conical implants are intended for use with a straight mesostructure component.

The intended use for the engaging ASC Solution Abutments and SI-BASE Abutments used with the Ø3.4 and Ø4.0 External-Hex implants. PROVATA implants and 03.5 and 04.3 TRI-NEX implants is limited to replacement of maxillary and mandibular lateral and central incisors.

The ASC Solution Abutments and SI-BASE Abutments for Compact Conical Abutments are intended for use on straight Compact Conical Abutments with a straight mesostructure component.

This submission includes two major components which make up the ASC Solution and SI-BASE Abutments - The ASC Solution and SI-BASE Abutment Base and the mesostructure restoration. Twopiece and three-piece abutments models are included. Two-piece abutments consist of the ti-base abutment and mesostructure. Three-piece abutments consist of the ti-base abutment, mesostructure, and compatible compact conical abutments.

The ASC Solution and SI-BASE Abutments are standard premanufactured titanium alloy abutments for supporting a dental restoration and mesostructure. The dental laboratory is to fabricate the mesostructure restoration by CAD/CAM technique out of zirconia. The ASC Solution and SI-BASE Abutments then serve as the interface between the endosseous implant and the zirconia restoration. The abutments are designed to support the restoration on an endosseous implant in order to restore chewing function for the patient.

The mesostructured restoration is a CAD/CAM designed prosthesis milled out of zirconia, which is designed to fit the abutment base in order to restore chewing function for the patient. Each restoration is custom designed using 3Shape Abutment Designer Software in order to meet the requirements of each patient on a case-by-case basis. Limitations have been put in place in 3Shape Abutment Designer in order to prevent malfunctioning of the restoration.

The ASC Solution and SI-BASE Abutments are compatible with the Southern Implants' Deep Conical, External Hex, Provata and Tri-Nex implants and screws. The abutments are manufactured from Titanium alloy conforming to ASTM F136 and are color coded by Titanium nitride coating (ASC Solution Abutments) or yellow anodizing (SI-BASE Abutments). The TiN coating and anodization processes are the same as used for previously cleared anodized titanium alloy devices in K163634. The Mesostructure restoration is to be manufactured from Zirconia - Sage Max NexxZr which has been previously cleared for use in K130991.

The digital workflow includes the following products (not subject devices to this submission):

• Ceramic material: Sage Max NexxZr Zirconia Restorative material (K130991)
• Cement: Ivoclar Vivadent Multilink Hybrid Abutment Cement (K130436)
• Intra-oral scanner: 3Shape E3 Desktop Scanner
• Abutment design software: 3Shape Abutment Designer Software (K151455)
• Milling machine: Roland DWX51D Milling Unit

The provided text describes the Angulated Screw Channel (ASC) Solution Abutments and SI-BASE Abutments for dental implants. The document is a 510(k) summary submitted to the FDA to demonstrate substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices.

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

The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in a quantitative manner with defined thresholds. Instead, it demonstrates compliance through comparison to predicate devices and adherence to relevant standards and guidance documents. The "reported device performance" is largely qualitative and comparative, focusing on demonstrating equivalence rather than meeting specific numerical performance targets.

However, based on the "PERFORMANCE DATA" section and "Table of Substantial Equivalence", we can infer the following:

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

• Sample Sizes for Test Set:
  • Biocompatibility: Not explicitly stated as a number of devices. The statement mentions "materials are identical in formulation, processing, component interactions, and storage conditions to the predicate device" and "biocompatibility testing per the FDA Guidance Document for Use of Standard ISO 10993-1... and ISO 10993-5 'Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices - Part 5: Tests for In-Vitro Cytotoxicity' was performed." This implies biological samples were used for in-vitro cytotoxicity, but the number is not specified.
  • Mechanical Performance (Fatigue): "Dynamic testing was performed on worst-case subject device constructs." The exact number is not provided, but typically, mechanical fatigue testing involves a statistically significant number of samples per "worst-case construct" to establish fatigue limits.
  • Software Validation: Not explicitly stated as a numerical sample size. It involved verification and validation for the "abutment design library" and screenshots under user verification testing, indicating a functional test rather than a numerical sample size.
  • MR Safety: Not explicitly stated for the subject device. It refers to testing performed on "previously cleared devices, K222457, PROVATA Implant System."
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated for any of the tests. Given it's a 510(k) summary, the testing was likely conducted by or on behalf of Southern Implants (Pty) Ltd, which is located in "Irene, Gauteng, 0062 South Africa." The studies appear to be non-clinical (bench testing) and retrospective in the sense that they rely on comparisons to previously cleared devices and established standards, rather than new prospective human clinical trials.

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

This information is not provided in the document. The studies described are primarily non-clinical bench testing, software validation, and biocompatibility assessments, which typically do not involve establishing "ground truth" through expert consensus in the way a diagnostic AI device would. Instead, performance is measured against engineering specifications, standards (like ISO 14801), and equivalence to predicate devices.

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

This information is not applicable to the types of non-clinical, hardware-focused studies described. Adjudication methods are typically used in clinical studies or studies evaluating subjective interpretations (e.g., image reading) to establish a consensus 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

There was no MRMC comparative effectiveness study and no mention of AI assistance. This device is a component for dental implants (abutments), not a diagnostic AI system or an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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 component (dental abutment) and related software for design. While software validation was performed, it's for design limitations and functionality, not for an "algorithm only" performance in a diagnostic or interpretive sense. The "standalone" concept typically applies to AI algorithms that provide a diagnosis or interpretation without human intervention.

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

The concept of "ground truth" as it applies to diagnostic or prognostic data is not directly applicable to these non-clinical studies. Instead, the "truth" or reference for the tests described is:

• Biocompatibility: Established biological safety standards (ISO 10993-1, ISO 10993-5) and comparison to predicate device materials.
• Mechanical Performance: International standard ISO 14801 for dynamic fatigue testing of dental implants and abutments. This involves objective physical measurements.
• Software Validation: Functional specifications of the software and demonstration that defined design limitations are enforced.
• MR Safety: FDA guidance document recommendations and physical testing methods to determine MR compatibility.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable. This device is not an AI diagnostic or predictive algorithm that requires a training set in the conventional sense. The "design workflow" involves CAD/CAM software but this refers to a process for custom fabrication, not machine learning model training.

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

This information is not applicable for the same reasons as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

The TIB Abutments are premanufactured prosthetic components directly connected to endosseous dental implants and are intended for use as an aid in prosthetic rehabilitation. The TIB abutments consist of two major parts. Specifically, the titanium base and mesostructure components make up a two-piece abutment. The system integrates multiple components of the digital dentistry workflow: Scan files from desktop scanners, CAM software, ceramic material, milling machine and associated tooling and accessories.

The intended use for the TiB narrow abutments used with the Ø3.0 mm External hex and Ø3.0 mm Deep Conical implants is limited to replacement of maxillary lateral incisors and mandibular lateral and central incisors.

The Narrow TIB Abutment bases are standard premanufactured titanium allov abutments for supporting a dental restoration and mesostructure. The dental laboratory is to fabricate the mesostructure restoration by CAD/CAM technique out of zirconia. The TIB abutment base then serves as the interface between the endosseous implant and the Zirconia restoration. The TIB Abutment Base is designed to support the restoration on an endosseous implant in order to restore chewing function for the patient.

The DC Ø3.0mm Narrow TiB abutments are only to be placed straight in the patient. Occlusal loading forces are only to be applied through the central longitudinal axis of the implant body.

The mesostructured restoration is a CAD/CAM designed prosthesis milled out of Zirconia, which is designed to fit the abutment base in order to restore chewing for the patient. Each restoration is custom designed using 3Shape Abutment Designer Software in order to meet the requirements of each patient on a case-by-case basis. Limitations have been put in place in 3Shape Abutment Designer in order to prevent malfunctioning of the restoration.

The subject Narrow TIB Abutments are compatible with the Southern Implants' Deep Conical and External Hex implants and screws. The subject TIB abutment bases are manufactured from Titanium alloy conforming to ASTM F136 and are color coded by gold anodizing. The anodization process is the same as used for previously cleared anodized titanium alloy devices in K193084. The mesostructured restoration is to be manufactured from Zirconia - Sage Max NexxZr which has been previously cleared for use in K130991.

The digital workflow includes the following products (not subject devices to this submission):

• Ceramic material: Sage Max NexxZr Zirconia Restorative material (K130991)
• . Cement: Ivoclar Vivadent Multilink Hybrid Abutment Cement (K130436)
• Intra-oral scanner ●
• . Lab scanner: 3Shape E3 Desktop Scanner (3Shape A/S)
• Abutment design software: 3Shape Abutment Designer Software (K151455) ●
• Milling machine: Roland DXW51D ●

This is a summary of the provided text regarding the TIB Abutments.

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

The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in a tabular format with corresponding reported performance for the subject device. Instead, it demonstrates substantial equivalence by comparing the technological characteristics of the subject device (TIB Abutments) with primary and reference predicate devices. The implicit acceptance criterion is that the subject device's performance, as demonstrated by the listed tests and comparisons, is equivalent to the predicate devices.

Here's a table comparing the subject device's characteristics to the primary predicate, which serves as the basis for demonstrating equivalence:

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

The document primarily relies on non-clinical performance data for mechanical fatigue testing (ISO 14801).

• Sample size: The specific sample size for the dynamic fatigue testing is not provided in the summary. It states "Dynamic testing was performed on worst-case subject device constructs." This typically implies multiple samples were tested to statistical confidence.
• Data provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin of the data for the performance tests, nor whether it was retrospective or prospective. Given that this is a 510(k) submission for a South African company, it is likely the testing was conducted at a certified lab, possibly in South Africa or internationally, to ISO standards. The type of testing (mechanical fatigue) is inherently prospective in its execution (i.e., new tests are run on new devices).

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 device is a physical dental implant component, not a diagnostic AI system or image analysis tool. Therefore, the concept of "ground truth" established by experts in the context of diagnostic accuracy or clinical interpretation is not applicable here. The "ground truth" for this device's performance is established by engineering tests and material science standards, such as ISO 14801 for mechanical fatigue.

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

Not applicable. This is not a diagnostic device involving human interpretation 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. This is a physical dental implant component, not a diagnostic or AI-assisted device. No MRMC study was conducted or is relevant.

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

Not applicable. This is not an algorithm or software-only device in the context of a diagnostic or interpretive tool. The "digital dentistry workflow" involves software (3Shape Abutment Designer Software) but it's for design and manufacturing, not standalone diagnostic performance. Software validation was referenced from K193084.

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

The "ground truth" for the TIB Abutments is based on:

• Compliance with material specifications (e.g., Titanium Grade 5 Alloy (ASTM F136), Zirconia - Sage Maxx NexxZr).
• Performance against international engineering standards (e.g., ISO 14801 for dynamic fatigue testing).
• Biocompatibility established through material equivalence to a predicate device with established biocompatibility.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an AI/machine learning model that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable, as there is no training set mentioned for an AI/machine learning model.

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