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

The implant system is intended to be surgically placed in the maxilla or mandible to provide support for prosthetic devices such as artificial teeth in order to restore chewing function. It may be used with single-stage or two-stage procedures, for single or multiple unit restorations, and may be loaded immediately when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading. Multiple tooth applications may be rigidly splinted.

Anthogyr Multi-Unit prosthetic components directly or indirectly connected to the endosseous dental implants are indicated for use to provide support for multiple-unit prosthetic reconstructions such as bridges and bars. The final devices have the purpose of restoring chewing function. Temporary components can be used prior to the final components to maintain, stabilize and shape the soft tissue during the healing phase. The temporary restoration may not be placed into occlusion.

Temporary components have a maximum duration of usage of 180 days.

The OPMUN0-0 abutments are indicated for maxillary lateral and mandibular central/lateral incisors only.

The Anthogyr AXIOM® BL X3 implants are fully tapered dental bone level implants with external diameters of Ø3.4 mm, Ø4.6 mm, Ø5.2 mm, Ø5.8 mm and Ø6.4 mm and lengths of 6.5 mm, 8 mm, 10 mm, 12 mm, 16 mm, and 18 mm. The implants are manufactured from the Ti 6Al-4V ELI titanium-vanadium alloy material and are finished with BCP (Biphasic Calcium Phosphates) surface treatment. The abutment connection is identified as single conical connection.

The proposed Anthogyr Multi-Unit abutments for AXIOM® BL are dental abutments, which are intended to be screwed onto dental implants to provide support for prosthetic superstructures. Multi-Unit abutments can be used in combination with screw retrained multi-unit dental prosthetics, e.g., bars and bridges. Anthogyr Multi-Unit abutments for AXIOM® BL are very similar to the reference device Medentika Multi-Unit Abutments cleared in K191123.

Anthogyr Multi-Unit abutments for AXIOM® BL include straight and angled (18° and 30°) abutments, prosthetic screw and abutment carrier pin.

Anthoqyr Multi-Unit abutments are available as one-piece straight abutments, which have an integrated thread and can be screwed directly into the AXIOM® Bone Level implants, or as twoparts angled abutments, which can be screwed onto the AXIOM® Bone Level implant with the corresponding M1.6 screw.

Anthogyr Multi-Unit abutments for AXIOM® BL exist in two model types:

• Straight Multi-Unit abutments with various gingival heights and two platform diameters । (Ø 4.0 and Ø 4.8 mm)
• Angulated Multi-Unit abutments with various gingival heights and angulations.

Anthogyr Multi-Unit protective caps are placed to the Multi-Unit abutments and are intended to be used to protect the abutment and maintain, stabilize and form the soft tissue during the healing phase.

Anthogyr Multi-Unit temporary copings are compatible with the Multi-Unit abutments and are used for temporary restorations. The copings are placed on the Multi-Unit abutments to support temporary prosthetic superstructures. Temporary copings can be used prior to the insertion of the final components to maintain, stabilize and shape the soft tissue during the healing phase. They must not be placed into occlusion.

The Multi-Unit temporary copings can be adjusted by the dental technician to fit the oral situation and are fixed to a compatible Multi-Unit abutment by a M1.4 screw.

Anthogyr Flexibase for Multi-Unit abutments are compatible with the Multi-Unit abutments and are used for multiple-unit definitive restorations. The Flexibase are placed on Multi-Unit abutments to support definitive prosthetic superstructures. They are fixed to a compatible Multi-Unit abutment by a M1.4 screw.

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for Anthogyr AXIOM® BL X3 implants and Anthogyr Multi-Unit components for AXIOM® BL. This document evaluates the substantial equivalence of new devices to existing legally marketed predicate devices, rather than establishing acceptance criteria and providing direct evidence of device performance against those criteria in a typical clinical study format.

Therefore, the requested information elements related to "acceptance criteria and reported device performance tabletop," "sample size for test set," "data provenance," "number of experts and qualifications," "adjudication method," "multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study," "standalone performance," "type of ground truth," "sample size for training set," and "how ground truth for training set was established" are not applicable in the context of this 510(k) submission summary.

This document focuses on demonstrating that the new devices are substantially equivalent to predicate devices through comparisons of technological characteristics and performance testing (e.g., dynamic fatigue, biocompatibility, sterilization validation). The "acceptance criteria" here implicitly refer to demonstrating equivalence to the predicate devices and compliance with relevant standards and FDA guidance.

Here's an overview of the performance testing performed, interpreted as demonstrating compliance/equivalence rather than explicitly stated acceptance criteria with numerical performance targets:

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

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

• This information is not provided in the 510(k) summary. The summary refers to "tests were conducted" and "results were substantially equivalent," but actual sample sizes for mechanical, sterilization, or other tests are not detailed. The data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is also not mentioned.

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

• Not applicable. This is a medical device, not an AI/software device requiring ground truth established by experts for a test set. The "ground truth" for non-AI devices is typically established through direct physical measurements, chemical analyses, and standardized test methodologies.

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 not an AI/imaging device.

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

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

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

• For a traditional medical device like a dental implant, "ground truth" refers to established physical, chemical, and biological properties measured through standardized testing. Examples include:
  • Mechanical properties: Measured against international standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM) or FDA guidance for dental implants/abutments (e.g., fatigue strength, fracture resistance).
  • Biocompatibility: In vitro (e.g., cytotoxicity tests under ISO 10993-5) and in vivo tests (if new materials are introduced) against established biological safety profiles.
  • Sterilization efficacy: Measured by demonstrating a Sterility Assurance Level (SAL) of 10⁻⁶ via methods compliant with ISO 11137-1 (radiation) or ISO 17665-1 (moist heat).
  • Material composition: Chemical analysis to confirm compliance with medical-grade specifications (e.g., Titanium-6Al-4V ELI conforming to ASTM F136).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/software device that uses a "training set."

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

• Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

BLT Dental Implant Systems are intended to be placed in the upper and lower jaw to support prosthetic devices and to restore a patient's chewing function. BLT Dental Implant systems are also indicated for immediate or early implantation following extraction or loss of natural teeth. Implants can be placed with immediate function on single-tooth and/or multiple tooth applications when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading to restore chewing function. The prosthetic restorations used are single crowns, bridges and partial or full dentures, which are connected to the implants through the corresponding components (abutments). In cases of fully edentulous patients, 4 or more implants must be used in immediately loaded cases.

The proposed devices, BLT Dental Implant Systems, are indicated for oral endosteal implantation in the upper and lower jaw and for the functional and esthetic oral rehabilitation of edentulous and partially dentate patients. The proposed devices can also be used for immediate or early implantation following extraction or loss of natural teeth. The proposed device contains dental implant, healing cap and abutment. The dental implant system is available in two types, NC type and RC type.

The request asks for acceptance criteria and details of the study proving these criteria are met. The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for a dental implant system. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, primarily through non-clinical testing and comparison of characteristics, rather than a clinical study with detailed acceptance criteria and performance metrics typically found for AI/ML devices. Therefore, much of the requested information (like effect size, ground truth, sample size for training/test sets, expert qualifications, and adjudication methods) is not applicable or unavailable from this document.

However, I can extract information related to the device's performance based on non-clinical testing and the acceptance criteria implicitly defined by compliance with recognized standards and demonstrated equivalence to the predicate device.

Here's the summary based on the provided document:

Acceptance Criteria and Study Details for BLT Dental Implant System (K212364)

The "acceptance criteria" for this device are implicitly defined by its compliance with various ISO and ASTM standards, and its demonstrated substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device (K150388) and several reference devices. The "study" proving these criteria is a series of non-clinical tests and a comparison of technological characteristics.

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 specific non-clinical tests. Non-clinical tests like mechanical testing (ISO 14801) typically involve a specific number of samples for destructive testing, but the exact count isn't provided in the summary.
• Data Provenance: The tests were conducted by the manufacturer, Bio Concept Co., Ltd. and leverage data from previously cleared devices where materials or processes are identical. The document does not specify the country of origin of the raw test data (e.g., where the mechanical tests were physically performed) beyond the manufacturer's location in China. The data is retrospective in the sense that prior clearance data (K192274, K150388) is referenced for aspects like biocompatibility and surface analysis.

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

• This is not applicable as this is a non-clinical submission for a physical medical device (dental implant system), not an AI/ML device relying on expert-annotated ground truth. The "ground truth" for non-clinical tests comes from physical measurements against established standards.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable as this is a non-clinical submission for a physical medical device.

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 physical dental implant system, not an AI/ML device, so no MRMC study was performed.

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

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

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• The "ground truth" for establishing device performance in this context is derived from:
  • Scientific Standards: Compliance with recognized international and national standards (ISO 14801 for mechanical properties, ISO 10993 for biocompatibility, ISO 11137-2 for sterilization, ASTM standards for materials and packaging).
  • Predicate Device Equivalence: Direct comparison of technological characteristics, materials, and intended use to an existing legally marketed device (K150388) and numerous reference devices.
  • Laboratory Testing: Results from mechanical tests, sterilization validation, bacterial endotoxin tests, and packaging integrity tests.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This is a physical device, not an AI/ML model that requires a training set.

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

• Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Osteon Precision Milled Suprastructure is indicated for attachment to dental abutments in the treatment of partially or fully edentulous jaws for the purpose of restoring function. The Osteon Precision Milled Suprastructures are intended for attachment to a minimum of two (2) abutments.

The Osteon Milled Suprastructure is indicated for compatibility with the following abutment systems:

• Astra Tech Implant System® Multi Base Abutment EV, 4.8 mm, max 30°
• DESS Dental Multi Unit Abutments, 3.4-5.7 mm, 0°
• 3i OSSEOTITE®
• Astra Tech OsseoSpeed™
• Neodent Grand Morse
• NobelReplace® Conical
• NobelReplace® Trilobe
• Nobel Brånemark System®
• Straumann BLX Implants
• DESS Dental Multi Unit Abutments, Angled, 3.4-6.5 mm, max 30°
• NobelActive® NobelParallel Conical
• Straumann® Bone Level
• Zimmer Screw Vent® and Tapered Screw-Vent®
• Dentium SuperLine® Abutments, 4.5-5.5 mm, max 30°
• Keystone Multi Unit Abutment, 4.8 mm, 0°
• Implant Direct GPS® Angled Abutment, 5.0 mm, max 30°
• MIS Multi-unit Abutments, 4.8 mm
• C1 Conical Connection Implant System, max 30°
• V3 Conical Connection Implant System, max 30°
• Internal Hex Implant System, max 30°
• Conical Connection, max 30°
• Neodent GM Mini Conical Abutment, 4.8 mm, max 30°
• Nobel Biocare Brånemark Multi-Unit Abutment, 4.8 mm, max 17°
• Nobel Biocare Multi-Unit Abutment Plus, 4.8 mm, max 30°
• Nobel Biocare Multi-Unit Abutment, 4.8 mm, max 30°
• Nobel Biocare Multi-Unit Abutments for Straumann and Astra Tech System, 4.8mm, max 30°
• Nobel Biocare Multi-Unit Abutments for Astra Tech, Camlog and Ankylos Implant Systems, 4.8 mm, max 30°
• Nobel Biocare Xeal Abutments, 4.8 mm, max 30°
• Paltop Multi Unit Abutment, 5.0 mm, max 17°
• Southern Compact Conical Abutments, 4.8 mm
• MAX Implant System, 0°
• Provata Implant System, max 30°
• Deep Conical (DC) Implants, 0°
• Piccolo Implants, 0°
• External Hex Implants, max 30°
• Straumann® BLX Screw Retained Abutment, 4.6 mm, max 30°
• Straumann® Screw Retained Abutment, 4.6 mm, max 30°
• Zimmer Angled Tapered Abutments, 4.5 mm, max 30°

The Osteon Precision Milled Suprastructures (also referred to as superstructures) are metallic dental restorative devices that are intended to be attached by screw retention to dental implant abutments to aid in the treatment of partial and totally edentulous patients for the purpose of restoring function. These suprastructures attach to dental implant abutments using the prosthetic screws from the original equipment manufacturers (OEM) and are used to support the final multi-unit restoration.

The Osteon Precision Milled Suprastructure is designed for an individual patient from scans of the patient's dental impression. The suprastructure is manufactured with the aid of Computer Aided Design (CAD) and Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAM) technology. All CAD/CAM fabrication is performed by Osteon Medical.

Osteon Precision Milled Suprastructures facilitate the attachment of both removable and fixed dental prosthesis and hence are categorized as Type A and Type B.

• Type A: Intended to act as a supporting structure to facilitate the attachment of removable dental prosthesis and include Primary Bar and Nexus Removable Bar.
• Type B: Intended to act as a supporting structure to facilitate the attachment of fixed dental prosthesis and include Melbourne Bar and Nexus Fixed Bar

Ask a specific question about this device

The Multi-unit Abutment, Multi-unit Angled Abutment is intended to the maxillary or mandbular arches for the purpose providing prosthetic support for dental restorations (Crown, bridges, and overdentures) in partially or fully edentulous individuals.

The Multi-unit Abutment, Multi-unit Angled Abutment of a dental implant system to provide support for prosthetic restorations. It is attached to the implants and intended to be used in the upper or lower jaw and used for supporting tooth replacements to restore patient's chewing function. The Multi-unit Abutment, Multi-unit Angled Abutment consists of straight & angled abutments and prosthetic components in varying sizes for single & multiple unit screw retained restorations.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the dental device:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for MegaGen Implant Co. Ltd.'s Multi-unit Abutment, Multi-unit Angled Abutment (K203808)

This submission is a 510(k) premarket notification for dental implant abutments. The primary method of demonstrating acceptance and substantial equivalence is through comparison to predicate devices and performance testing according to established international standards (ISO 14801) and FDA guidance documents. There is no AI component or related acceptance criteria described in this document.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are not explicitly stated in numerical thresholds within the document, as the submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices. The performance is assessed by confirming that the subject device meets the requirements of relevant standards, implying that its performance is comparable to or better than the predicate devices.

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

The document does not explicitly state the sample sizes used for the non-clinical performance (bench) testing. Similarly, the data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective) for these tests is not specified beyond indicating they were performed in accordance with international standards. Given it's a Korean manufacturer, the testing likely occurred in Korea or at facilities that adhere to these international standards.

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 device is a dental implant abutment, and the document describes a 510(k) submission based on substantial equivalence and non-clinical bench testing. There is no mention of a "ground truth" derived from expert consensus on patient cases for evaluation in the context of diagnostic or interpretive performance.

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

This section is not applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are typically used in clinical studies where expert readers independently assess cases and discrepancies are resolved. The submission relies on bench testing and comparison to predicates, not clinical interpretation studies.

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study involves human readers interpreting cases, often with and without AI assistance, to measure diagnostic performance. The submission pertains to a physical dental device (abutments) and does not involve AI or human-in-the-loop performance evaluation.

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 concept is specific to AI/CADe (Computer-Assisted Detection/Diagnosis) devices. The submitted device is a mechanical component, not an algorithm.

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

The concept of "ground truth" as typically defined for diagnostic or AI studies (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data) does not apply here. For this device, the "ground truth" for demonstrating acceptance is adherence to engineering specifications, material standards, and performance benchmarks established by international standards (ISO 14801) and FDA guidance documents. The acceptable performance of the predicate devices acts as the benchmark.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. The device is a physical product (dental implant abutment). There is no "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI algorithms for this type of submission.

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

Not applicable. As there is no training set for an AI algorithm, there is no ground truth to be established for it.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Straumann Immediate Temporary Abutment and associated Plastic Coping are indicated to be placed into Straumann dental implants (BL, BLT or BLX) to provide a support structure for a temporary aesthetic oral rehabilitation of partially edentulous patients with crowns. Temporary components can be used prior to the final components to maintain, stabilize and shape the soft tissue during the healing phase for up to 180 days.

The Straumann Immediate Temporary Abutment and associated Plastic Coping must be placed out of occlusion.

The Straumann Immediate Temporary Abutment and associated Plastic Copinq consist of a titanium abutment and PMMA coping for the Straumann dental implants BL, BLT and BLX. The abutments are available in a variety of gingival heights and diameters to fit individual patient situations. The PMMA coping is compatible with the subject Immediate Temporary Abutments. The Straumann Immediate Temporary Abutment and associated Plastic Coping are indicated to provide a support structure for a temporary aesthetic oral rehabilitation of partially edentulous patients with crowns. Temporary components can be used prior to the insertion of the final components to maintain, stabilize and shape the soft tissue during the healing phase for up to 180 days.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Straumann® Immediate Temporary Abutments. This document primarily focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to predicate devices for regulatory clearance, rather than presenting a detailed study proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria in a quantitative performance study context.

Therefore, many of the requested sections about acceptance criteria, specific reported device performance, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, and standalone performance studies are not explicitly detailed in the provided text, as these are typically part of a different type of submission (e.g., a PMA or scientific publication).

However, I can extract information related to the functional characteristics and the types of testing performed to support the substantial equivalence.

Here's an attempt to answer your request based on the provided text, highlighting what is available and what is not:

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

The document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria or reported device performance in the format of a performance study with specific metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy). Instead, it focuses on demonstrating equivalence to predicate devices through various tests.

The "acceptance criteria" here are implicitly meeting the standards of the predicate devices and relevant ISO standards. The "reported device performance" is a statement that these standards and equivalence have been met.

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 provide details on specific sample sizes for test sets used in the various performance tests (biocompatibility, sterilization, disinfection, or implied mechanical testing). The data provenance is not mentioned (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). These types of details are usually found in the full test reports, not typically in the 510(k) summary.

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

This is not applicable to the type of device and testing described. The "ground truth" for this medical device (dental abutment) is established through adherence to engineering standards, material science, and biological safety guidelines, rather than expert clinical interpretation of data (like in imaging diagnostics).

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

Not applicable. This is typically relevant for studies involving human interpretation or subjective assessments, which is not the case for the physical and biological testing of a dental abutment.

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. MRMC studies are used for evaluating diagnostic devices, particularly those involving human interpretation (e.g., radiologists, pathologists) often assisted by AI. This device is a physical dental abutment.

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

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

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

The "ground truth" for this device is based on established engineering and material science standards (e.g., ISO for biocompatibility and sterilization), and the performance characteristics of predicate devices. For instance, the biocompatibility testing assesses the device against accepted safety limits for biological responses.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is not a machine learning or AI device that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable. As above, this is not an AI/ML device.

Ask a specific question about this device