Search Results

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 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:

| Implant Platform compatibility | Platform diameter
[mm] | Implant Body diameter
[mm] |
|--------------------------------|---------------------------|--------------------------------|
| Zimmer Screw-vent 3.5 | Ø3.5 | Ø3.7/Ø4.1 |
| Zimmer Screw-vent 4.5 | Ø4.5 | Ø4.7 |
| Zimmer Screw-vent 5.7 | Ø5.7 | Ø6.0 |
| Biomet 3i Certain 3.4 | Ø3.4 | Ø3.25 |
| Biomet 3i Certain 4.1 | Ø4.1 | Ø4 |
| Biomet 3i Certain 5.0 | Ø5 | Ø5 |
| Biomet 3i Certain 6.0 | Ø6 | Ø6 |
| Straumann Standard RN | Ø4.8 | Ø3.3/Ø4.1/Ø4.8 |
| Straumann Standard WN | Ø6.5 | Ø4.8 |
| Neodent GM | Ø3.5/Ø4.5/Ø5.5/Ø 6.5 | Ø3.5/Ø3.75/Ø4/Ø4.3/Ø 5/Ø 6/Ø 7 |
| Hiossen ET Mini | Ø3.2/Ø3.5 | Ø3.2/Ø3.5 |
| Hiossen ET Regular | Ø4/Ø4.5/Ø5/ Ø5.5/Ø6/Ø7 | Ø4/Ø4.5/Ø5/ Ø5.5/Ø6/Ø7 |

The zirconia superstructures for use with the Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base™ are either intended to be sent and manufactured at an 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, ceramic material, milling machine and associated tooling and accessories.

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 a two-piece abutment composed of the Hybrid Base as the bottomhalf and the zirconia superstructure as the top-half, which when assembled comprises the final finished medical device.

The Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base™ consists of a pre-manufactured prosthetic component in Titanium alloy per ASTM F136, as well as supporting digital library file for 510(k) cleared design software (3Shape Abutment Designer™ Software, K151455) which facilitates the design of a patient specific zirconia superstructure by the laboratory/clinician. The Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base™ fits directly to an endosseous dental implant. The laboratory designed superstructure is manufactured from 510(k) cleared Zirconia (Lava Plus, K011394) according to digital dentistry workflow. For all Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base™ models the zirconia superstructure must be designed according to following limits:

• 1. Minimum wall thickness 0.5 mm
• 2. Minimum post height 4.0 mm (for single unit restorations)
• 3. Maximum gingival height 5.0 mm (min. GH of 0.5mm)
• 4. Maximum angulation 20°

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) and the final prosthetic restoration is attached to the implant using a Prosthetic screw.

The Elos Accurate® Hybrid Bas has a gold-colored anodized surface to increase the esthetics of the dental restoration - the same surface as in predicate device K201860.

Some of the prosthetic screws are uncoated and two screws are Medicarb coated, identical to the Medicarb coating in predicate device K201860. The subject uncoated screws are compatible with implant platforms Zimmer Screw-vent, Biomet 3i, Neodent GM and Straumann Standard RN and WN. The subject Medicarb coated screws are compatible with the implant platforms Hiossen ET Mini and ET Regular. The purpose of the coating is to lower friction in the thread connection and the screw seat connection.

The Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base™ is delivered non-sterile and the final restoration and corresponding screw is intended to be sterilized at the dental clinic before it is placed in the patient.

The Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base™ is a dental device intended for attaching to dental implants to provide a basis for single or multiple tooth prosthetic restorations. It acts as an interface between a dental implant and a zirconia superstructure.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and supporting studies:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

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

   • Fatigue Testing: "fatigue testing was performed on the subject devices per ISO 14801." The exact number of samples tested per device type is not specified but implied to be sufficient for ISO 14801 compliance.
   • Engineering and Dimensional Analysis: Performed on "original manufactures' components (abutments, implants & abutment screws)." The number of components is not specified.
   • Digital Dentistry Workflow Validation/Design Limitation Test: "The digital dentistry workflow validation was completed on selected models of subject product line" and "A design limitation test is performed...". Number of models/tests not specified.
   • Biocompatibility (Cytotoxicity): A cytotoxicity test was performed on "a complete restoration produced via the described validated workflow." Exact number of samples not specified.
   • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but the testing appears to be conducted by or for the manufacturer (Elos Medtech Pinol A/S). No information is given about the country of origin of the data or if it was retrospective or prospective in the context of clinical studies (as this is a non-clinical submission).

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

   • This submission focuses on non-clinical testing and substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on engineering and performance standards. There is no mention of "experts" establishing ground truth in the context of diagnostic performance or clinical outcomes. The "ground truth" for the engineering and material properties would be established by validated test methods and established standards (e.g., ISO 14801, ISO 10993).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

   • Not applicable. This is a non-clinical submission based on engineering tests and standards, not a clinical study requiring adjudication of diagnostic results.

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 MRMC study was mentioned or performed. This device is a dental implant component, 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 a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

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

   • The "ground truth" in this context refers to established engineering standards, material properties, and performance requirements for dental implant abutments. This includes:
     • ISO 14801: "Dentistry – Implants – Dynamic fatigue test for endosseous dental implants" for fatigue testing.
     • ISO 17665-1 & ISO 17665-2: For sterilization validation.
     • ISO 10993-1 & ISO 10993-5: For biocompatibility (cytotoxicity).
     • Engineering and dimensional analysis: Based on specifications of original manufacturers' components.

8. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. This device is not an AI/machine learning product and does not have a "training set." The closest analogy could be the design and manufacturing parameters used to create the device, which are based on established engineering principles and prior device knowledge.

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

   • Not applicable, as there is no "training set" for this type of medical device. The design and manufacturing are based on established engineering principles and validation against performance standards.

Ask a specific question about this device

Dynamic TiBase abutments are intended for use with dental implants as a support for single-unit or multi-unit prostheses in the maxillary or mandibular arch of a partially or fully edentulous patient.

The purpose of this submission is to obtain marketing clearance for Dynamic TiBase, a series of twopiece titanium base abutments that require the fabrication of patient-specific custom superstructures using CAD-CAM technology. In final, finished form, the subject device abutments are intended to be used as a two-piece abutment composed of the base bottom-half (titanium base) with a bonded CAD-CAM zirconia top-half. Each patient-specific zirconia superstructure is individually prescribed by the clinician and manufactured by an authorized milling center.

This document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification for the Talladium España, SL Dynamic TiBase, which is an endosseous dental implant abutment. The primary purpose of this submission is to demonstrate substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices, not to prove clinical effectiveness or safety in the same way clinical trials do. Therefore, the information provided focuses on non-clinical data and comparisons to existing devices, rather than clinical study results with human subjects.

Based on the provided document, here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, specifically in the context of a 510(k) submission:

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

For a 510(k) submission for a device like this, the "acceptance criteria" are not clinical performance metrics in the traditional sense (e.g., sensitivity, specificity for a diagnostic device). Instead, they revolve around demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices in terms of:

• Intended Use: The device performs the same function for the same patient population.
• Technological Characteristics: The device has similar design, materials, and operating principles.
• Performance (Non-Clinical): The device performs similarly to or better than the predicate in engineering/bench tests relevant to its function and safety. Any differences in technological characteristics must not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness.

The reported device performance is primarily based on non-clinical (bench) testing and comparison tables, not clinical studies in human subjects.

Here's a table summarizing the "acceptance criteria" (or areas of equivalence demonstration) and the reported device performance as per the document:

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: The document explicitly states "No clinical data were included in this submission." The "studies" were non-clinical (bench) tests. While the ISO 14801 standard specifies the number of samples for fatigue and static testing (typically 5-10 for static, 10-12 for fatigue), the exact sample sizes used for each specific test (e.g., number of abutments tested at different loads) are not detailed in this summary. It only says "worst-case constructs" were tested.
• Data Provenance: The data is non-clinical (bench testing) performed by the manufacturer or a contracted lab. The manufacturer is Talladium España, SL, located in Lleida, Spain. This indicates the testing was likely done in Spain or a European lab adhering to ISO standards. The data is retrospective in the sense that the tests were completed before the 510(k) submission.

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

Not applicable. For a 510(k) submission based on non-clinical data, there are no "experts" establishing a clinical "ground truth" through consensus on patient cases. The "ground truth" for non-clinical testing is compliance with established engineering and biocompatibility standards (e.g., ISO 14801, ISO 10993). The "experts" here would be the engineers and scientists who designed and conducted the tests and analyzed the results according to these international standards. Their qualifications are inherent in their ability to perform such testing and demonstrate compliance with these standards.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not applicable. There's no clinical test set requiring adjudication. The non-clinical tests (biocompatibility, sterilization, mechanical) are evaluated against predefined acceptance criteria established by the relevant ISO standards.

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

Not applicable. This device is a dental implant abutment, not an AI-powered diagnostic imaging tool. Therefore, no MRMC study or AI assistance evaluation was performed or is relevant to this type of device.

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

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used

The "ground truth" for this 510(k) submission is compliance with established international engineering standards (e.g., ISO 14801 for mechanical performance, ISO 10993 for biocompatibility, ISO 17665-1 and ISO 11737-2 for sterilization) and the demonstration of substantial equivalence to predicate devices. This is achieved through:

• Bench Test Results: Quantitative data from static compression and compression fatigue tests.
• Material Specifications: Conformance to ASTM and ISO material standards.
• Biocompatibility Test Reports: Results showing no adverse biological reactions.
• Sterilization Validation Data: Proof of effective sterilization.
• Direct Comparison: Tables and textual analysis comparing the subject device's features and performance to those of legally marketed predicate devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This device is not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable. There is no training set for a physical device.

Ask a specific question about this device