Search Results

Preat Abutments are intended to be used in conjunction with endosseous dental implants in the maxillary or mandibular arch to provide support for single-unit or multi-unit prosthetic restorations.

All digitally designed CAD/CAM customizations for Preat Abutments are intended to be sent to a Preat validated Milling Center for manufacture or to be designed and manufactured according to a validated digital dentistry workflow. The workflow system integrates multiple components of the digital dentistry workflow: scan files from intra-oral and lab (desktop) scanners, CAD software, CAM software, milling machine and associated tooling and accessories.

Preat Abutments are compatible with the following third-party implant restorative platforms:

The purpose of this submission is to expand the use of Preat Abutments, specifically the titanium blank abutment design, to be used in a validated equipment CAD/CAM workflow where specific abutment design software, milling machines and tooling have been validated to work with the previously cleared components in K220823 and K183518.

This submission includes a titanium blank design which is compatible with sixteen (16) implant system, with a distinct connection platform, as well as varying implant diameters and implant platform diameters, for each system.

The Subject device abutments may be placed in implants located in the mandibular or maxillary arches. The Subject device abutments are compatible with implant body diameters that range from 3.0 mm to 7.0 mm and implant platform diameters which range from 2.9 to 6.0 mm.

All abutments and screws are manufactured from Ti-6Al-4V ELI alloy conforming to ASTM F136 and are provided non-sterile to the end user.

The design parameters for the CAD/CAM Titanium Blank custom abutment are:

• Minimum wall thickness – 0.5 mm to 0.9 mm (varies by implant line);
• Minimum post height for single-unit restorations (length above the abutment collar / gingival height)– 4.0 mm;
• Maximum Angle – 30°*; and
• Minimum gingival height – 0.5 mm;
• Maximum gingival height – 1.5 mm to 4.5 mm (varies by implant line).

*Astra Tech® OsseoSpeed™ Plus (OsseoSpeed™ EV) compatible are limited to 0° maximum correction angle.

The minimum and maximum abutment design parameters listed above correspond to the abutment designs used in the mechanical testing data provided in the sponsor's K220823 and K183518 device submissions.

All digitally designed CAD/CAM customizations for Preat Abutments are intended to be sent to a Preat validated Milling Center for manufacture or to be designed and manufactured according to a validated digital dentistry workflow which includes: Scan files from Intra-Oral and Desktop Scanners, CAD software, CAM software, a Milling machine and associated tooling and accessories.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter pertains to "Preat Abutments," which are endosseous dental implant abutments. This type of device is mechanically tested and does not typically involve the kinds of studies (e.g., AI integration, human reader studies, clinical outcomes) that would necessitate the extensive "acceptance criteria" and "study proving device meets acceptance criteria" information you've requested.

The document describes non-clinical performance data to demonstrate substantial equivalence, focusing on engineering aspects and material compatibility, rather than clinical efficacy or diagnostic accuracy.

Therefore, many of the specific points you've asked for (e.g., sample size for test set, data provenance, number of experts for ground truth, adjudication method, MRMC study, effect size, standalone performance, ground truth for training set, training set sample size) are not applicable to this type of device and are not present in the provided FDA submission information.

Here's a breakdown based on the available information:

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

The document does not explicitly state acceptance criteria in a quantitative table format as one might find for a diagnostic AI device. Instead, it details the engineering and material performance tests conducted to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices. The "reported device performance" is described qualitatively by stating that the tests were performed and that the device is substantially equivalent.

• This implies the device met the standards of ISO 14801, demonstrating mechanical integrity comparable to predicates. (Specific pass/fail values or results are not provided in this summary, but would have been in the full submission). |
  | | - Compression fatigue testing according to ISO 14801. | |
  | Software Validation | - Restrictions to prevent design outside stated design parameters. | - "Software verification included testing of restrictions that prevent design of components outside of the stated design parameters." |
  | | - Abutment design library limitations are locked and unmodifiable. | - "The abutment design library was validated to demonstrate that the established design limitations and specifications are locked and cannot be modified by the user." |
  | | - CAM restriction zones avoid damage/modification of connection geometry and are locked. | - "Validation testing of the CAM restriction zones was conducted, 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." |
  | Biocompatibility | - Conforms to ISO 10993-1 and ISO 10993-5. | - "Biocompatibility has been demonstrated through the sponsor's K220823 device testing according to ISO 10993-1, and ISO 10993-5." (Leveraged from predicate). |
  | Sterilization | - Conforms to ISO 17665-1 and ISO 14937. | - "Sterilization validation was demonstrated through and leveraged from the sponsor's K220823 device testing according to ISO 17665-1 and ISO 14937." (Leveraged from predicate). |
  | MR Safety | - Assessment of magnetically induced displacement force and torque. | - "Non-clinical worst-case MRI review was performed... using scientific rationale and published literature... Rationale addressed parameters per the FDA guidance 'Testing and Labeling Medical Devices for Safety in the Magnetic Resonance (MR) Environment,' including magnetically induced displacement force and torque." (Indicating an assessment was made to show safety, though specific results are not detailed). |
  | Material Composition | - Ti-6Al-4V ELI alloy conforming to ASTM F136. | - "All abutments and screws are manufactured from Ti-6Al-4V ELI alloy conforming to ASTM F136." |
  | Design Parameters (for CAD/CAM customizations) | - Minimum wall thickness: 0.5 mm to 0.9 mm (varies).
• Minimum post height single-unit: 4.0 mm.
• Maximum Angle: 30° (0° for some Astra Tech models).
• Minimum gingival height: 0.5 mm.
• Maximum gingival height: 1.5 mm to 4.5 mm (varies). | - The device is designed to these parameters, and software validation ensures these are maintained. |

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 for Test Set: The document mentions "worst-case constructs" for mechanical testing, but does not specify a numerical sample size. For software, it refers to "testing of restrictions" and "validation testing," without numerical samples. Biocompatibility and sterilization data are leveraged from previous submissions (K220823).
• Data Provenance: Not specified in terms of country of origin. The data is non-clinical/bench testing.

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 device is an implant abutment, not a diagnostic device requiring expert interpretation of medical images or data to establish ground truth. The "ground truth" here is adherence to engineering standards and material properties.

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

• Not applicable. As above, this is not a diagnostic study requiring expert 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 is not a diagnostic device involving AI and human readers.

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

• Not applicable. This device is a dental implant component, not an algorithm. The software mentioned is for design and manufacturing control, not for standalone diagnostic performance.

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

• The "ground truth" for this device's performance is adherence to recognized international standards (e.g., ISO 14801 for mechanical testing, ISO 10993 for biocompatibility, ISO 17665-1 and ISO 14937 for sterilization), material specifications (e.g., ASTM F136 for Ti-6Al-4V ELI alloy), and internal design parameters and software validation criteria.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This is not a machine learning/AI device requiring a training set.

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

• Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

INNO SLA Submerged Hybrid Ti-Base System is intended for use in conjunction with the fixture in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae, in support of single or multiple-unit cement retained restorations. All digitally designed zirconia superstructures for use with the INNO SLA Submerged Hybrid Ti-Base System are intended to be sent to a Cowellmedi validated milling center for manufacture.

INNO SLA Submerged Hybrid Ti-Base System consists of a two-piece abutment, where the titanium base is a pre-manufactured abutment that will be used to support a CAD/CAM designed superstructure (the second part of the two-piece abutment). These two pieces together form the final abutment. Ti-base Abutment System is made of titanium alloy conforming to ASTM F136 Standard Specification for Wrought Titanium-6Aluminum-4Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) Alloy for Surgical Implant Applications. The zirconia material is InCoris Zi, cleared under K123664, and the cement is RelyX Unicem 2Automiz, cleared under K100756. Zirconia CAD/CAM abutment or superstructure that composes the final prosthetics is intended to be designed and milled, according to the prosthetic planning and patient clinical situation. It is compatible with the following systems: INNO SLA Submerged Implant System(K132242) by Cowellmedi Co., Ltd. The system offers the following three types of Ti-Base with a screw that fix the abutment into the fixture. Hybrid S Ti-Base, Hybrid L Ti-Base, Hybrid A Ti-Base.

The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for the INNO SLA Submerged Hybrid Ti-Base System. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than providing detailed acceptance criteria and performance data from a clinical or extensive non-clinical study that would typically be conducted for a de novo device or a device requiring premarket approval (PMA).

Therefore, the information required to fully answer your request (acceptance criteria, specific study results proving the device meets criteria, sample sizes for test/training sets, expert details, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and ground truth establishment) is not present in this 510(k) summary.

A 510(k) submission primarily relies on demonstrating that the new device has the same intended use and similar technological characteristics to a legally marketed predicate device, or if there are differences, that these differences do not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness. The "Performance Data (Non-Clinical)" section lists the types of tests performed (sterilization, biocompatibility, fatigue, MR environment review) and states that the "test results support that the subject device is substantially equivalent to the predicate devices." However, it does not provide the actual acceptance criteria or the specific numerical performance results against those criteria.

Here's what can be extracted and what is missing:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:

• Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated in terms of pass/fail thresholds for each test. The implicit acceptance criterion for a 510(k) is that the device is "substantially equivalent" to the predicate.
• Reported Device Performance: Only general statements are made:
  • "Sterilization validating testing has been performed in accordance with ISO 17665-1 and ISO 17665-2 for steam sterilization." (Result: Implied adequate sterilization)
  • "Biocompatibility testing has been performed in accordance with ISO 10993-3, 5, 6, 10, 11, and 23." (Result: Implied biocompatible)
  • "Fatigue test in accordance with ISO 14801" (Result: "the result supports that the [subject device is] substantially equivalent to the predicate device in the market.")
  • "MR Environment Condition... Non-clinical worst-case MRI review was performed... based on the entire system including all variations... Rationale addressed parameters per the FDA Guidance... including magnetically induced displacement force and torque." (Result: Implied suitable for MR environment, likely "MR Conditional" or "MR Safe" based on the referenced guidance, though not explicitly stated.)

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

• Not specified. This document describes non-clinical engineering and materials testing, not a clinical study involving human patient data.

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

• Not applicable. This pertains to an AI/ML device where expert review establishes ground truth for image interpretation or diagnosis. This document is about a dental implant abutment system.

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

• Not applicable. This applies to expert review of data for AI/ML performance evaluation.

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

• No. This is not an AI/ML device for diagnostic assistance.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML diagnostic software.

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

• Not applicable in the AI/ML sense. For the engineering tests, the "ground truth" would be established by the specifications of the relevant ISO standards (e.g., ISO 14801 for dental implant fatigue, ISO 10993 for biocompatibility) and comparison to the predicate device's performance (though the specific predicate's performance is not numerated here).

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.

In summary: The provided 510(k) summary for the INNO SLA Submerged Hybrid Ti-Base System details the types of non-clinical tests performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices (URIS Base, Preat Abutment, BioHorizons CAD/CAM Abutments). It does not provide the specific numerical acceptance criteria or quantitative performance results, as is typical for a 510(k) submission which relies heavily on comparison to existing legally marketed devices rather than requiring de novo clinical performance validation against novel acceptance criteria. The questions posed align more with the evaluation of AI/ML or diagnostic software devices, which this dental hardware device is not.

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 Pre-milled Blanks are to be sent to a Terrats Medical validated milling center for manufacture.

The purpose of this submission is to implement a labeling change for certain Pre-milled Blanks of the DESS Dental Smart Solutions abutment system, cleared under K170588, K173908 and K191986, to permit the manufacture of custom abutments with angulation up to 30° and to add three (3) Pre-milled Blanks that also will include such labeling. Design parameters cleared in K170588. K173908 and K191986 were limited to straight abutments only. This change in labeling is for Pre-milled Blanks compatible with three (3) systems: NobelParallel Conical Connection, Straumann Bone Level, and Zimmer Screw-Vent/Tapered Screw-Vent implants. Note that, because NobelActive and Nobel Parallel Conical Connection share the same implant/abutment interface, they are considered one system for purposes of this submission, as they were in K170588, K173908 and K191986. No new compatibilities are added in this submission.

Pre-milled Blanks are designed for fabrication of a custom abutment by a CAD/CAM process. All patient-specific custom abutment fabrication is by prescription on the order of the clinician. Nobelcompatible Pre-milled Blanks are made of titanium alloy (Ti-6A1-4V) conforming to ASTM F136 Standard Specification for Wrought Titanium-6Aluminum-4Vanadium ELL (Extra Low Interstitial) Allov for Surgical Implant Applications (UNS R56401) or from cobalt chromium alloy (Co-Cr-Mo) conforming to ASTM F1537 Standard Specification for Wrought Cobalt-28Chromium-6Molybdenum Alloys for Surgical Implants (UNS R31537, UNS R31538, and UNS R31539. Straumann-compatible and Zimmercompatible Pre-milled Blanks are made of titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V). They are available in engaging designs and are compatible with the implant systems shown the table below Compatible Implant Systems and Platforms. Except for the maximum angulation of the final abutment and the addition of three (3) Pre-milled Blanks of 14 mm diameter to the previously cleared Pre-milled Blanks of 10 mm and 14 mm diameter, subject device Pre-milled Blanks are identical to Pre-milled Blanks cleared (with slight variations on the name) in K170588, K173908 and K191986. Compatibility with the implant platform was demonstrated in K170588 and K191986.

The design parameters for the CAD/CAM fabrication of custom abutments from subject device Premilled Blanks are:

Minimum wall thickness - 0.45 mm Minimum post height – 4.0 mm
Maximum gingival height - 6.0 mm Minimum gingival height - 0.3 mm Maximum angulation of the final abutment - 30°

Manufacture of CAD/CAM custom abutments from Pre-milled Blanks is to be performed at a Terrats Medical validated milling center.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the DESS Dental Smart Solutions, formatted as requested.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (DESS Dental Smart Solutions). It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices, particularly for a labeling change allowing custom abutments with angulation up to 30 degrees.

It's important to note that this document does not describe a study that proves the device meets acceptance criteria in the way a clinical trial or a detailed performance study report would. Instead, it leverages prior clearances and non-clinical testing to argue for substantial equivalence.

The acceptance criteria provided here are implied by the comparison to predicate devices and the non-clinical testing performed.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Given the nature of a 510(k) submission for an existing device with a labeling change, the "acceptance criteria" are more about demonstrating equivalence and safety/performance as established by the predicate device and relevant standards. The "reported device performance" refers to the results that support this equivalence.

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

• Test Set Sample Size: The document does not specify a "test set" in the context of a dataset of patient images or outcomes. The performance data primarily refers to non-clinical testing (e.g., mechanical tests on physical samples).
  • For the ISO 14801 dynamic fatigue testing, the number of physical samples tested is not explicitly stated in this summary. It would typically be a pre-defined number per test arm as per the standard to achieve statistical significance for the specific test.
• Data Provenance: The data provenance mentioned is related to:
  • Prior clearances (K170588 and K173908): This refers to previously submitted and cleared devices, implying existing data on biocompatibility and other baseline characteristics. This is a form of retrospective leveraging of previously reviewed data.
  • Non-clinical lab testing (ISO 14801): This testing would have been conducted in a laboratory setting, specific to the device design for this submission. The origin (country/lab) of this specific testing isn't mentioned in the summary, but it would be part of the full submission.

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

This section is not applicable as the document describes non-clinical performance data and substantial equivalence to predicate devices, not a study involving human expert interpretation of data or images. The "ground truth" here is established by engineering standards (e.g., ISO 14801) and material specifications (e.g., ASTM standards).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This section is not applicable for the same reasons as point 3. There is no human interpretation or adjudication described.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The submission relies on non-clinical data and substantial equivalence arguments for a physical dental device, not an AI or imaging-related device requiring human reader performance evaluation.

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

This section is not applicable. The device is a physical dental abutment, not an algorithm or software. "Standalone performance" in this context refers to the device's mechanical and material performance characteristics.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for this device, in terms of its safety and effectiveness, is established by:

• Engineering Standards: Specifically, ISO 14801 (Dentistry - Implants - Dynamic fatigue test for endosseous dental implants) for mechanical performance.
• Material Standards: ASTM F136 and ASTM F1537 for material biocompatibility and mechanical properties.
• Predicate Device Performance: The underlying ground truth is based on the previously established safety and effectiveness of the legally marketed predicate devices, which this new device is deemed substantially equivalent to. This is a regulatory "ground truth" rather than a clinical or pathological one.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This section is not applicable. The device is a physical dental abutment, not a machine learning model. There is no "training set" in this context.

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

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

Ask a specific question about this device

Kontact™ Dental Implant System is indicated for use in partially or fully edentulous patients to support maxillary or mandibular single unit, multiple-unit, or overdenture dental restorations. Kontact Dental Implant System is indicated for immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved and the occlusal loading is appropriate. Kontact 3 mm diameter implants and prosthetics components are indicated for use in surgical and restorative applications in the maxillary lateral incisor or mandibular incisor regions.

The Kontact™ Dental Implant System comprises endosseous root-form dental implants, abutments, abutment screws, and other associated components for single-unit, multi-unit, and overdenture restorations. Kontact dental implants are provided in five body diameters: 3.0 mm, 3.6 mm, 4.2 mm, 4.8 mm, and 5.4 mm. The platform diameter for each size is the same as the (maximum) body diameter. The implants are provided in lengths ranging from 8 mm to 16 mm. The implants have a recessed internal section for abutment indexing, and an internal threaded section for mating to the corresponding subject device cover screw, or abutment screw. All implants are manufactured from titanium alloy conforming to ASTM F136 and ISO 5832-3. The endosseous threaded surface of the subject device implants is grit-blasted with non-resorbable aluminum oxide (Al2O3) particles. Kontact conventional and prosthetic components include cover screws, abutment screws, temporary abutments, straight abutments, angled abutments, prepable abutments, multi-unit abutments, healing caps, and overdenture abutments. Most device screws and all subject device abutments are manufactured from titanium alloy conforming to ASTM F136 and ISO 5832-3. Select subject device abutments and screws manufactured from titanium alloy are anodized using standard electrolytic passivation processing to impart a distinctive surface color. The subject device abutment screw intended for 3 mm diameter implants and the prosthesis screw intended for conical abutments are manufactured from cobalt alloy, conforming to ASTM F1058 and ISO 5832-7. The abutment screw is coated with titanium nitride (TiN); the prosthesis screw is coated with chromium nitride (CrN). Subject device healing caps intended for use with UniPost abutments, and IsoPost abutments are manufactured from polyetheretherketone (PEEK). Subject device healing caps intended for NanoPost abutments and IsoPost abutments are manufactured from polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA).

The product, Kontact™ Dental Implant System, has not reported any clinical studies. The only data provided is non-clinical performance data.

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

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for any of the non-clinical tests.
• Data Provenance: All data is non-clinical and derived from laboratory testing of the device and its components, primarily referencing international and industry standards (ISO, ASTM, ANSI/AAMI, USP). Information on the country of origin of the test data is not provided, but the manufacturer is Biotech Dental, SAS, based in France. The data is retrospective in the sense that it's generated as part of a premarket submission, not from a prospective clinical trial.

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

• Not applicable. This device relies on pre-defined engineering and sterility standards, not expert-established ground truth from clinical cases. There were no clinical studies.

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

• Not applicable. There was no test set for clinical performance requiring 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. No clinical studies were conducted, and this product does not involve AI or human reader interpretation.

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

• Not applicable. This product is a physical dental implant system, not a software algorithm.

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

• Not applicable. Ground truth, in the clinical sense, was not used as there were no clinical studies. The "ground truth" for non-clinical testing is adherence to established international and industrial standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM) for material properties, mechanical performance, and sterility.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. There was no training set, as this is a physical medical device and not an AI/ML algorithm.

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

• Not applicable. There was no training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

Blue Sky Bio CAD-CAM Abutments are intended to be used in conjunction with Blue Sky Bio endosseous dental implants in the maxillary or mandibular arch to provide support for single-unit or multi-unit prosthetic restorations. All digitally designed abutments for use with Blue Sky Bio CAD-CAM Abutments are intended to be sent to a Blue Sky Bio validated milling center for manufacture.

The purpose of this submission is to obtain marketing clearance for Blue Sky Bio CAD-CAM Abutments, to be used with compatible components from the Blue Sky Bio Dental Implant System cleared in K051507. K060957, and K102034. The subject device includes Titanium Base Abutments, Cobalt Base Abutments, and Titanium Blank Abutments. For the Titanium Base Abutments and the Cobalt Base Abutments, the final finished device is intended to be used as a two-piece abutment composed of the base bottom-half (titanium base or cobalt base) bonded to a CAD-CAM zirconia top-half. Each abutment type provided in six (6) internal implant connections to the previously-cleared compatible Blue Sky Bio implants (BIO | MAX; BIO | Internal Hex; BIO | Conus 12; BIO | One Stage; and BIO | Trilobe). Titanium Base Abutments are designed for retention of a CAD-CAM fabricated zirconia superstructure and are provided in both straight and 15° angled base designs, and with engaging, non-engaging, and nonengaging conical implant connections. Cobalt Base Abutments are provided in both straight and 15° angled base designs, and with engaging and non-engaging implant connections. Cobalt Base Abutments (Straight) are designed to be a base for a final abutment fabricated by either of two methods. The first method is the same as for the Titanium Base Abutments: a CAD-CAM fabricated zirconia superstructure is bonded to the Cobalt Base Abutment (Straight) and the final two-piece abutment is used for the prosthetic restoration. For the second method, the Cobalt Base Abutments (Straight) can be cast to a straight abutment only, no angulation. The design of the final abutment can be by CAD-CAM, fabricated in wax, and fixed to the Cobalt Base Abutment, or the final design be done using traditional wax-up technique. The final one-piece abutment is fabricated using standard lost wax casting techniques. Cobalt Base Abutments (Angled 15°) are designed to be a base for a CAD-CAM fabricated zirconia superstructure bonded to the Cobalt Base Abutment (Angled 15°) and the final two-piece abutment is used for the prosthetic restoration. Cobalt Base Abutments (Angled 15°) are not to be cast to a final abutment. Titanium Blank Abutments are designed for fabrication of a customized all titanium alloy abutment by CAD-CAM processes. Titanium Blank Abutments have an engaging implant connection. The subject device abutments are made of titanium alloy conforming to ASTM F136 , or cobaltchromium alloy conforming to ASTM F1537. The titanium alloy subject device components are manufactured from identical materials, in the identical facilities using the identical manufacturing processes as used for Blue Sky Bio products cleared previously in K051507, K060957, and K102034. All zirconia superstructures (copings) for use with the subject devices Titanium Base Abutments and Cobalt Base Abutments will be made at a Blue Sky Bio validated milling center under FDA quality system regulations, and the material will conform to ISO 13356. All wax designs for casting to the subject device Cobalt Base Abutments also will be made at a Blue Sky Bio validated milling center. For the lost wax technique, final one piece abutment may be cast in cobalt-chromium alloy or nickel-chromium alloy.

The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for Blue Sky Bio CAD-CAM Abutments, which is a dental device. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices rather than providing detailed acceptance criteria and study results for a novel AI/ML device.

Therefore, the document does not contain the information requested in points 1-9 regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving a device meets these criteria for an AI/ML product.

The text describes:

• Device: Blue Sky Bio CAD-CAM Abutments (dental implant components).
• Indications for Use: To be used with Blue Sky Bio endosseous dental implants to support single-unit or multi-unit prosthetic restorations. Digitally designed abutments are sent to a Blue Sky Bio validated milling center for manufacture.
• Performance Data (Non-clinical): Mentions sterilization validation (ISO 17665-1, ISO 17665-2), biocompatibility testing (ISO 10993-5, ISO 10993-12), and static and dynamic compression-bending testing (ISO 14801).
• Clinical Data: Explicitly states "No clinical data were included in this submission."
• Substantial Equivalence: Compares the subject device to various predicate and reference devices in terms of indications for use, design principles, materials, physical dimensions, packaging, and sterilization methods. The mechanical testing (ISO 14801) is mentioned as mitigating minor design differences.

Without information specific to an AI/ML device, I cannot fulfill the request to describe acceptance criteria and a study proving an AI/ML device meets them, nor can I populate the table or provide details on sample size, data provenance, expert involvement, adjudication, MRMC studies, standalone performance, ground truth, or training set details.

Ask a specific question about this device

URIS OMNI Narrow System is indicated for use in the treatment of missing maxillary lateral incisors or the mandbular central and lateral incisors, in support of single or multiple-unit restorations including: cemented retained, or overdenture restorations, and final or temporary abutment support for fixed bridgework. It is intended for delayed loading.

The URIS OMNI Prosthetic abutments are intended for use with URIS OMNI dental implants to provide support for prosthetic restorations such as crowns, bridges, or over-dentures.

All digitally designed abutments and/or coping for use with URIS OMNI Prosthetic abutments are intended to be sent to a TruAbutment-validated milling center for manufacture.

URIS OMNI Narrow System fixtures are dental implants made of Unalloyed Titanium, grade 4 (ASTM F67) intended for use in the treatment of missing maxillary lateral incisors or the mandibular central and lateral incisors. The surface is SLA (Sandblasted, Large grit and Acid etched) treated and is provided sterile. It consists of two implant lines, the OMNI Straight and the OMNI Tapered, with corresponding cover screws, healing abutments and prosthetic abutments. The OMNI Tapered implant has a tapered wall with a single thread design. The OMNI Straight implant has straight wall with smaller threading at the coronal end, and bigger threading at the apical end. Both implant lines have Narrow (Ø 3.15 mm) platform sizes. Both implant lines share the following diameters and lengths.

Ø 3.15 x 10, 11.5, 13, 14.5mm (L)

URIS Prosthetic System is made of titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V ELI) intended for use as an aid in prosthetic restoration. It consists of Ball Abutment, Retainer, T LOC Straight Abutment, T Loc Titanium Cap, Multi-Unit Straight Abutment, Multi-Unit Angled Abutment, Multi-Unit Healing Cap, Multi-Unit Ti Cylinder, Multi-unit temporary cylinder, Multi-Unit Cylinder screw, URIS DS, URIS Base. No additional angulation is to be included in the when using a coping or cylinder (i.e., Multi-unit Ti Cylinder, Multi-unit Temporary Cylinder, Multi-unit Base) with any of the Multi-unit Abutments.

URIS Base consists of a two-piece abutment, where the titanium base is a pre-manufactured abutment that will be used to support a CAD/CAM designed superstructure (the second part of the two-piece abutment) that composes the final abutment. URIS Base is made of titanium alloy conforming to ASTM F136 Standard Specification for Wrought Titanium-4Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) Alloy for Surgical Implant Applications.

URIS DS abutment as a patient matched titanium abutment compatible with both URIS OMNI System (K172100) and URIS OMNI Narrow System (subject).

The provided document is a 510(k) Summary for a dental implant system. It discusses the substantial equivalence of the "URIS OMNI Narrow System & Prosthetic" to predicate devices based on non-clinical testing. The document does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria in the context of human reader performance or a standalone algorithm performance for AI/ML-driven devices.

The document states: "No clinical data were included in this submission." and focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through comparisons of technological characteristics and non-clinical test data.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information for an AI/ML device related to acceptance criteria, detailed study design, sample sizes, expert ground truth, adjudication methods, or MRMC comparative effectiveness studies, as these types of studies are not discussed in this 510(k) summary for this device.

The "acceptance criteria" presented in this document are primarily related to the successful completion and results of non-clinical tests to demonstrate equivalence to predicate devices. These are not performance metrics for an AI/ML algorithm.

Here's an analysis of what is provided regarding acceptance criteria in the context of this traditional medical device:

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

The document implicitly defines acceptance criteria by listing the standards to which tests were performed and stating that "the results have met the criteria of the standards." The "reported device performance" is that it successfully met these standards, thereby demonstrating substantial equivalence.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:
Not applicable for this type of non-clinical, non-AI device study. The document refers to testing on the device itself (e.g., fatigue testing, sterilization testing, biocompatibility).

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. Ground truth as typically understood for AI/ML performance is not relevant here. The "ground truth" for these tests would be the accepted parameters and methods defined by the referenced ISO/ASTM standards and FDA guidance.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
Not applicable. This is not a human reader or AI performance study.

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance:
No. This is not an AI/ML device.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
No. This is not an AI/ML device.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert concensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc):
Not applicable in the context of AI/ML device performance. For the described non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" is defined by the specific parameters and requirements of the referenced ISO/ASTM standards. For example, for biocompatibility, the ground truth is whether the materials meet the criteria specified in ISO 10993-1.

8. The sample size for the training set:
Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.

Ask a specific question about this device

Duranext Abutments are intended for use with dental implants as a support for single or multiple toth prostheses in the maxilla or mandible of a partially or fully edentulous patient.

Duranext Abutments from Elegant Direct Corp. are a line of machinable blanks incorporating interface features compatible with eleven (11) endosseous dental implant system platforms (three (3) designs from two (2) manufacturers) and intended to be milled at an Elegant Direct Corp. validated milling center to produce patient-specific dental implant abutments. The subject device platform diameters range from 3.0 mm to 6.0 mm, and the corresponding compatible implant body diameters range from 3.0 mm to 6.0 mm.

Duranext Abutments are designed for fabrication of custom titanium alloy dental implant abutments by a CAD/CAM process. All patient-specific custom abutment fabrication is by prescription on the order of the clinician. The portion of each abutment available for milling is 9.5 mm in diameter and 20 mm long. The apical end is premanufactured to fit the compatible implant platform, as shown above, and is available in an engaging (anti-rotation) design. A feature at the coronal end of the abutment is provided to interface with the milling equipment. Each abutment is provided with a screw designed to fit the compatible implant. The patient-specific abutment is intended to support a cement-retained single crown or multi-unit restoration.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the Duranext Abutments, a dental device. It does not describe a study involving an AI algorithm or human-in-the-loop performance. Therefore, I cannot extract the information required for questions about AI performance, multi-reader multi-case studies, or specific details of ground truth establishment for AI training/testing.

However, I can provide information about the acceptance criteria and the non-clinical study that proves the device meets those criteria, as well as general device information.

Here's what can be extracted based on the document:

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

The document does not explicitly present a table of "acceptance criteria" in the format of a diagnostic test (e.g., sensitivity, specificity). Instead, substantial equivalence is claimed based on performance testing and comparison to predicate devices for mechanical properties, biocompatibility, and sterilization. The acceptance criteria are implicitly met by successful completion of these tests in accordance with relevant ISO standards.

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 does not mention "test sets" in the context of diagnostic data. The "testing" refers to non-clinical performance testing of the physical abutment blanks. The sample sizes for these specific engineering tests (e.g., number of abutments tested for fatigue) are not provided in this summary. The provenance is implied to be from the manufacturer's testing or a contracted lab.

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, as this is a physical medical device (dental abutment) and the evaluation is based on non-clinical performance testing against engineering standards, not diagnostic interpretation by experts.

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

Not applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used for establishing ground truth in diagnostic studies, which is not what this document describes.

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 a dental abutment, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool. No MRMC study was conducted.

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

Not applicable. This device is not an algorithm.

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

The "ground truth" for this device's performance is established by engineering standards and physical measurements. For example:

• Biocompatibility: Established by adherence to ISO 10993 series standards, which involves methods like cytotoxicity testing.
• Mechanical Strength: Established by dynamic fatigue testing according to ISO 14801, which defines acceptable load cycles and failure modes.
• Dimensional Compatibility: Established by reverse engineering and direct measurement against OEM specifications.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This device is not an AI algorithm, so there is no training set in the context of machine learning.

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

Not applicable. As above, there is no training set. The "ground truth" for the device's design and manufacturing parameters is established via engineering specifications, material properties, and adherence to relevant ISO standards, rather than a labeled dataset.

Ask a specific question about this device

S.I.N. Dental Implant System is intended for placement in the maxillary or mandibular arch to provide support for singleunit or multi-unit restorations. When a one-stage surgical approach is applied, the S.I.N. Dental Implant System is intended for immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading.

All digitally-designed custom abutments for use with Interface CAD-CAM abutments are to be sent to a S.I.N. - validated milling center for manufacture.

The purpose of this submission is to add to the S.I.N. Dental Implant System components cleared in K170392 and K170398. The K170392 submission included dental implants with a Morse taper abutment interface, mating abutments, abutment screws, and other associated components. Components cleared in K 170392 included the Unitite line of dental implants that have a threaded endosseous surface produced by acid-etching followed by application of a hydroxyapatite coating (HA""). All other dental implants cleared in K170392 had a threaded endosseous surface that was acid-etched only (no HA100).

This submission adds the following components to the S.I.N. Dental Implant System: the identical HA1000 coating to the Strong SW CM (Morse taper) implant line cleared in K170392; the identical HA™® coating to the Strong SW HE (external hexagon) implant line cleared in K170398; the identical HA-"00 coating to the Strong SW HI (internal hexagon) implant line cleared in K170398: a new implant line, Tryon Conic HE, with an external hexagon abutment interface; a series of conventional (not CAD-CAM) prosthetic components that are compatible with implants from the S.I.N. Dental Implant System; and a series of CAD-CAM prosthetic components for fabrication of patient-specific restorations that are compatible with implants from the S.I.N. Dental Implant System.

This document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from the FDA regarding the S.I.N. Dental Implant System. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices, rather than presenting a study proving a device meets specific acceptance criteria based on performance data.

Therefore, most of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study design, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, and MRMC studies is not available and cannot be extracted from the provided text.

Specifically:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: This information is not provided. The document outlines design and material specifications for various components and compares them to predicate devices, but it does not list specific numerical acceptance criteria or performance metrics for the device itself. The "PERFORMANCE DATA" section states "Non-clinical data submitted, referenced, or relied upon to demonstrate substantial equivalence include: sterilization validation... bacterial endotoxin testing and shelf life testing... biocompatibility data... and biocompatibility testing for the ISO 13356 zirconia material... No clinical data were included in this submission." This indicates that performance data generally refers to compliance with standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM) and physical/biological characteristics, not clinical performance metrics against acceptance criteria.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g., country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective): Not applicable. No clinical or performance study with a "test set" and corresponding sample size is described. The non-clinical data mentioned are related to validation and biocompatibility, not a clinical performance study.

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. There is no mention of a test set requiring expert ground truth.

4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable. No test set requiring adjudication is described.

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 document is for a dental implant system, not an AI software or system that involves human readers and AI assistance.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This document is for a dental implant system, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Not applicable. No clinical ground truth is established for performance evaluations in this submission, as it relies on substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on design and material similarities, and compliance with recognized standards.

8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This is not an AI/algorithm submission requiring a training set.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable. This is not an AI/algorithm submission requiring a training set.

In summary, the provided text describes a 510(k) submission for a dental implant system, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through comparisons of design, materials, and intended use with already cleared devices and adherence to relevant non-clinical standards (sterilization, biocompatibility, etc.). It explicitly states that "No clinical data were included in this submission." Therefore, the detailed information requested about acceptance criteria, study design, and performance metrics in the context of clinical or comparative effectiveness studies is not present.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base™ is intended for attaching to dental implants in order to provide basis for single or multiple tooth prosthetic restorations. The Hybrid Base™ is used as an interface between a dental implant and a zirconia superstructure and will be attached to the implant using the included 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.

All digitally designed zirconia superstructures for use with the Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base™ are only intended to be sent and manufactured at an FDA registered Elos Medtech approved milling facility.

The Elos Accurate Hybrid Base is a titanium base designed to interface with a dental implant and to support a patient-specific ceramic superstructure or a multi-unit direct restoration cemented to the base. The base and the superstructure form a patient-specific abutment that will support a definitive restoration, either a single crown or a multi-unit restoration. The Elos Accurate Hybrid Base Engaging is intended for single-unit restorations and Elos Accurate Hybrid Base Nonengaging is intended for multi-unit restorations. Alternatively, a definitive multi-unit restoration may be cemented directly to the Elos Accurate Hybrid Base.

Manufacture of the final finished device will be at an Elos Medtech-approved milling facility that is registered with FDA as a medical device manufacturer and is qualified as a contract manufacturer to Elos Medtech.

This submission includes a two-piece abutment (titanium base and zirconia superstructure) and abutment screws compatible with OEM implants from Dentsply Implants (Astra Tech TX, Astra Tech EV), Nobel Biocare (Nobel Active/Conical Connection and Nobel Replace) and Institut Straumann (Straumann Bone Level NC and RC).

Abutments compatible with Astra Tech implants are available in engaging (anti-rotational) designs, and all others are available in both engaging and non-engaging designs.

This document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from the FDA regarding the "Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base" dental implant device. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than proving the device meets specific performance criteria through a study with acceptance criteria.

Therefore, the information required to directly answer some of your questions, particularly those related to the performance study design for an AI/ML-based medical device (e.g., sample size for test/training sets, expert consensus, MRMC studies, ground truth establishment for AI models), is not present in this document. This is because the device in question is a physical dental implant component, not an AI/ML algorithm.

However, I can extract the relevant information regarding the performance data provided for this physical device.

Here's a breakdown based on the provided document:

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

The document does not present a formal table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance in the way an AI/ML device submission would. Instead, it states that substantial equivalence is demonstrated through:

• Biocompatibility evaluation and confirmatory cytotoxicity testing: According to ISO 10993-5 (Biological evaluation of medical devices - Part 5: Tests for in vitro cytotoxicity).
• Dynamic compression-bending testing: According to ISO 14801 (Dentistry - Implants - Dynamic fatigue test for endosseous dental implants).
• Engineering and dimensional analysis: To confirm compatibility with OEM implant bodies, OEM abutments, and OEM abutment fixation screws.
• Sterilization validation: In accordance with ISO 17665-1 and ISO 17665-2.

Reported Performance/Demonstration:

• "Substantial equivalence with regard to compatibility with OEM components is supported by engineering and dimensional analysis of OEM implant bodies, OEM abutments and OEM abutment fixation screws to confirm compatibility."
• "Substantial equivalence with regard to mechanical performance is supported by dynamic testing according to ISO 14801 Dentistry – Implants – Dynamic fatigue test for endosseous dental implants."
• "The coatings used on selected screws are identical to coatings on previously cleared devices."
• "Sterilization validation of the reprocessing instructions were conducted in accordance to ISO 17665-1 and ISO 17665-2."
• "Minor differences in the designs, dimensions, sizes, or compatible OEM implant lines... do not affect substantial equivalence. These minor differences... are related to the compatible OEM implant designs or are mitigated by the mechanical performance testing."

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

• Sample Size: Not specified for any of the non-clinical tests (biocompatibility, dynamic fatigue, engineering analysis, sterilization). The document indicates "No clinical data were included in this submission," further confirming that there wasn't a "test set" in the context of patient data for AI performance evaluation.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable as it's not clinical data. The tests are laboratory-based.

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 device is a physical component, not an AI/ML diagnostic tool requiring expert ground truth for image interpretation.

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

• Not applicable. As above, this is not a diagnostic study requiring 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. No clinical or human-in-the-loop study was conducted or required for this physical device.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an algorithm. The "performance data" refers to the physical and mechanical properties of the dental abutment.

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

• For the non-clinical performance data, the "ground truth" or reference standards are the ISO standards themselves (ISO 10993-5, ISO 14801, ISO 17665-1, ISO 17665-2), and the engineering specifications/dimensions of OEM implant components for compatibility analysis. This is a technical ground truth based on established material science and mechanical engineering principles, rather than medical expert consensus or patient outcomes.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of an AI/ML model for this physical device.

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

• Not applicable. As above, no training set for an AI/ML model.

Ask a specific question about this device

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 Abutments are compatible with the implant systems listed in table 1:

Table 1.

All digitally designed CAD/CAM customizations for the Elos Accurate® Customized Abutments are only intended to be sent and manufactured at a FDA registered Elos Medtech approved milling facility.

The Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment is a patient specific abutment 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 the implant using the included Elos Prosthetic Screw and attached to the crown/coping manually by cementation. The Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment 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 customized shape of the abutment is intended to be manufactured by an Elos Medtech approved milling facility. The Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment is delivered nonsterile 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 Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment provides clinicians and laboratories with a prosthetic device that can be used in definitive (permanent) single- or multi restorations.

The provided document, a 510(k) Premarket Notification summary for the Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment, outlines the device's indications for use, technological characteristics, and non-clinical testing conducted to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device. However, it does not contain information typically found in an acceptance criteria and performance study for a medical device that uses an algorithm or AI. This document is for a physical dental abutment, not a device that relies on an algorithm or AI for its function.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving device meets acceptance criteria related to an AI/algorithm-based device. The original document does not offer data points for:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance (in the context of algorithm performance)
• Sample size for a test set or data provenance
• Number of experts or their qualifications for ground truth
• Adjudication method
• MRMC comparative effectiveness study
• Standalone algorithm performance
• Type of ground truth (e.g., pathology, outcomes data)
• Sample size for a training set
• How ground truth for a training set was established

The "testing" mentioned in the document (fatigue testing, biocompatibility testing, dimensional analysis) is for the physical material and design of the abutment, not for an algorithm's performance.

Ask a specific question about this device