Search Results

The Dentsply Sirona Titanium Bases system is intended for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae in support of single cement-retained restorations.

For AT EV 3.0 S, AT TX 3.0 S, BH 3.0 S, and SB L 3.3 L titanium bases, the indication is restricted to the replacement of single lateral incisors in the maxilla and lateral and central incisors in the mandible.

The system comprises three parts:

• Abutment Block material (CEREC Cercon 4D Abutment Block)
• Titanium Base (TiBase)
• CAD/CAM system

The TiBase is recommended for use with two-piece hybrid abutments and hybrid abutment crowns, used in conjunction with endosseous dental implants.

The proposed Dentsply Sirona Titanium Bases system are connected to Dentsply Sirona or third-party dental implants to facilitate the prosthetic dental restoration of edentulous areas of the oral anatomy. The proposed TiBase components are assembled (through extraoral cement bonding) with the patient specific CEREC Cercon 4D Abutment Block (K234018), to form the complete, two-piece CAD/CAM Titanium Base system abutments. The bottom half of the abutment is the TiBase component, which interfaces with the implant system-specific geometry, while the top half of the abutment is the abutment block material that is milled to form either an abutment crown or a meso-structure (the latter is subsequently finished with a crown). The TiBase component therefore serves as the "platform" on which the customized milled abutment crown or the meso-structure is bonded to, forming the complete CAD/CAM Titanium Base system abutment. The completed CAD/CAM Titanium Base system abutment is attached to the dental implant with an abutment screw.

The TiBase system is part of a workflow that includes CAD/CAM software cleared in predicate device, K193408, CAD/CAM system with CEREC Chairside Software, and reference device, K200191, CAD/CAM System with inLab Software, and the abutment crown and meso-structure material cleared in reference device, K234018.

The TiBase components are made of the same material as the predicate device (K193408) TiBases, which is titanium alloy Ti6Al4V, complying with ASTM F136-13. While the lower part connects to the implant system, the upper part consists of a tapered, cylindrical center post which is designed to receive the abutment crown or meso-structure to complete the finished CAD/CAM abutment.

The TiBase components come in small and large sizes depending on the diameter size of the connecting implant. A notch feature on the cylindrical part of the upper portion (i.e. rotational reference and lock) ensures that there is only one position to mount either a scanbody or the abutment crown/meso-structure.

The TiBase component center post includes a through-channel through which a corresponding abutment screw is inserted to allow retention of the finished abutment to the implant. The abutment screw, made of the same Titanium material, when assembled with the proposed TiBase component, is located in the internal geometry of the titanium base and does not seat in the finalized abutment crown/meso-structure.

The minimum/maximum design specification limits are as follows:

• Maximum angulation for the Zirconia top-half material: 20˚
• Minimum wall thickness of the Zirconia top-half material: 0.5 mm
• Gingival heights of the TiBase component: 1, 2, 3 mm
• TiBase component post height (i.e., length above the gingival height): ≥ 4 mm

This document is a 510(k) clearance letter for the Dentsply Sirona Titanium Bases system, which specifies its indications for use and compares it to predicate and reference devices to demonstrate substantial equivalence. It does not describe the specific acceptance criteria and detailed study results that prove the device meets those criteria in a format applicable to AI/ML software performance studies.

The document details the technical aspects of the dental implant components and their mechanical testing for safety and performance (e.g., fatigue testing), biocompatibility, reprocessing validation, and MR compatibility. However, it does not involve the types of performance metrics, test set characteristics, or ground truth establishment typically associated with AI/ML device evaluations.

Therefore, for aspects related to AI/ML device performance (like accuracy metrics, expert review, MRMC studies, standalone performance), the answer is "Not applicable" or "Not provided" as this is a traditional medical device clearance, not an AI/ML software clearance.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document describes several non-clinical tests that the device was subjected to and that it "met acceptance criteria" or "showed similar results" to reference devices. However, the specific quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., "fatigue strength must be > X N") and the exact reported quantitative performance values achieved by the Dentsply Sirona Titanium Bases system are not explicitly stated in this clearance letter. The letter generally refers to compliance with standards.

For example, for fatigue testing, it states: "The TiBases systems were subjected to fatigue testing per the following requirements and showed similar results when compared to the reference devices (K213961, K241485)" and refers to ISO 14801:2016 and FDA Special Controls Guidance. It does not provide the numerical results or the specific acceptance mechanical load values. The same applies to MR testing, reprocessing, and biocompatibility.

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated in terms of the number of unique devices/tests in the provided text. The fatigue testing mentions "the proposed device performs as well as the reference devices (K213961, K241485)," implying a comparison and potentially new tests for the specific new TiBases. However, specific counts are not given.
• Data Provenance: The studies are non-clinical (laboratory tests) rather than human patient data. Therefore, "country of origin" and "retrospective/prospective" are not applicable in the context of patient data. The tests were performed to demonstrate compliance with international standards (ISO, ASTM) and FDA guidance.

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

• Not Applicable (N/A). This is a mechanical/material device clearance, not an AI/ML software evaluation based on expert-labeled data. The "ground truth" for these tests refers to the objective results conforming to engineering and material science standards (e.g., a device either fractures at a certain load or it doesn't, a material is biocompatible or not).

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not Applicable (N/A). Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used for resolving discrepancies in expert labeling for AI/ML ground truth, which is not relevant here.

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done

• No. This is not an AI/ML software device that involves human interpretation of medical images.

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

• Not Applicable (N/A). This is a physical device, not an algorithm. The "software system verification" refers to confirming that the CAD/CAM software correctly integrates the design parameters for the physical components, not an AI algorithm's standalone diagnostic performance.

7. The type of ground truth used

• For mechanical (fatigue) testing: Compliance with ISO 14801:2016 and FDA guidance, meaning the physical behavior of the device under specified loads.
• For MR testing: Compliance with ASTM standards, meaning objective measurements of displacement, torque, and image artifacts.
• For software verification: Conformation that design parameters are correctly implemented in CAD/CAM software.
• For reprocessing and biocompatibility: Compliance with ISO standards and FDA guidance, meaning objective evaluations of sterility and biological response.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not Applicable (N/A). There is no AI/ML model involved; therefore, no training set.

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

• Not Applicable (N/A). There is no AI/ML model involved; therefore, no training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

KATANA Zirconia ONE For IMPLANT is intended for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae in support of single cement-retained restorations.

For the SBL 3.3 L titanium bases, the indication is restricted to the replacement of single lateral incisors in the maxilla and lateral and central incisors in the mandible.

KATANA Zirconia ONE For IMPLANT is used in combination with the TiBase and Sirona Dental CAD/CAM System. KATANA Zirconia ONE For IMPLANT cemented to the TiBase is recommended for two-piece hybrid abutments for single tooth restorations and hybrid abutment crowns, used in conjunction with endosseous dental implants.

Compatible implant systems and TiBase are as follows.

The KATANA Zirconia ONE For IMPLANT mesostructure material (conforming to ISO 6872:2015) is a pre-sintered zirconia block to be used as the ceramic mesostructure component of a two-piece titanium base abutment. KATANA Zirconia ONE For IMPLANT is compatible with the specified TiBase and the CAD/CAM component of the Sirona Dental CAD/CAM system (K193408, K200191) as identified in the Indications for Use. This device is further processed by the trained professional to make individually designed mesostructure that are milled into the desired shape of a hybrid abutment or hybrid abutment crown.

The Zirconia block has identical composition as our own previously cleared reference device, KATANA Zirconia Block (K190436) under product code "EIH".

The mesostructure material of KATANA Zirconia ONE For IMPLANT is available in shades, A1, A2, A3, A3.5, B1, B2, C1, C2, D2 and NW for flexibility and application variety to meet individual patient needs. The mesostructure material of KATANA Zirconia ONE For IMPLANT is available with one block size and two sizes of access hole, which is small (S) and large (L).

The abutment must be sterilized after the cementation of the CAD/CAM patient matched mesostructure on the pre-manufactured titanium base component. PANAVIA SA Cement Universal (K183537) is used as the cement to set the mesostructure material to TiBase when the mesostructure material of the subject device set to TiBase prior to sterilization.

Dentsply Sirona has issued a letter of authorization indicating that the subject mesostructure material of the subject device can be selected in combination with the CAD/CAM system. Kuraray Noritake Dental and Dentsply Sirona have a business agreement for adding this new material to the Sirona CAD/CAM system. Kuraray Noritake Dental has worked with Dentsply Sirona to implement their new material into the Sirona CAD/CAM system libraries.

KATANA Zirconia ONE For IMPLANT which is the subject of this premarket notification consists of:

• Sirona Dental CAD/CAM System with CEREC Chairside Software or with inLab Software
• Sirona TiBase
• . KATANA Zirconia ONE mesostructured blocks

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a dental device, specifically a zirconia block for implant mesostructures. It details the device's indications for use, design, material composition, and technical characteristics, comparing it to predicate and reference devices.

Here's the breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

The document does not explicitly state a specific "test set" sample size for a clinical study. The performance evaluation relied on non-clinical testing and comparison to predicate devices, referencing international standards and scientific literature.

• Data Provenance: The document does not specify a country of origin for any data beyond the manufacturer being in Japan. The studies are non-clinical, involving material testing and compatibility assessments. There is no mention of retrospective or prospective data as no human clinical testing was performed.

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

Not applicable. No human clinical testing was performed, and thus no expert ground truth was established for a clinical test set. The ground truth for material properties and performance would be derived from adherence to international standards and non-clinical testing protocols.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. As no clinical test set requiring human interpretation or adjudication was used, this information is not relevant.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and the Effect Size

No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. The document explicitly states: "No human clinical testing was performed to support the substantial equivalence of the subject device."

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

This device is not an AI algorithm. It is a physical dental material (zirconia block) used in a CAD/CAM system. Therefore, the concept of "standalone (algorithm only)" performance is not applicable. The performance is related to the material's physical and mechanical properties, its compatibility with the CAD/CAM system, and its ability to meet structural requirements when fabricated into an abutment.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for this device is based on:

• International Standards: Adherence to established ISO standards for ceramic dental materials (ISO 6872:2015) and dynamic fatigue testing for dental implants (ISO 14801:2016).
• Material Composition: Verification of identical chemical composition to a previously cleared reference device (KATANA Zirconia Block, K190436).
• Biocompatibility Standards: Evaluation against ISO 10993 series and ISO 7405.
• Engineering Design Parameters: Validation against specified design parameters for abutment post height, angulation, wall thickness, diameter, and gingival height, consistent with CAD/CAM system requirements and FDA recommendations.
• Compatibility: Confirmation of functional compatibility with the predicate CAD/CAM system (Dentsply Sirona) and associated TiBase components through a business agreement and technical specifications.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

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

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

Not applicable, as there is no training set for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device

CEREC Cercon 4D™ Abutment System is intended for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae in support of single cement-retained restorations.

The system comprises three parts:

• CEREC Cercon 4D™ Abutment Block
• TiBase
• CAD/CAM system

The CEREC Cercon 4D™ ceramic structure cemented to the TiBase is recommended for two-piece hybrid abutments for single tooth restorations and hybrid abutment crowns, used in conjunction with endosseous dental implants.

The CEREC Cercon 4D Abutment Blocks, which are used for fabrication of a ceramic structure, two-piece hybrid abutments (meso-structure and crown) and abutment crowns, that are cemented to a TiBase (titanium base) used with dental implant systems. The CEREC Cercon 4D Abutment Blocks are not provided as the finished, fully assembled dental implant medical devices. The abutment blocks are materials supplied to dental professionals that must be further processed/manufactured using CAD/CAM technology and they are not intended to be reused as in the context of direct patient-applied devices and materials.

CEREC Cercon 4D™ Abutment Block are Yttria-doped zirconia blocks suitable for chairside and lab side use in fabrication of single cement-retained restorations. CEREC Ceron 4D™ Abutment Block are designed with a pre-drilled screw access channel and anti-rotation feature. The design allows for fabrication of a ceramic structure, two-piece hybrid abutments (mesostructure and crown) and abutment crowns, that are cemented to theBase (Titanium base) used with dental implant systems.

The provided document describes the substantial equivalence of the CEREC Cercon 4D™ Abutment Blocks and System, primarily focusing on non-clinical performance and material characteristics, rather than an AI/ML-based device. Therefore, many of the requested elements pertaining to AI/ML device studies (e.g., sample size for test set, data provenance, number of experts for ground truth, adjudication method, MRMC studies, standalone performance, training set details) are not applicable or cannot be extracted from this document.

However, I can extract information related to the acceptance criteria and study that proves the device meets those criteria from the perspective of a medical device (specifically, a dental abutment system), even without AI elements.

Here's the information based on the provided text, with Not Applicable (N/A) for fields that relate to AI/ML studies and are not covered in this document.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for CEREC Cercon 4D™ Abutment Blocks, CEREC Cercon 4D™ Abutment System

The device under review is primarily a dental abutment system, and its performance is evaluated based on material properties, mechanical strength, and software integration, not on diagnostic accuracy or AI assistance.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and the Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample Size for Test Set:
  • For Flexural Strength (Table 8.1): Not explicitly stated, but typically involves a certain number of samples to ensure statistical significance as per ISO 6872.
  • For Fatigue Testing (Table 8.2): "New fatigue testing was conducted on the worst-case combinations relating to the greatest angulation, the platform size and the gingival height for the proposed Dentsply Sirona TiBase/Dentsply Sirona Implant Systems and Third Party TiBase/Third Party Implant Systems (Camlog) combinations." The exact number of samples per test condition is not specified in the document, but standardized tests like ISO 14801 would stipulate a minimum.
  • For Sterilization Validation, Biocompatibility, and Software Validation: Not explicitly specified in terms of sample count in this summary.
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin of the data. The tests are described as "non-clinical tests" and "performance bench testing," indicating laboratory-based studies. The document does not mention if the data is retrospective or prospective, as this distinction is more relevant for clinical studies.

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

Not applicable. This device is not an AI/ML diagnostic tool requiring expert ground truth for image interpretation or similar. The "ground truth" (or more accurately, established performance standards) for this device is based on mechanical properties and ISO standards, which are objective and do not require expert human interpretation in the way an AI diagnostic system would.

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

Not applicable, as no human expert interpretation or consensus review is involved in the performance testing of this device (e.g., physical strength, material composition).

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI-assisted diagnostic device; therefore, MRMC studies are irrelevant.

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

Not applicable. This is not an algorithm-based device. Its "system" aspect refers to the combination of the abutment block, TiBase, and CAD/CAM system for fabrication, not an AI algorithm. The performance described is of the physical components and the software's ability to constrain design parameters.

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

The "ground truth" for this device's performance is established by international consensus standards (e.g., ISO 6872, ISO 14801, ISO 10993, ISO 17665-1) for dental materials and implants, along with internal software integration requirements. These are objective, quantitative measures rather than subjective human interpretations or clinical outcomes data in the context of diagnostic accuracy.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This device does not have a "training set" in the context of machine learning.

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

Not applicable. This device does not have a "training set" in the context of machine learning.

Ask a specific question about this device

CEREC Tessera Abutment System is intended for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae in support of single cement-retained restorations.

The system comprises three parts:

• CEREC Tessera Abutment Block
• TiBase
• CAD/CAM system.
  The CEREC Tessera ceramic structure cemented to the TiBase is recommended for two-piece hybrid abutments for single tooth restorations and hybrid abutment crowns, used in conjunction with endosseous dental implants.

The proposed CEREC Tessera Abutment Blocks are intended for fabrication of single cement-retained restorations. The CEREC Tessera Abutment System is comprised of the proposed CEREC Tessera Abutment Block, applicable TiBase, and CAD/CAM systems in both chairside (CEREC chairside software) and labside (inLab labside software) use. The CEREC Tessera ceramic structures are fabricated by milling the proposed CEREC Tessera Abutment Blocks. The CEREC Tessera Abutment Blocks are designed with a pre-drilled screw access channel and anti-rotation feature. The design allows for fabrication of a ceramic structure used to create 2-piece hybrid abutments and hybrid abutment crowns cemented to a TiBase used with dental implant systems. The patient-specific ceramic structure is then cemented to a TiBase to create the two-piece abutment which constitutes the final finished medical device.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the "CEREC Tessera Abutment Block, CEREC Tessera Abutment System." This is a dental device, not an AI/ML-driven device. Therefore, many of the requested criteria related to AI/ML studies (such as sample sizes for test and training sets, expert ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone algorithm performance) are not applicable to this document.

However, I can extract information regarding acceptance criteria and performance data for the dental device from the provided text.

Here's the relevant information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated in terms of number of test samples for each specific test, but the tests were performed "on the proposed CEREC Tessera Abutment System" and "on the proposed CEREC Tessera Abutment Block."
• Data Provenance: The studies are described as "Non-clinical bench testing" and "Biocompatibility evaluation assessment." The text does not specify the country of origin of the raw data, nor whether it's retrospective or prospective, as these terms are more typically applied to clinical studies.

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

• Not applicable. This is a medical device clearance based on non-clinical bench testing, not an AI/ML diagnostic device requiring expert interpretation for ground truth.

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

• Not applicable. This is a medical device clearance based on non-clinical bench testing.

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

• Not applicable. This is a medical device clearance based on non-clinical bench testing, not an AI/ML diagnostic device involving human readers.

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

• Not applicable. This is a medical device clearance based on non-clinical bench testing, not an AI/ML algorithm.

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

• For the non-clinical tests (mechanical strength, flexural strength, material properties, biocompatibility, cleaning/sterilization processes), the "ground truth" is defined by adherence to established international standards (ISO, ANSI/AAMI), FDA guidance documents, and internal engineering requirements. This is essentially a bench test standard compliance type of ground truth.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This is a medical device clearance based on non-clinical bench testing, not an AI/ML device requiring a training set.

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

• Not applicable. This is a medical device clearance based on non-clinical bench testing, not an AI/ML device requiring a training set.

Ask a specific question about this device