Search Results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

Ask a specific question about this device

MIST IC abutments are intended for use to support a prosthetic device in a partially or completely edentulous patient. They are intended to support a single-unit or multi-unit, cement retained prosthesis in the mandible or maxilla. MIST IC abutments are compatible for use with the following implants:

All digitally designed custom abutments for use with MIST IC abutments are to be sent to an Imagine Milling Technologies validated milling center for manufacture.

MIST IC from Imagine Milling Technologies, LLC is a line of Ti-base and machinable blank abutments to interface with compatible dental implants from four (4) manufacturers, and a total of eight (8) implant-abutment interface compatibilities. The subject device prosthetic platform diameters range from 3.8 mm to 6.9 mm. All stock subject device components (abutments and abutment screws) are made of titanium alloy conforming to ASTM F136. The subject device MIST IC L-LINK abutments have a TiN coating achieved through a physical vapor deposition (PVD) process that is identical to the process used for TiN coating of Imagine Milling Technologies, LLC devices cleared in K222368. The PVD cathodic arc evaporation process is a high current, low voltage process in which material evaporated from the cathode (Ti) is ionized, transported through the vacuum chamber with reactive gas (N2) and deposited as a non-porous, thin film on the titanium substrate. Each abutment is supplied with the non-sterile abutment screw designed for attachment to the corresponding compatible OEM implant.

All patient-specific abutment fabrication for all MIST IC abutments is by prescription on the order of the clinician. All MIST IC abutments are intended to be milled at an Imagine Milling Technologies, LLC validated milling center under FDA quality system regulations.

MIST IC L-LINK abutments are two-piece abutments to be used as a base when fabricating a CAD-CAM customized restoration where the superstructure produced will compose the second part of the two-piece abutment; the assembly becoming a final finished medical device after cementation on the subject device abutment. They are provided with engaging and non-engaging connections.

The L-LINK abutments and corresponding zirconia superstructure are provided to the clinician either with the superstructure cemented to the abutment by the dental laboratory, or separately for the clinician to bond together chairside using the cement required in the labeling (RelyX RMGIP bonding cement, cleared in K022476).

The design parameters for L-LINK patient-specific abutments are:

• Minimum wall thickness – 0.5 mm
• Minimum cementable post height for single-unit restoration – 4.0 (minimum cementable post height for single-unit restoration is defined as the height above the restorative margin)
• Minimum gingival height – 0.5 mm
• Maximum gingival height (for all except Straumann BLX L-Link) – 5.0 mm
• Maximum gingival height (for Straumann BLX L-LINK) – 6.0 mm
• Maximum angle – 20°

All zirconia copings (superstructures) for use with the subject device MIST IC L-LINK abutments will conform to ISO 13356.

MIST IC PREFIT abutments are cylindrical abutments designed for patient-specific abutment fabrication by a CAD-CAM process and machined into a one-piece, all titanium abutment. The portion of the abutment available for milling is either 9.9 mm in diameter by 20 mm in length or 13.9 mm in diameter by 20 mm in length. MIST IC PREFIT abutments have an engaging connection.

The design parameters for PREFIT patient-specific abutments are:

• Minimum wall thickness – 0.5 mm
• Minimum cementable post height for single-unit restoration – 4.0 (minimum cementable post height for single-unit restoration is defined as the height above the restorative margin)
• Minimum gingival height – 0.5 mm
• Maximum gingival height (for all except Straumann BLX PREFIT) – 5.0 mm
• Maximum gingival height (for Straumann BLX PREFIT) – 6.0 mm
• Maximum angle – 30°

The provided document is a 510(k) clearance letter for a dental device, specifically dental implant abutments. It details the device's administrative information, predicate devices, indications for use, subject device description, and performance data used to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

However, the document does not contain any information regarding acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria in the context of an AI/ML algorithm. The performance data section refers to non-clinical analyses, such as MR compatibility, sterilization validation, biocompatibility, mechanical properties testing, reverse engineering, and static/dynamic compression-bending testing conforming to ISO 14801. These are standard tests for mechanical dental devices, not AI/ML performance evaluation.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information for acceptance criteria and a study proving an AI device meets them based on the given text. The device described, "Mist IC," is a physical dental implant abutment, not an artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) powered medical device.

To directly answer your prompt based on the provided text, the following information is missing or not applicable:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: Not applicable. The document describes mechanical and material performance testing for a physical device, not AI/ML performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or AUC against defined acceptance criteria for an AI algorithm.
2. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. There is no AI/ML test set. The document refers to testing of physical components (OEM implants, abutments, screws, subject device constructs).
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. No AI/ML ground truth establishment.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable.
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 not an AI-assisted diagnostic device.
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 (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Not applicable. The "ground truth" for this device's performance would be the physical properties and mechanical integrity verified by engineering standards (e.g., ISO 14801).
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. No AI/ML training set mentioned.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable. No AI/ML training set mentioned.

The document focuses solely on the substantial equivalence of the "Mist IC" dental implant abutments to legally marketed predicate devices based on design, materials, manufacturing, and conventional mechanical/material performance testing.

Ask a specific question about this device

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

Compatible Implant Systems:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding the specific questions about an AI/ML context:

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

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

Ask a specific question about this device

DESS Dental Smart Solutions abutments are intended to be used in conjunction with endosseous dental implants in the maxillary or mandibular arch to provide support for prosthetic restorations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

Not applicable. This device is not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

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

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

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

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

8. The sample size for the training set

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

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

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

Ask a specific question about this device

PreFace abutment, TI-Forms abutment, Titanium base 2nd generation, and Titanium base ASC Flex are intended for use with dental implants as a support for single or multiple tooth protheses in the maxilla or mandible of a partially or fully edentulous patient. Abutment-level prosthetic components (Multi-unit Titanium Base, Multi-unit Titanium Cap, MedentiBASE Titanium Base) are intended for use as a support for multi-unit screw-retained bridges and bars in the maxilla or mandible of a partially or fully edentulous patient.

All digitally designed abutments for use with PreFace abutment, TI-Forms abutment, Titanium base 2nd generation, Titanium base ASC Flex, Multi-unit Titanium Base, Multi-unit Titanium Cap, and MedentiBASE Titanium Base are intended to be sent to an FDA-registered Medentika validated milling center for manufacture or to be manufactured according to the digital dentistry workflow, which integrates multiple components: Scans from desktop and intra oral scanners, CAD and CAM software and milling machine with associated accessories.

Medentika abutments for the Nobel Biocare Nobel Active® 3.0 mm, Dentsply Sirona Astra Tech OsseoSpeed EV® 3.0 mm and TX® 3.0 mm, Straumann Bone Level 2.9 implant bodies are indicated for maxillary lateral and mandibular central/lateral incisors only.

The subject devices are Medentika CAD/CAM Abutments, which primarily expand the options for fabricating patient-specific final abutments from a "validated milling center" to a "digital dentistry workflow". This workflow uses scan files from intra-oral and lab (desktop) scanners, CAD software, CAM software, ceramic material, milling machines, and associated tooling and accessories. The devices include Titanium Base abutments, Titanium base ASC Flex abutments, and PreFace and TI-Form (blanks) abutments.

The abutments are made of titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V ELI). Titanium base abutments also include a zirconia superstructure. The specified zirconia materials for milling superstructures are Ivoclar Vivadent IPS e.max ZirCAD Prime, Ivoclar Vivadent IPS e.max ZirCAD Prime Esthetic, Amann Girrbach Zolid Bion, Amann Girrbach Zolid Gen-X, and Institut Straumann AG n!ce Zirkonia HT. The specified cement for bonding superstructures is Multilink Hybrid Abutment Cement from Ivoclar Vivadent AG.

Key design parameters for CAD/CAM zirconia superstructures (on Titanium base and Titanium base ASC Flex) include: minimum wall thickness of 0.5 mm, minimum cementable post height of 4.0 mm for single unit restorations, maximum gingival margin height of 5.0 mm, minimum gingival margin height of 0.5 mm, and maximum angulation of the final abutment of 30°.

PreFace and TI-Forms abutments (blanks) are used by dental laboratories to fabricate customized abutments from titanium alloy. Their design parameters include: minimum wall thickness of 0.4 mm, minimum cementable post height of 4.0 mm, maximum gingival margin height of 5.0 mm, minimum gingival margin height of 0.5 mm, and maximum angulation of 30°.

Prosthetic-level components (Multi-unit Titanium Base, Multi-unit Titanium Cap, MedentiBASE Titanium Base) are provided for use with previously cleared Medentika multi-unit abutments and MedentiBASE abutments.

All abutments are provided non-sterile with appropriate abutment screws. The screws attach the abutment to the implant or the prosthesis to the abutment.

The provided 510(k) clearance letter and summary describe a medical device, Medentika CAD/CAM Abutments, and its substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on non-clinical performance data. The document does not contain information about acceptance criteria or performance data for an AI/ML-based device, nor does it detail a clinical study involving human readers or expert consensus for ground truth.

Therefore, for the information requested in your prompt, I can only extract what is presented in the document, which pertains to the non-AI aspects of device acceptance and testing. Many of the points specifically refer to AI/MRMC studies, which are not applicable to this document.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text:

Device Description and Purpose:
The device is "Medentika CAD/CAM Abutments," which are dental implant abutments. The primary purpose of this submission is to expand the fabrication options for patient-specific final abutments from a "validated milling center" to a "digital dentistry workflow" that integrates CAD/CAM software and milling machines. It also adds new sizes and OEM compatibilities.

Study Type:
This is a pre-market notification (510(k)) submission seeking substantial equivalence to existing legally marketed devices. It relies heavily on non-clinical performance data to demonstrate that the new manufacturing workflow and expanded compatibilities do not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness.

Analysis of Requested Information (based on the provided document):

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

The document outlines various performance tests conducted to demonstrate substantial equivalence, but it does not explicitly present a "table of acceptance criteria" with corresponding "reported device performance." Instead, it states that the tests demonstrate sufficient strength or ensure accuracy and reliability.

Here's a summary of the performance tests and their implied purpose:

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: The document does not specify numerical sample sizes for any of the non-clinical tests (e.g., how many abutments were mechanically tested, how many software validation tests were run). It simply states that "testing was conducted" or "validation was performed."
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin of the data or whether the studies were retrospective or prospective. Given the nature of pre-market non-clinical testing for medical devices, these are typically prospective laboratory tests conducted by the manufacturer or accredited testing facilities. The manufacturer is Medentika® GmbH (Huegelsheim, Germany), suggesting the testing likely occurred in Germany or at internationally recognized labs.

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 provided document. The ground truth for this device is established through engineering specifications, material standards (e.g., ASTM F136), and validated manufacturing processes, not through human expert consensus on diagnostic images.

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

This information is not applicable to the provided document, as it describes non-clinical engineering and manufacturing validation, not a multi-reader clinical study for AI.

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance:

This information is not applicable to the provided document. This device is a physical dental abutment and its associated CAD/CAM workflow, not an AI-based diagnostic tool that would require human reader studies. The document explicitly states: "No clinical data were included in this submission."

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

This information is not applicable to the provided document. While the device utilizes CAD/CAM software and milling machines, it is a physical product manufactured through a workflow, not a standalone AI algorithm whose performance needs to be assessed in isolation. The software functions as a design and manufacturing aid, not a diagnostic or decision-making algorithm.

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

The "ground truth" in this context refers to established engineering and material standards:

• Standards Compliance: Adherence to ISO standards (e.g., ISO 14801 for mechanical strength, ISO 10993 for biocompatibility, ISO 17665 for sterilization).
• Dimensional Accuracy: Verification against established design parameters and compatibility specifications for dental implants (e.g., OEM implant body and abutment dimensions).
• Material Specifications: Conformance to ASTM F136 for titanium alloy and specifications for zirconia and cement.
• Software Design Parameters: The "ground truth" for the CAD software validation is the pre-defined maximum and minimum design parameters that the software must enforce.

8. The sample size for the training set:

This information is not applicable to the provided document. The "device" in question is a physical dental abutment and its manufacturing workflow, not an AI/ML model that requires a training set. The CAD/CAM software itself is validated, not "trained" on a dataset in the AI sense.

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

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

Ask a specific question about this device

The Omnibut is a pre-manufactured prosthetic component directly connected to the endosseous dental implant and is intended for use as an aid in prosthetic rehabilitation.

The Omnibut™ is a transmucosal abutment used to support screw-retained prostheses on four or more implants. The subject device has a premanufactured connection for the platforms listed in Table 1 Compatible Implant Systems.

The system involves a ball abutment attached to an implant. A retention attachment allows for angle corrections of up to 30° off the implant axis. The ball abutment is inserted into the attachment is adjusted to the desired angle using an orientation screw. The abutment supports prostheses that connect via titanium cylinders, which are incorporated into resin or ceramic prostheses. Finally, the prostheses are retained to the abutment by prosthetic screws.

The subject device abutments and system components are manufactured from Ti-6Al-4V alloy conforming to ASTM F136. The subject device is a single use device is provided nonsterile and intended to be sterilized by the user prior to placement in the patient.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the Omni-Directional Multi-unit Abutment System (Omnibut™), based on the provided FDA 510(k) summary:

Description of the Device

The Omnibut™ is a pre-manufactured prosthetic component directly connected to endosseous dental implants. It is intended for use as an aid in prosthetic rehabilitation, specifically for supporting screw-retained prostheses on four or more implants. The system includes a ball abutment attached to an implant, with a retention attachment allowing for angle corrections of up to 30° off the implant axis. It supports prostheses that connect via titanium cylinders, which are incorporated into resin or ceramic prostheses. The device is made from Ti-6Al-4V alloy and is provided non-sterile, requiring user sterilization.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

The provided document does not specify the exact sample sizes for each individual non-clinical test (e.g., number of abutments tested for dynamic fatigue, retention force, simulated use, or cleaning). It refers to the testing as "non-clinical" bench testing.

• Test Set Provenance: The data is generated from bench testing (laboratory studies), not from clinical data involving human patients. Therefore, information like "country of origin of the data" or "retrospective/prospective" is not applicable in the typical sense of clinical trials. The testing was performed in vitro.

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

This information is not applicable as the studies are non-clinical bench tests. The "ground truth" for these tests is based on established engineering standards (e.g., ISO 14801), biological evaluation standards (ISO 10993), and internal company protocols for mechanical and cleaning validation, not on expert clinical interpretation of patient data.

4. Adjudication Method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the Test Set

This information is not applicable as the studies are non-clinical bench tests. Adjudication methods are typically employed in studies involving human interpretation or clinical endpoints to resolve discrepancies in assessment.

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

An MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is relevant for AI-powered diagnostic devices involving human readers/interpreters, which is not the case for this dental implant abutment. The device is a physical component, not a diagnostic AI tool.

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

A standalone performance study was not done in the context of an algorithm. This question is relevant for AI/software devices; this device is a physical medical device. The "standalone" performance here refers to the device's mechanical and biological performance on its own, which is what the bench tests evaluate.

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

The "ground truth" for the non-clinical performance evaluations relies on:

• Established engineering and biological standards: e.g., ISO 14801:2016 for dynamic fatigue, ISO 10993 for biocompatibility, ANSI/AAMI/ISO for sterilization.
• Predetermined acceptance criteria: For retention force, simulated use, and cleaning efficacy, the "ground truth" is defined by specific pass/fail criteria established during the test design based on expected clinical performance and safety.
• Dimensional accuracy and compatibility models: For compatibility testing, the "ground truth" is established by the dimensions and specifications of OEM implant bodies and abutments.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable because the device is a physical medical component, not a machine learning model or AI algorithm that requires a training set.

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

This information is not applicable for the same reason as above (not a machine learning model).

Ask a specific question about this device

ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic is intended for use with dental implants as a support for single or multiple-unit prosthetic restorations in the maxilla or mandible of partially or fully edentulous patient. It is including; cemented retained, screw-retained, or overdenture restorations.

It is compatible with the following systems:

• · Astra OsseoSpeed EV(K130999) 3.0
• · Astra OsseoSpeed EV(K120414) 3.6, 4.2, 4.8, 5.4 mm
• Tapered Internal Implants (K071638) (K143022) 3.4. 3.8. 4.6. 5.8 mm
• · BioHorizons Laser-Lok Implant System (K093321) 3.0 mm
• · Conelog Screw-Line (K113779) 3.3, 3.8, 4.3, 5.0 mm
• Osstem TSIII SA (K121995) 3.5 (3.7) , 4.0 (4.2) , 4.5 (4.6) , 5.0 (5.1), 6.0 (6.0), 7.0 (6.8) mm (Mini. Regular)
• · Megagen AnyRidge Internal Implant System (K140091) 4.0, 4.4, 4.9, 5.4 (3.1)
• · Neodent Implant System GM Helix (K163194, K180536) 3.5, 3.75, 4.0, 4.3, 5.0 (3.0) 6.0 (3.0)
• · Nobel Active 3.0 (K102436) 3.0
• · Nobel Active Internal Connection Implant (K071370) NP RP
• · Nobelactive Wide Platform (Wp) (K133731) WP
• Straumann BLX Implant (K173961, K181703, K191256) 3.5, 3.75, 4.5, 5.5, 6.5 (RB, WB)
• · Straumann 02.9 mm Bone Level Tapered Implants, SC CARES Abutments (K162890) 2.9 (SC)
• · Straumann® Bone Level Tapered Implants (K140878) 3.3, 4.1, 4.8 (NC, RC)
• · Zimmer 3.1mmD Dental Implant System (K142082) 3.1 (2.9)
• (Ti-base only) Screw Vent® and Tapered Screw Vent® (K013227) 3.7(3.5), 4.7(4.5), 6.0(5.7)

All digitally designed abutments and/or coping for use with the abutments are intended to be sent to a ALLONUS Tech-validated milling center for manufacture.

ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic is made of titanium alloy (Ti-6AI-4V ELI, ASTM F136) intended for use as an aid in prosthetic restoration. It consists of Pre-Milled Blank abutment, Ti-Base Abutment, and Multi-unit Abutment and Components (Multi-unit Healing Cap, Multi-unit Temporary cylinder, Multi-unit Ti-cylinder).

Pre-Milled Blank has a pre-manufactured implant interface connection interface with a customizable cylindrical area-by CAD/CAM- above the implant-abutment interface.

Ti Base consists of a two-piece abutment, where the titanium base is a pre-manufactured component of the abutment that will be used to support a CAD/CAM-designed zirconia superstructure (the second part of the two-piece abutment) that composes the final abutment.

Multi-unit Abutment which are placed into the dental implant to provide support for the prosthetic restoration. The abutments are made of Titanium grade Ti-6A1-4V ELI (meets ASTM Standard F-136). Multi-unit Abutment includes abutments and components (Multi-unit Healing Cap, Multi-unit Temporary cylinder, Multi-unit Ti-cylinder). Multi-unit Abutment - are provided in various gingival cuff height ranging from 1 to 6 mm.

All digitally designed abutments and/or coping for use with the abutments are intended to be sent to a ALLONUS Tech-validated milling center for manufacture.

The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for the ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic, which is an endosseous dental implant abutment. It details the device's technical characteristics and compares it to predicate devices to establish substantial equivalence, rather than describing a study that proves the device meets specific acceptance criteria for a new and novel performance claim.

Therefore, many of the requested categories for acceptance criteria and study details are not directly applicable or available in this type of submission. The information provided primarily focuses on demonstrating equivalence through comparison to existing legally marketed devices, material properties, and standard performance tests for similar devices.

However, I can extract the relevant information that is available from the document for each type of device within the ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic family: Pre-Milled Blank, Ti Base, Multi-Unit Abutment, Multi-Unit Healing Cap, Multi-Unit Temporary Cylinder, and Multi-Unit Ti-Cylinder.

General Information on Acceptance Criteria and Studies for ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic (as inferred from the 510(k) Summary):

The ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic is claiming substantial equivalence to predicate devices, meaning it does not need to establish new performance criteria but rather demonstrate that it is as safe and effective as existing legally marketed devices. The "acceptance criteria" here are largely implied by the performance of the predicate devices and the relevant ISO standards for dental implant abutments. The studies performed are non-clinical bench tests.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria (Inferred from Comparison) and Reported Device Performance:

The document presents comparisons to predicate devices to establish substantial equivalence rather than explicit acceptance criteria and corresponding performance metrics for novel claims. However, the design limits of the subject devices are compared to the design limits of the predicate devices, which act as de facto acceptance criteria in the context of substantial equivalence. The device's performance is demonstrated by meeting the standards in non-clinical testing.

Here's a generalized table summarizing this approach:

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

• Test Set Sample Size:
  • The document does not specify the exact sample sizes used for the non-clinical bench tests (fatigue, sterilization, biocompatibility, or dimensional analysis). It only states that tests were performed "for the subject device" and "of the worst-case scenario through fatigue testing."
• Data Provenance:
  • The 510(k) submission is from ALLONUS Tech Co., LTD. in the REPUBLIC OF KOREA. This implies the testing was likely conducted in or overseen by this entity.
  • The studies were non-clinical bench tests, not clinical studies involving human patients. Therefore, terms like "retrospective" or "prospective" clinical dataProvenance are not applicable here.

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 510(k) Summary. For non-clinical bench testing, "ground truth" is typically established by recognized international standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM) and engineering principles, rather than expert consensus on clinical cases.
• The document mentions "Dimensional analysis and reverse engineering... were performed" and "assessment of maximum and minimum dimensions... along with cross-sectional images." This suggests engineering expertise, but specific numbers or qualifications of experts are not stated.

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

• This is not applicable as the studies were non-clinical bench tests. Adjudication methods like 2+1 (two readers plus one adjudicator) are used in clinical studies, particularly for diagnostic imaging, to resolve discrepancies in expert interpretations of patient data.

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, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study (MRMC) is relevant for diagnostic AI devices that assist human interpretation of medical images or data. The ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic is a physical medical device (dental implant abutment), not an AI diagnostic tool.

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

• No, a standalone (algorithm-only) performance study was not done. This question is also typically relevant for AI/software as a medical device (SaMD). The ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic is a physical device that integrates with human dental procedures.

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

• For the non-clinical tests (fatigue, sterilization, biocompatibility), the "ground truth" is adherence to recognized international standards (ISO, ASTM) and established engineering specifications.
• For implant-to-abutment compatibility, the "ground truth" was based on dimensional analysis and reverse engineering of OEM implant bodies, abutments, and screws, comparing the subject device's design to established OEM specifications.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• This is not applicable. "Training set" refers to data used to train machine learning algorithms. The ALLONUS Tech Prosthetic is a physical medical device, not an AI/ML algorithm.

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

• This is not applicable as there is no training set for a physical medical device.

Ask a specific question about this device

Straumann® Anatomic Healing Abutments are indicated to be placed in partially edentulous patients after implant placement. The healing components protect the inner configuration of the implant and form, maintain and stabilize the soft tissue during the healing process. Healing components have a maximum duration of usage of 180 days.

The Straumann Anatomic Healing Abutments XC (referred to as the AHAs) are intended for use with the Straumann Dental Implant System (SDIS). The healing components protect the inner configuration of the implant and form, maintain, and stabilize the soft tissue during the osseointegration phase of Straumann endosseous dental implants to be rehabilitated using the delayed loading technique. The AHA are to be used during the implant placement surgery or in the reopening surgery (second surgical phase) and are for temporary use up to 180 days. The AHAs are to be placed out of occlusion. The healing abutments do not support a prosthetic restoration.

The AHAs are composed of two united parts: a body that allows for customization and includes a through hole for fixation screw access, and a basal screw that cannot be altered. The Anatomic Healing Abutments are intended to be customized using only hand milling instruments manually controlled by dental professionals. To protect the consistent emergence profile for final abutment, a maximum 3mm height can be modified down to the occlusal surface. To preserve the scanning function of AHA, a 4.7mm circular area around the central axis of the screw channel cannot be modified. The body is milled from polyetheretherketone (PEEK Classix). The basal screws are existing basal screws manufactured from Titanium-Aluminum-Niobium (TAN) alloy previously cleared as part of the Straumann BLX system in K173961.

The AHA are designed for connection to BLC and BLX implants of the Straumann Dental Implant System (K173961, K181703, K191256, K210855, K212533, K230108, and K234049). The AHA are available in diameters of Ø3.8 mm, 4.5mm, 5.5mm, and 6.5mm. They are available in 4 shapes designed according to specific areas of the dentition including S, S1, M, and XL, however, they are not limited to use exclusively in these positions. The AHA are offered in regular base (RB) and wide base (WB) configurations consistent with the Straumann BLX and BLC prosthetic platform offerings.

The AHAs may also be used in intraoral scanning procedures of single-unit restorations to represent the position, axis, and orientation of the dental implant placed in the patient's jaw relative to the surrounding dentition. A scanbody feature extends from the occlusal surface of the AHA.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Straumann Anatomic Healing Abutments XC (AHA). It describes the device, its intended use, and compares it to predicate devices. However, this document does not contain the detailed acceptance criteria or a study designed to prove the device meets specific performance criteria in the format typically used for AI/software-based medical devices.

Instead, this 510(k) summary focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing legally marketed devices through comparisons of technological characteristics, intended use, and various performance tests (sterilization, shelf life, biocompatibility, torque, and basic software verification) that confirm the new device functions as expected for a medical device of its class, rather than proving specific numerical performance metrics against defined acceptance criteria in a clinical setting.

Therefore, I cannot populate the requested table and answer many of the questions as the information is not present in the provided text.

Here is what can be extracted and inferred from the document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

As mentioned, explicit, quantifiable acceptance criteria with corresponding performance results are not provided in the document for the device itself (Straumann® Anatomic Healing Abutments XC). The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through various tests rather than meeting numerical performance thresholds for image analysis or diagnostic accuracy.

The performance tests mentioned are:

• Sterilization Validation and Shelf Life:
  • Acceptance Criteria (inferred): Sterility Assurance Level (SAL) of 10^-6 for gamma irradiation and successful steam sterilization validation. Packaging stability for a 5-year shelf life.
  • Reported Performance: Met SAL of 10^-6 using VDmax25 in accordance with ISO 11137-1:2006. Steam sterilization validation met all test method acceptance criteria. Packaging stability for the 5-year shelf life of predicate devices was adopted.
• Pyrogen Testing (LAL test):
  • Acceptance Criteria (inferred): Pyrogen limit specification of 20 endotoxin units (EU)/device.
  • Reported Performance: Met the specified limit.
• Biocompatibility Testing:
  • Acceptance Criteria (inferred): No cytotoxic reaction, no extractable substances above Analytical Evaluation Threshold (AET).
  • Reported Performance: No cytotoxic reaction detected. No extractable substances detected above AET.
• Performance Testing - Bench (Torque Testing):
  • Acceptance Criteria (inferred): Withstands repeated insertion and removal torques without damage.
  • Reported Performance: Performed, demonstrating the AHA withstands repeated insertion and removal torques without damage. (Specific numerical thresholds not provided).
• Software Testing (Scan Verification and Integration):
  • Acceptance Criteria (inferred): Can be scanned with an intraoral scanner and is suitable to work with CARES Visual software.
  • Reported Performance: Performed, demonstrating the subject AHAs can be scanned with an intraoral scanner and are suitable to work with CARES Visual software. (No specific metrics provided).

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

• The document describes engineering tests (sterilization validation, mechanical torque testing, biocompatibility, software verification) rather than a clinical study with a "test set" of patient data. Therefore, this information is not applicable in the context of this 510(k) for a physical device.

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

• Not applicable as this is not a study involving expert-derived ground truth on a clinical dataset for AI/software performance.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not applicable.

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 medical device (healing abutment), not an AI/software for diagnostic assistance.

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 (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)

• For the engineering tests:
  • Sterilization/Pyrogenicity: Laboratory test results against validated standards and specified limits.
  • Biocompatibility: Laboratory test results against ISO standards and AET.
  • Torque Testing: Mechanical testing results against functional requirements (withstanding torque without damage).
  • Software Testing: Functional verification (can be scanned, works with software).

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable, as this is a physical device and not an AI/ML model that requires a "training set."

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

• Not applicable.

Summary of what the document implies about meeting criteria:

The document asserts that the Straumann® Anatomic Healing Abutments XC (AHA) meet the necessary performance criteria through a series of benchtop engineering tests and validations designed to demonstrate:

• Effective sterilization (gamma irradiation and steam sterilization).
• Pyrogenicity within acceptable limits.
• Biocompatibility of the materials.
• Mechanical integrity (torque resistance).
• Compatibility with intraoral scanning and associated software.

The primary "study" presented is a comparison to predicate devices to establish substantial equivalence based on similar technological characteristics and performance testing. The "acceptance criteria" are implicitly met by successful completion of these validation tests against established industry standards (e.g., ISO) and functional requirements, rather than through a clinical study with statistical performance metrics against a defined ground truth.

Ask a specific question about this device

Elos Accurate Hybrid Base
The Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base The intended for attaching to dental inplants in order to provide basis for dental implant and a zirconia superstructure and will be attached to the implant using a prosthetic screw and attached to the zirconia superstructure by cementing.
The Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base™ is compatible with the implant systems listed in table 1:
Table 1.
Implant Platform compatibility | Platform diameter [mm] | Implant Body diameter [mm]
Straumann BLX RB/WB | Ø3.4/Ø3.5/Ø4.5 | Ø3.5/Ø3.75/Ø4/Ø4.5/Ø5/Ø5.5/Ø6.5
The zirconia superstructures for use with the Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base "" are either intended to be sent and manufactured at a FDA registered Elos Medtech approved milling facility or to be designed and manufactured according to digital dentistry workflow system integrates multiple components of the digital dentistry workflow: scan files from Intra-Oral Scanners, CAD software, ceramic material, milling machine and associated tooling and accessories.

Elos Accurate Customized Abutment
The Elos Accurate® Customized Abutments are intended for attaching to dental implants in order to provide basis for single or multiple tooth prosthetic restorations. The Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment will be attached to a dental implant using the included Elos Prosthetic screw.
The Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment is compatible with the implant systems listed in table 1: Table 1.
Implant Platform compatibility | Platform diameter [mm] | Implant Body diameter [mm]
Straumann BLX RB/WB | Ø3.4/Ø3.5/Ø4.5 | Ø3.5/Ø3.75/Ø4/Ø4.5/Ø5/Ø5.5/Ø6.5
Astra Tech 3.0 | Ø3. | Ø3
Astra Tech EV 3.0 | Ø3 | Ø3
All digitally designed CAD/CAM customizations for the Elos Accurate® Customized Abutments are either intended to be sent and manufactured at a FDA registered Elos Medtech approved milling facility or to be designed and manufactured according to digital dentistry workflow system integrates multiple components of the digital dentistry workflow: scan files from Intra-Oral Scanners, CAD software, CAM software, milling machine and associated tooling and accessories.

The Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment and Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base™ are both patient-specific components designed for attaching to dental implants, providing a basis for single or multiple tooth prosthetic restorations.
The Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment and Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base™ will be attached to the implant using the included Elos Prosthetic Screw.
The Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base™ is a two-piece abutment composed of the pre-manufactured prosthetic component, the Hybrid Base in Titanium alloy per ASTM F136, as the bottom-half, and the zirconia superstructure as the top-half, which the laboratory/clinic is designing by use of the 510(k) cleared design software (3Shape Abutment Designer™ Software, K151455), which when assembled comprises the finished medical device. The laboratory designed superstructure is manufactured from 510(k) cleared Zirconia (Lava Plus, K011394) according to digital dentistry workflow. The laboratory designed superstructure is attached to the Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base by use of 510(k) cleared cement (Multilink Hybrid Abutment, K130436 or Panavia V5, K150704) While the Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment is a one-piece abutment which consists of an Abutment Blank used in fabricating of a full patient-specific abutment in Titanium alloy per ASTM F136. The Abutment Blank used in creation of the Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment has a pre-manufactured connection interface that fits directly to a pre-specified dental implant. The same applies to the Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base™ which fits directly to an endosseous dental implant. The customized shape of the abutment is intended to be manufactured according to a digital dentistry workflow or intended to be manufactured at an FDA registered Elos Medtech approved milling facility.
The Elos Accurate library files for both Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment and Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base™ have built-in design limitations, and the user isn't allowed to exceed these limitations as follows:
Customized Abutments: | Hybrid Base abutments (zirconia part):
Min. wall thickness 0.4 mm | Min. wall thickness 0.5 mm
Gingival height min. 0.5mm or max. 5 mm | Gingival height min. 0.5mm or max. 5 mm
Max. angulation 20° or 30°. | Max. angulation 20°.
Min. post height* 4 mm | Min. post height* 4 mm
*The post height is defined as the cementable height of the abutment.
The Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment and the Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base™ are both delivered non-sterile and the final restoration including corresponding Elos Prosthetic Screw is intended to be sterilized at the dental clinic before it is placed in the patient.

The provided text describes the submission of a 510(k) premarket notification for the "Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base™" and "Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment" dental devices. The purpose of this submission is to demonstrate that these devices are substantially equivalent to previously marketed predicate devices. The document details the indications for use, product descriptions, a comparison of technological characteristics with predicate devices, and a summary of non-clinical testing.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study proving device conformity:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria & Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are not explicitly stated with numerical targets in the document. Instead, the document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices. The "reported device performance" is primarily presented as the devices meeting the same or similar functional and safety standards as the predicate devices, with specific validations for expanded compatibility and design workflows.

The "Element of Comparison" table acts as a de facto set of acceptance criteria, where the subject device's characteristics are compared against the predicate devices, and "Substantial equivalent" is the reported "performance."

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

The document does not specify a "test set" in the context of an AI/human performance study. Instead, the testing described is primarily engineering and material characterization:

• Fatigue testing per ISO 14801: This testing involves multiple samples to assess mechanical durability. While the exact number of samples isn't given, standard ISO 14801 typically requires a significant number of samples tested to failure or for a specified number of cycles.
• Biocompatibility testing for cytotoxicity (ISO 10993-5): This testing would use biological samples or cell lines. The document states it's leveraged from previously cleared products (K230317/K231317) on "identically manufactured abutments and prosthetic screws manufactured from the same material."
• Sterilization validation (ISO 17665-1 & ISO 17665-2): Involves using Biological Indicators (BIs) or other validation methods, typically multiple cycles and samples. Leveraged from K230317/K231317.
• MRI Conditional Safety Evaluations (ASTM F2052, ASTM F2119, ASTM F2213, ASTM F2182): A "worst-case assembly" was tested, implying at least one, but possibly multiple, physical assemblies to cover various MRI conditions. Leveraged from K230317/K231317.
• Digital dentistry workflow validation: Conducted on "selected model of subject product lines," implying a representative set of designs.

Data Provenance: The data comes from non-clinical testing performed by the manufacturer (or leveraged from prior submissions by the same manufacturer, Elos Medtech Pinol A/S). The origin is Denmark (company location). The testing is prospective for the current submission but leverages retrospective data from previous clearances.

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

This information is not applicable to this submission. The device is a physical dental abutment, not an AI/diagnostic device that generates an output requiring expert interpretation for ground truth establishment. The "ground truth" for this device relates to its physical, mechanical, and biological properties, which are established through standardized engineering and laboratory tests, not expert consensus on diagnostic images.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

This is not applicable as there is no test set involving expert interpretation or a diagnostic outcome that would require adjudication.

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

This is not applicable as the device is a physical dental abutment, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool or software.

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

This is not applicable as the device is a physical dental abutment. The "digital dentistry workflow" involves software (3Shape Abutment Designer Software) but this is used for design and manufacturing, not for standalone diagnostic performance assessment.

7. The type of ground truth used

The "ground truth" for this engineering-focused submission is established through:

• Engineering and dimensional analysis: Measurements and specifications of various components (abutments, implants, screws).
• Mechanical testing: Fatigue testing per ISO 14801 to assess durability and strength under simulated physiological loading.
• Biocompatibility testing: Standardized testing (ISO 10993-5) to confirm non-cytotoxicity.
• Sterilization validation: Standardized testing (ISO 17665-1 & ISO 17665-2) to confirm sterility.
• MRI compatibility testing: Standardized testing (ASTM F2052, ASTM F2119, ASTM F2213, ASTM F2182) to confirm MR conditional status.
• Design software validation: Testing that the software (3Shape Abutment Designer) adheres to "built-in design limitations" and prevents users from exceeding them.

8. The sample size for the training set

This is not applicable. The submission is not for an AI/machine learning device that requires a training set. The descriptions of "design limitations" and "digital dentistry workflow validation" refer to the validation of software and manufacturing processes, not the training of an algorithm in the machine learning sense.

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

This is not applicable as there is no training set for the reasons outlined above. The "design limits" mentioned for the digital dentistry workflow are predefined by Elos Medtech based on engineering principles and safety considerations for dental prosthetics.

Ask a specific question about this device

DESS Dental Smart Solutions abutments are intended to be used in conjunction with endosseous dental implants in the maxillary or mandibular arch to provide support for prosthetic restorations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ask a specific question about this device