Search Results

Patient-specific abutment restorations, milled from Pre-milled Abutment Blanks (PMABs), are indicated for single tooth replacement and multiple tooth restorations. They are directly connected to various endosseous dental implant systems using a basal screw. Patient-specific abutment restorations milled from Pre-milled Abutment Blanks are to be digitally designed and milled using the Straumann InLab Validated Workflow. The Straumann InLab Validated Workflow is indicated for the design and fabrication of single or multiple-unit implant-borne prosthetics for the restoration of partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae. The system integrates multiple components of the digital dentistry workflow: scan files from Intra-Oral Scanners or Extra-Oral Scanners. CAD software, CAM software, pre-milled abutment blanks, milling machines and associated tooling and accessories.

The Straumann InLab Validated Workflow is similar to the primary predicate K171649. It employs optical impression files that document the topographical characteristics of teeth, traditional dental impressions, or stone models. The 3Shape CAD software then allows the design of the desired restorations.

The CAM software converts the digital restoration design into the tooling and tool path commands needed to fabricate the restoration. When choosing the Straumann Validated workflow, the user will only see the available and cleared components which were tested and demonstrated as part of the validated workflow. The milling command file is encrypted prior to transfer to the Roland DWX-42W Plus milling System; this encryption ensures that files generated using other CAD or CAM software cannot be used with the Straumann InLab Validated Workflow. The user will then load the milling command file into the Roland DWX-42W Plus milling System where it is decoded. The user loads the appropriate dental material blank and initiates the milling operation.

This premarket notification includes restorations (one-piece metal patient-specific abutment restorations) manufactured from various Pre-milled Abutment Blanks (PMABs) from the Straumann Group companies : Institut Straumann AG and Neodent PMABs. The digital workflow using the Straumann InLab Validated Workflow includes the use of the following products: Dental Scan of the patient's situation, CAD Software, CAM Module, Milling System, Abutment Milling Blanks.

The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for the Straumann InLab Validated Workflow, a device for designing and manufacturing patient-specific dental abutments from pre-milled abutment blanks (PMABs). The document describes the device, its intended use, technological characteristics, and performance testing.

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

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly present a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance in a consolidated format as typically seen in a clinical study report. However, it mentions key performance areas and states that requirements were met.

Acceptance Criteria (Implicit from tests performed):

• Sterilization Validation: Meet ISO 17665-1 and FDA guidance for reprocessing medical devices.
• Biocompatibility: In line with ISO 10993-1 and FDA guidance for biological evaluation.
• Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC): Considered MR Conditional.
• Milling Accuracy: Dimensions of milled restoration are the same as the intended CAD design, met within tool's expected lifetime.
• Simulated Use Validation: Correct implementation of PMABs, design constraints, and workflow restrictions in software and libraries.
• Implant-Abutment Connection Protection: No damage to the connection geometry during milling.
• Dynamic Fatigue: Performance consistent with FDA guidance for dental implants/abutments.

Reported Device Performance:

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

The document does not specify the exact sample sizes used for the test sets in the performance studies (e.g., dynamic fatigue, milling accuracy, simulated use validation). It refers to these as "Performance Testing - Bench."

Data Provenance: The studies are described as "nonclinical tests" and "bench" testing, suggesting they were conducted in a laboratory or simulated environment, rather than involving patient data. The document does not specify country of origin for the data (beyond the applicant being Institut Straumann AG in Switzerland and JJGC Indústria e Comércio de Materiais Dentários AS in Brazil, with contact in Andover, MA, USA). The studies appear to be prospective, designed specifically for this submission.

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

The document does not mention the use of experts to establish ground truth for the test set. The validation methods described (e.g., milling accuracy, simulated use) imply technical verification against design specifications and functional requirements rather than expert consensus on diagnostic or clinical outcomes.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

No adjudication method is mentioned, as there is no indication of multiple reviewers or subjective assessments requiring adjudication in the described bench tests.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

No MRMC comparative effectiveness study is mentioned. The device is a workflow for manufacturing dental restorations, not an AI diagnostic or assistive tool for human readers in the traditional sense of comparing human performance with and without AI assistance for interpretation.

6. Standalone Performance (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop)

The milling accuracy test ("black-box validation confirming that the dimensions of the milled restoration are the same as the intended CAD design") and the simulated use validation implicitly test the algorithm and workflow in a standalone manner, separate from a human operator's interpretative judgment. The "Straumann InLab Validated Workflow" itself is largely an automated process once the design is finalized. It is designed to ensure that the digital design translates accurately into a physical product.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used for these performance tests appears to be:

• Design Intent/Specifications: For milling accuracy, the ground truth is the CAD design itself. For simulated use, the ground truth refers to the correct implementation of design constraints and workflow restrictions within the software and libraries.
• Industry Standards and Regulatory Guidance: For sterilization, biocompatibility, and dynamic fatigue, the ground truth is defined by recognized international standards (ISO) and FDA guidance documents.
• Functional Requirements: For implant-abutment connection protection, the ground truth is the prevention of damage to the connection geometry.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not describe the use of machine learning or AI models in a way that would involve a distinct "training set" in the context of typical software or diagnostic AI submissions. The workflow involves CAD/CAM software where parameters and constraints are defined by engineering and design principles rather than learned from a large training dataset.

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

As no specific training set for a machine learning model is described, there is no information on how its ground truth would have been established. The workflow relies on validated engineering designs, material properties, and manufacturing processes.

Ask a specific question about this device

The BLUEDIAMOND IMPLANT is intended to be surgically placed in the maxillary or mandibular molar areas for the purpose providing prosthetic support for dental restorations (Crown, bridges, and overdentures) in partially or fully edentulous individuals. It is used to restore a patient's chewing function in the following situations and with the clinical protocols:

• Delaved loading
• Immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading.
  For the BLUEDIAMOND IMPLANTS with a Thread Length of 5mm,
  It is indicated for fixed or removable reconstruction in situations of moderate to severely atrophic jawbone and with adequate bone quality that allows primary stability after implant insertion, where a longer implant cannot be placed due to limited vertical bone height. The recommended healing time before loading is between 10 to 12 weeks.
  It is specifically recommended for:
• Fixed partial dentures/splinted units (one implant per unit)
• Pontic cases in combination with at least one longer implant
• Fully edentulous cases with at least one 5 mm Short Implant in combination with 2 longer implants in the anterior region and at least four total implants

The BLUEDIAMOND IMPLANT is a dental implant body system made of CP Ti Grade 4 with the surface treated by SLA method. It is intended to be placed in the maxillary or mandibular areas to restore masticatory function.
It has different thread lengths depending on the diameter and length. The Implanted length of the device is the length that is implanted into the bone, including the length from the thread to the shoulder, which is the non-threaded part.
The Gingival (Cuff) area of the device has grooves; the bottom of the grooves indicate the implantable length.
The BLUEDIAMOND IMPLANT is consisted of the following components.
BLUEDIAMOND IMPLANT Cuff Type: The BLUEDIAMOND IMPLANT is a dental implant body system made of CP Ti Grade 4 with the surface treated by SLA method. It is intended to be placed in the maxillary or mandibular areas to restore masticatory function.
Material: CP Ti Grade 4 of ASTM F67
Dimension (mm):

• Normal Thread Ø 4.0 x 9.0, 11.0, 13.0, 15.0 (7.0, 9.0); Ø 4.4 x 7.0, 9.0, 11.0, 13.0, 15.0 (5.0, 7.0, 9.0); Ø 4.7 x 7.0, 9.0, 11.0, 13.0, 15.0 (5.0, 7.0, 9.0)
• Deep Thread Ø 4.4 x 9.0, 11.0, 13.0, 15.0 (5.0, 7.0, 9.0); Ø 4.8 x 7.0, 9.0, 11.0, 13.0, 15.0 (5.0, 7.0, 9.0); Ø 5.1 x 7.0, 9.0, 11.0, 13.0, 15.0 (5.0, 7.0, 9.0)
  Diameter X Total Length (Thread Length):
• Normal Thread Ø 4.0: 8.0, 9.0, 10.0, 11.0 (1.0, 2.0); Ø 4.4: 7.0, 8.0, 9.0, 10.0, 11.0 (1.0, 2.0); Ø 4.7: 7.0, 8.0, 9.0, 10.0, 11.0 (1.0, 2.0)
• Deep Thread Ø 4.4: 8.0, 9.0, 10.0, 11.0 (1.0, 2.0); Ø 4.8: 7.0, 8.0, 9.0, 10.0, 11.0 (1.0, 2.0); Ø 5.1: 7.0, 8.0, 9.0, 10.0, 11.0 (1.0, 2.0)
  Implanted Length (Thread to Shoulder Height): 2.0, 3.0, 4.0
  Gingival (Cuff) Height: Not Found

The BLUEDIAMOND IMPLANTs are compatible to abutments of The BLUEDIAMOND IMPLANT System from K182448, K192614, K210161, K203808, K233450.

The provided text is an FDA 510(k) summary for a dental implant device (BLUEDIAMOND IMPLANT). It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than an AI/ML medical device. Therefore, it does NOT contain the specific information required to answer your prompt, such as:

• Acceptance Criteria for AI/ML Performance: The document does not describe performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, AUC, or other measures typically used for AI/ML models. Instead, it focuses on physical and material properties, and mechanical performance (fatigue, pull-out).
• Study Proving Device Meets Acceptance Criteria for AI/ML: No AI model training, validation, or testing is described. The "performance test" section refers to fatigue tests and pull-out tests, which are engineering tests for the physical implant, not for an AI algorithm.
• Sample Sizes for Test Set (AI/ML): Not applicable, as there's no AI/ML test set.
• Data Provenance (AI/ML): Not applicable.
• Number of Experts/Qualifications (AI/ML Ground Truth): Not applicable.
• Adjudication Method (AI/ML Ground Truth): Not applicable.
• MRMC Study (AI/ML): Not applicable.
• Standalone Performance (AI/ML): Not applicable.
• Type of Ground Truth (AI/ML): Not applicable.
• Sample Size for Training Set (AI/ML): Not applicable.
• How Ground Truth for Training Set was Established (AI/ML): Not applicable.

The document primarily discusses:

• Device Description: Material (CP Ti Grade 4), surface treatment (S.L.A), dimensions, components.
• Indications for Use: Placement in maxillary/mandibular molar areas for prosthetic support, delayed and immediate loading protocols, specific recommendations for 5mm thread length implants.
• Substantial Equivalence: Comparison of the BLUEDIAMOND IMPLANT to a primary predicate device (ARi ExCon Implant System) and several reference devices based on design, dimensions, material, surface treatment, sterilization, shelf life, and features.
• Non-Clinical Testing: Biocompatibility, pyrogen/endotoxin testing, sterilization validation, shelf life, modified surface treatment evaluation, and performance test (fatigue test in accordance with ISO 14801, and pull-out testing), and MR compatibility.

In summary, the provided text describes a physical dental implant device and its regulatory submission to the FDA, not an AI/ML-driven medical device. Therefore, it does not contain the information requested about AI acceptance criteria, performance studies, or ground truth establishment.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Straumann CARES Visual/Nova Implant-borne CAD software are indicated for the design of two-piece or one-piece abutment components for single or multiple-unit implant-borne prosthetics for the restoration of partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae. The system integrates multiple components of the digital dentistry workflow: scan files from Intra-Oral Scanners or Extra-Oral Scanners and CAD software. The system is used to design two-piece abutment CAD/CAM milled copings, crown and bridge restorations to be cemented onto Ti-bases, customized one-piece abutments and bridges/bars to be affixed to the endosseous dental implants using a basal screw. The use of the software requires the user to have the necessary training and domain knowledge in the practice of prosthetic design, as well as training in the use of the software.

Straumann CARES Visual/Nova is a dental CAD software to create implant-borne restorations. The software employs optical impression files that represent the topographical characteristics of the patient's intraoral situation. The Straumann CARES Visual/Nova software then allows the desired restorations. All implant-borne restorations available in Straumann CARES Visual/Nova software require FDA review and 510(k) clearance. Design specifications ("design envelope"), selectable materials, mouth positions need to be described in these 510(k) submissions. Each restorative solution is defined in a secured design library that provides the CAD software with the design specifications and restrictions for instance, minimum wall thickness, maximum angulation, cementable abutment post height etc. Standard connecting geometries e.g., abutment to implant interface are also defined in the library which cannot be edited by a user. Any dental implantborne restoration can only be created within the 510(k)-cleared design envelope.

The output of the CAD software is a three-dimensional geometry file which is linked to meta data like material and patient identifier.

All designed implant-borne restorations are intended to be:

• sent to Straumann for manufacturing by a validated milling center, or .
• milled on a validated Straumann C series or M series milling machine (only . with the CARES Visual software, K171649 and K203456)
• 3D printed as a temporary crown, or temporary bridge (up to 180 days) using P pro . Crown & Bridge material on a validated Straumann P series printer (only with the CARES Visual software, K203750)

Straumann CARES Visual/Nova has no patient contact since it is software.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Straumann CARES Visual and Nova Dental CAD software. This document outlines the device's indications for use, its technological characteristics, and a comparison to predicate devices, but lacks detailed performance study information with numerical acceptance criteria and measured performance.

Here's an analysis of the requested information based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document mentions "Performance Testing - Bench" and "Software verification and validation testing," indicating that tests were performed to demonstrate that the software adheres to design specifications and restrictions. However, it does not provide specific numerical acceptance criteria (e.g., accuracy percentages, dimensional tolerances) or their corresponding numerical performance results.

Instead, the acceptance criteria are implicitly described as:

• The software effectively controls design specifications and material selections for compatible abutment design libraries that undergo separate 510(k) clearance.
• Restrictions prevent the design of patient-matched components outside of allowable design limitations.
• Design limitations and specifications of compatible implant-abutment design libraries are locked and cannot be modified by the end user.

The reported performance is a general statement that these tests were "provided to demonstrate" and "conducted to demonstrate" these aspects. No quantitative measurements are included.

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

The text does not specify the sample size used for the test set or the provenance of any data (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). It only refers to "representative screenshots under user verification testing," which suggests qualitative evaluation rather than quantitative statistical analysis on a defined dataset.

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

The document does not mention the use of experts to establish ground truth for a test set. The validation appears to be centered on the software's functionality and adherence to predefined design rules rather than a comparison to expert-derived ground truth on clinical cases.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

As there's no mention of experts establishing ground truth or evaluating cases, there is no adjudication method described.

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

No MRMC comparative effectiveness study is mentioned. The device is CAD software for designing dental prosthetics, which is different from an AI-assisted diagnostic tool where human reader performance would typically be assessed.

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

The performance testing described is inherently standalone from a human-in-the-loop perspective, as it verifies the software's ability to enforce design rules and generate valid geometry files. The software's output (geometry file) is then used for manufacturing. The device inherently functions "without human-in-the-loop performance" in terms of its core design rule enforcement, although a human user still operates the software to create the design.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for this device appears to be primarily predefined design specifications and limitations based on engineering rules, material properties, and anatomical considerations for dental prosthetics. The software's internal logic and libraries incorporate these rules. It's not based on expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data in the typical sense of a diagnostic or predictive AI.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not mention a training set for the software. This suggests that the software is likely rule-based CAD software rather than a machine learning or AI model that requires a training set of data. Its functionality is based on programmed algorithms and predefined libraries ("design envelope").

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

Since no training set is mentioned, this point is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

The ARi ExCon Implant System is intended to be surgically placed in the maxillary or mandibular molar areas for the purpose providing prosthetic support for dental restorations (Crown, bridges, and overdentures) in partially or fully edentulous individuals. It is used to restore a patient's chewing function in the following situations and with the clinical protocols:

• Delayed loading

• Immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading.

For TiGEN Abutment and ZrGEN Abutment, all digitally designed abutments for use with TiGEN Abutment and ZrGEN Abutment are intended to be sent to a MegaGen-validated milling center for manufacture.

The ARi ExCon Implant is a substructure of a dental implant system made of CP Ti Grade 4 with the surface treated by SLA method. It is intended to be placed in the maxillary or mandibular areas to restore masticatory function.
The Abutments are prosthetic components directly or indirectly connected to the endosseous dental implant and are intended for use as an aid in prosthetic rehabilitation, allows single & multiple prosthetic restorations.

The provided text is an FDA 510(k) premarket notification summary for the "ARi ExCon Implant System." It details various components of the dental implant system (implants, cover screws, healing abutments, etc.) and compares them to predicate and reference devices to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

However, the document does not contain information about a study that proves the device meets specific acceptance criteria in the context of an AI/human-in-the-loop performance study, such as an MRMC study. The "Performance test" section on page 25-26 only mentions fatigue testing according to ISO 14801 and "Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Root-form Endosseous Dental Implants and Endosseous Dental Implant Abutment" to evaluate the performance of subject devices (implant components), and that test results met pre-set criteria. This is a mechanical performance test, not a clinical or human-reader study.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill the request for information regarding:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance (in the context of AI/human performance).
2. Sample size for the test set and data provenance.
3. Number of experts and their qualifications for ground truth.
4. Adjudication method.
5. MRMC comparative effectiveness study results or effect size.
6. Standalone (algorithm-only) performance.
7. Type of ground truth used (clinical/AI performance).
8. Training set sample size.
9. How training set ground truth was established.

The document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence of the dental implant components through material comparisons and mechanical bench testing to predicate and reference devices, not on the performance of a medical AI device or human-in-the-loop performance with AI assistance.

Ask a specific question about this device

The UNIdental Symphony Implant System is indicated for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae, in support of single or multiple-unit restorations including cemented retained, or overdenture restorations, and terminal or intermediate abutment support for fixed bridgework. The UNIdental Symphony Implant System is for single and two stage surgical procedures. It is intended for delayed loading.

The UNIdental Symphony Implant System is a dental implant system made of Titanium 6AL 4V ELI alloy and CP Ti Grade 4 intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw arches for loading after a conventional healing period. The implants may be used to replace one or more missing teeth. The systems are similar to other commercially available products based on the intended use, the technology used, the claims, the material composition employed and performance characteristics. Symphony 1 Fixture is Bone level, and Symphony 2 Fixture is Tissue level.

Symphony 1 Fixture is a taper shape that gradually decreases the outer diameter of the lower part from the upper part.

And It is a taper shape that gradually decreases the outer diameter of the lower part from the upper part. It is a structure that can perform a tapping function at the same time without a separate tap. It couples up with the abutment and its hexagon shape.

Symphony 2 Fixture is a structure with a round shape at the end. It couples up with the abutment and its octagon shape. The area that touches the patient's gums is pure titanium surface.

The upper structure of the abutments support prosthetics such as artificial teeth to restore patient's total mouth function.

The provided text details the 510(k) summary for the UNIdental Symphony Implant System, focusing on its substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than directly presenting acceptance criteria and performance data in the traditional sense of a clinical study for an AI/CADe device.

This document describes a dental implant system, which is a physical medical device, not a software or AI-driven diagnostic device. Therefore, the questions related to "AI vs without AI assistance," "standalone algorithm performance," "number of experts for ground truth," "adjudication methods," and "training/test set size and provenance" are not applicable to this type of medical device submission.

The "acceptance criteria" for a dental implant system of this nature typically revolve around meeting established engineering standards and demonstrating comparable performance (e.g., mechanical strength, biocompatibility, sterilization efficacy) to already cleared predicate devices. The "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" refers to the non-clinical testing performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

Here's an interpretation of the provided information based on the typical requirements for a physical medical device:

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

The document doesn't explicitly list "acceptance criteria" in a numerical table format for each performance metric, as one might see for an AI device's sensitivity/specificity. Instead, the acceptance is implicitly demonstrated by showing substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices through various non-clinical tests and material comparisons. The "performance" is implicitly deemed acceptable if it meets the established standards that the predicates have also met.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not explicitly stated as a "test set" in the context of an AI model. For the non-clinical physical testing (fatigue, biocompatibility, sterilization, etc.), the sample sizes would be determined by the specific ISO/ASTM standards referenced. These standards usually specify the number of samples required for robust statistical analysis to demonstrate compliance. This is not a "data provenance" like for AI models, but rather the laboratory conditions under which the physical tests were conducted. The document doesn't specify the country of origin for the non-clinical testing data, but the submitter is UNIdental Co., Ltd. in Korea. This is inherently a prospective testing process for the device being submitted.

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

• Not Applicable. This is a physical dental implant, not a diagnostic AI device requiring expert consensus for ground truth.

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

• Not Applicable. See point 3.

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

• Not Applicable. This is a physical dental implant, not an AI-assisted diagnostic device.

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

• Not Applicable. This is a physical dental implant, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• For physical devices, "ground truth" is established through adherence to recognized national and international consensus standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM) for material properties testing, mechanical performance, biocompatibility, and sterilization. For example, the "ground truth" for fatigue resistance is meeting the load cycles and fracture limits defined by ISO 14801. Biocompatibility "ground truth" is meeting the criteria of ISO 10993 series.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not Applicable. This is a physical device submission; there is no "training set" in the context of an AI model.

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

• Not Applicable. See point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

Straumann® dental implants are indicated for the functional and esthetic oral rehabilitation of the upper or lower jaw of edentulous or partially edentulous patients. They can be used for immediate, early or late implantation following the extraction or loss of natural teeth. The implants can be placed with immediate function for single-tooth and/or multiple-tooth restorations when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading to restore chewing function.

The subject devices are part of the Straumann® Dental Implant System, which is an integrated system of endosseous dental implants with corresponding abutments and healing components as well as instruments and prosthetic parts. Straumann® dental implants are solid screw implants with a bone anchorage surface that is large-grit sandblasted and acid-etched. In addition, SLActive® is in a chemically activated state, which is preserved by storage in a saline solution (NaCI). Straumann® dental implants can be used following the extraction or loss of natural teeth to restore chewing function. The prosthetic restorations supported are single crowns, bridges and partial or full dentures, which are connected to the implants using the corresponding abutments.

The BLC and TLC implants features the TorcFit connection and are available in the maximum endosteal outer diameters ø 3.3 mm, ø 3.75 mm, ø 5.5 mm and Ø 6.5 mm.

The BLC implants are available with the following length options:

• L 8 mm to L 18 mm for the maximum endosteal outer diameter Ø 3.3 mm.
• L 6 mm to L 18 mm for diameters Ø 3.75 mm and Ø 4.5 mm
• L 6 mm to L 16 mm for diameter Ø 5.5 mm
• L 6 mm to 14 mm for diameter Ø 6.5 mm.

The subject BLC implants are presented with RB (Reqular Base) and WB (Wide Base) prosthetic platform.

The TLC implants are available with the following length options:

• L 8 mm to L 18 mm for the maximum endosteal outer diameter Ø 3.3 mm,
• L 6 mm to L 18 mm for diameters ø 3.75 mm and ø 4.5 mm
• L 6 mm to L 12 mm for diameter Ø 5.5 mm
• L 6 mm to 10 mm for diameter Ø 6.5 mm.

The subject TLC implants are presented with the NT (Narrow TorcFit) RT (Regular TorcFit) WT (Wide TorcFit) prosthetic platform. The implant neck is available either as Standard (2.8 mm height) or Standard Plus (1.8 mm height) option.

The provided text does not contain information about acceptance criteria and a study that proves a device meets those criteria in the context of an AI/ML medical device. The document is an FDA 510(k) summary for Straumann® BLC and TLC Implants, which are endosseous dental implants, not an AI/ML device.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information.

Ask a specific question about this device

Indications for Use for Helix Short Implant:

The Neodent Implant System is recommended for surgical procedures on maxilla or mandible bones. It provides support for prosthetic components such as artificial teeth, thus restoring the 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.

Indications for Use for Mini Straight, Angled Abutment and screws:

The Neodent Implant System is intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, 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.

Indications for Use for Helix Short Attachment:

The Neodent Implant System is intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, to restore chewing function. It may be used with single stage procedures, for single or multiple unit restorations, and may be loaded immediately when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading.

Indications for Use for Helix Short Healing Abutment:

This product is used for the maintenance of soft tissue, during the bone integration stage of Neodent implants to be rehabilitated with the late loading technique. The Healing Abutment may be used in the implant installation surgery or the reopening surgery (second surgical stage).

Indications for Use for Helix Short Cover Screw:

This product is used for the maintenance of soft tissue, during the bone integration stage of Neodent implants to be rehabilitated with the late loading technique. The Cover Screw must remain intragingival, preventing the growth of tissue over the implant platform. The Cover Screw takes place in the conical region of the implant interface.

Indications for Use for Temporary Abutment for Helix Short Implant

The Neodent Implant System is intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, to restore chewing function. It may be used with single stage procedures, for single or multiple unit restorations, and may be loaded immediately when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading. Temporary Abutments are installed over Helix Short Implants and to provide support for prosthetic structures for up to 6 months.

Indications for Use for Helix Short Titanium Base:

The Helix Short Implant Titanium base that is placed over Neodent dental implants to provide support for customized prosthetic restorations, such as copings and crowns. It is indicated for single- and multiple-structure restorations, screw- or cement-retained on implants installed in the maxilla or mandible. All digitally-designed copings and/or crowns to be used with the Neodent Titanium Base System must be sent to Straumann for manufacture at a validated milling center.

• All the subject devices are intended for single use;
• The subject implants are provided sterile via gamma irradiation and the subject abutments are provided sterile via Ethylene Oxide to an SAL of 1x10-9;
• The subject implants are manufactured of Commercially Pure Titanium (Grade 4), the subject abutments, prosthetic screws and abutment screws are manufactured of Titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V ELI (ASTM F136) and the restorations placed onto Helix Short Titanium Bases are made of various top half materials.
• The subject implants have a wide cone prosthetic interface with an internal hexagon for short implants lengths available from 4.0 to 7.0; cylindrical shape with double threads and conical apex with three helical flutes for diameters from 3.75 to 7.0mm.
• The implants are provided in two different surfaces: Neoporos: Sand blasted and acid etched, and Acqua: Hydrophilic surface aggregated to the rough surface obtained by double treatment: abrasive blasting and acid subtraction.
• The Helix Short Implant Titanium Base abutments is used as two-piece abutment, where the base is premanufactured from titanium alloy and the top half is created via burn out coping or a digital workflow with CAD/CAM at a validated milling center. The final top half can be created from Ticon, Coron, Zerion LT, IPS e.max, or PMMA. The top half and base pieces are cemented together to form the final abutment.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and supporting studies for the Neodent Implant System - Helix Short Implant System, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The FDA 510(k) summary does not explicitly present a table of specific numerical acceptance criteria alongside reported performance for each test. Instead, it describes what was tested and states that the results "met the acceptance criteria" or demonstrated "equivalent performance." We can infer the general acceptance criterion from the study descriptions.

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

The document does not explicitly state the numerical sample size for the test sets in the mechanical, MR compatibility, or other in-vitro studies. It refers to "tested subject devices" or "representative samples."

• Data Provenance: The studies described (mechanical testing, MR compatibility, surface treatment, sterilization, endotoxin, shelf life, biocompatibility) are all benchtop/laboratory studies (in vitro). There is no mention of human subject data, animal data, or clinical retrospective/prospective data for these specific performance criteria. The manufacturer is JJGC Indústria e Comércio de Materiais Dentários S.A. (dba Neodent) based in Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil.

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

Not applicable. As these are benchtop/laboratory performance studies, "ground truth" is established by adherence to recognized standards (e.g., ISO 14801, ISO 11137, ISO 11135, ISO 10993) and scientific methods, not by expert consensus in the typical sense for clinical data.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are typically used for interpreting clinical images or patient outcomes, not for objective benchtop performance data against engineering 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 an endosseous dental implant system, which is a physical medical device, not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool. Therefore, MRMC studies involving human readers and AI assistance are not relevant.

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

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

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for the performance claims is based on:

• Adherence to International Standards: Performance measured against specifications outlined in standards like ISO 14801 (dynamic fatigue), ISO 11137 and ISO 11135 (sterilization), ISO 10993 series (biocompatibility).
• Benchtop Test Results: Direct measurements and observations from the mechanical, physical, chemical, and biological laboratory tests performed on the device.
• Comparison to Predicate Devices: Performance is frequently established by demonstrating equivalence or superiority to already legally marketed predicate devices, which serve as a benchmark.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device. The concepts of "training set" and "validation set" are primarily used for machine learning and AI, not for the regulatory approval of physical implants based on benchtop testing.

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

Not applicable for the same reasons as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

Straumann® dental implants and abutments are intended for oral implantation to provide a support structure for connected prosthetic devices.

Straumann® BLX Dental Implants, SLActive®
Straumann® dental implants are indicated for functional and esthetic oral rehabilitation of the upper or lower jaw of edentulous or partially edentulous patients. They can be used for immediate, early or late implantation following the extraction or loss of natural teeth. The implants can be placed with immediate function for single-tooth and/or multiple-tooth restorations when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading to restore chewing function.

Straumann® TLX Dental Implants, SLActive®
Straumann® dental implants are indicated for the functional and esthetic oral rehabilitation of the upper or lower jaw of edentulous or partially edentulous patients. They can be used for immediate, early or late implantation following the extraction or loss of natural teeth. The implants can be placed with immediate function for single-tooth and/or multiple-tooth restorations when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading to restore chewing function.

Other Straumann® Tissue Level and Bone Level Dental Implants, SLActive®
Straumann® dental implants are indicated for functional and esthetic oral rehabilitation of the upper or lower jaw of edentulous or partially edentulous patients. Unless stated in specific indications, they can be used for immediate, early or late implantation following the extraction or loss of natural teeth. The implants can be placed with immediate function for single-tooth and/or multiple-tooth restorations when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading to restore chewing function.

Specific indications for use
Straumann® Roxolid® Bone Level Tapered Implant ø 2.9 mm
The Straumann® Roxolid® Bone Level Tapered implants ø 2.9 mm are indicated for single-unit reconstruction of incisors in the lower jaw and lateral incisors in the upper jaw.

Straumann® Roxolid® Standard Plus 4 mm Short Implants
Straumann® Roxolid® Standard Plus 4 mm Short Implants are indicated for fixed or removable reconstruction in situations of moderate to severely atrophic jawbone with adequate bone quality that allows primary stability after implant insertion, where a longer implant cannot be placed due to limited vertical bone height. The recommended healing time before loading is between 10 to 12 weeks.

Straumann® Roxolid® Standard Plus 4 mm Short Implants are specifically indicated for:
Fixed denture prosthesis/splinted units (one implant per unit).
Pontic cases in combination with at least one longer implant.
Fully edentulous cases with at least one Straumann® Roxolid® Standard Plus 4 mm Short Implants in combination with 2 longer implants in the anterior region and at least four total implants.

Titanium Ø 3.3 mm implants
ø3.3 mm S and SP RN implants are to be used only for the following indications:
Partially dentate jaws with implant-borne, fixed constructions: combine with a Ø4.1 mm implants and splint the superstructure.

The SLActive® Implants from the Straumann® Dental Implants System includes:
SLActive® and Roxolid®, Standard, Ø3.3 RN, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, Standard, Ø4.1 RN, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, Standard, Ø4.8 RN, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, Standard, Ø4.8 WN, 6, 8, 10, and 12 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, Standard Plus, Ø3.3 NNC, 8, 10, 12, and 14 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, Standard Plus, Ø3.3 RN, 8, 10, 12, and 14 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, Standard Plus, Ø4.1 RN and Ø4.8 RN, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, Standard Plus, Ø4.8 WN, 6, 8, 10 and 12 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, Bone Level, Ø3.3 NC, Ø4.1 RC, and Ø4.8 RC, 8, 10, 12, and 14 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, Bone Level Tapered, Ø2.9 SC 10, 12 and 14 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, Bone Level Tapered, Ø3.3 NC, Ø4.1 RC, and Ø4.8 RC, 8, 10, 12, 14. 16 and 18 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, BLX, Ø3.5 RB, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, BLX, Ø3.75 RB, Ø4.0 RB, Ø4.5 RB and Ø5.0 RB, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16. 18 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, BLX, Ø5.5 WB and Ø6.5 WB, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 16 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, Standard, TLX, Ø3.75 NT, Ø3.75 RT, Ø4.5 NT and Ø4.5 RT, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, Standard, TLX, Ø5.5 WT and Ø6.5 WT, 6, 8, 10 and 12 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, Standard Plus, TLX, Ø3.75 RT, Ø4.5 NT and Ø4.5 RT, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, Standard Plus, TLX, Ø5.5 WT and Ø6.5 WT, 6, 8, 10 and 12 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, Standard Plus Short, Ø4.1 RN and Ø4.8 RN and WN, 4 mm 4 mm Short Implants

The device being discussed is "Straumann® SLActive® labeling changes" (K223083). This 510(k) pertains to labeling changes for existing Straumann® SLActive® dental implants and does not introduce new implants or modify existing implant designs. The primary predicate device is K171784 – Straumann Dental Implant System, with several other Straumann® implant systems listed as reference devices.

The acceptance criteria and supporting study are primarily focused on substantiating the updated labeling, particularly regarding the use of SLActive implants in smokers and general wording clarifications.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

• All indications continue to allow for implant placement in the jaw, providing support for single-tooth or multiple-tooth restorations, and allowing for immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved.
• Information regarding prosthetic restorations was not excluded but relocated to the device description for better understanding.
• The requirement for "4 or more implants for fully edentulous patients" was removed from indications for use as it is considered "common knowledge."
• New specific Indications for Use for Ø 3.3 mm implants provide more details.
• The "Precaution" section of the Instructions for Use now addresses the use of narrow implants in the molar region.
• For specific implant types (e.g., BLX implants), the single-tooth restoration was considered the "worst case due to the higher masticatory load," indicating an understanding of potential stress. |
  | For "Smokers' Claim" (Outcomes of SLActive implants in smokers are encouraging):
  Supported by clinical evidence demonstrating that implant performance (e.g., failure rates, adverse events) is not significantly worse in smokers compared to non-smokers with SLActive implants.
  Demonstrated through systematic literature review or clinical studies. | A systematic literature search identified 5 publications.
• 251 SLActive implants were placed in 237 patients (age range 25-65 years old).
• Studies included titanium or titanium-zirconium alloy implants with SLActive surfaces, diameters 3.3-4.8 mm, and lengths 8-12 mm.
• Reported adverse events (failure to osseointegrate, peri-implantitis, spinning/mobility during surgery, late failure, bone loss, abutment loosening, paresthesia, acrylic/porcelain chipping) were not reported at a higher rate in smokers compared to non-smokers.
• Implant failure rates were not found to be significantly different in smoking compared to non-smoking patients with SLActive implants.
• References: Alsahhaf A (2019), Xiao W (2021), Chen Y (2017), Sener T (2010), Luongo G (2016). (Note: Sener and Luongo were cited in the text but not fully listed in the provided references section). |
  | Sterility:
  Sterilization process validated to SAL of 10^-6.
  Meets pyrogen limit specifications. | - Sterilization via gamma irradiation after final packaging.
• Validated to a Sterility Assurance Level (SAL) of 10^-6 in accordance with ISO 11137-1 and ISO 11137-2 (VDmax25 method).
• Pyrogen limit specifications met with LAL Endotoxin Analysis, testing limit of 20 EU/device (per FDA Guidance and ISO 10993-1). |
  | Biocompatibility:
  Biological assessment performed according to ISO 10993-1 and FDA Guidance. | - Biological assessment performed according to ISO 10993-1 and FDA Guidance "Use of International Standard ISO 10993-1..." for each device. (Results are not detailed but the assessment was stated to be performed). |
  | Dynamic Fatigue:
  Assessment conducted per FDA guidance and ISO 14801. | - Dynamic fatigue assessment conducted according to FDA guidance "Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Rootform Endosseous Dental Implants and Endosseous Dental Abutments" and ISO 14801.
• Test covers permanent restoration of implants without failure. (Results are not detailed but the assessment was stated to be performed). |
  | Insertion Performance:
  Demonstrated adequate insertion torque in different bone classes. | - Insertion tests performed for the subject implants.
• Showed adequate insertion torque in different bone classes when inserted according to the surgical procedure. (Results are not detailed but the assessment was stated to be performed). |
  | MR Safety:
  Evaluated for MR Conditional status. | - Obtained MR Conditional status per K180540.
• MR Conditional tests conducted according to FDA's Guidance "Testing and Labeling Medical Devices for Safety in Magnetic Resonance (MR) Environment." (Results are not detailed but the status was noted). |

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

The core of the "study" for the labeling changes, especially concerning the "smokers' claim," was a systematic literature review, not a direct clinical trial conducted by the applicant for this 510(k).

• Sample Size for Smokers' Claim: The literature review included data from 5 publications which collectively involved 251 SLActive implants placed in 237 patients.
• Data Provenance: The data came from published clinical studies. The document does not specify the exact country of origin for all studies, but at least two cited papers involve authors from China (Xiao, Chen), one from Saudi Arabia (Alsahhaf), and the ITT World Symposium (Chen 2017) was held in Switzerland. The studies are explicitly described as "clinical studies," implying they were prospective or retrospective clinical investigations.

For other non-clinical performance characteristics (sterility, biocompatibility, dynamic fatigue, insertion tests, MR safety), these appear to be internal bench tests and assessments conducted by the manufacturer, or previously established for the cleared predicate/reference devices. No specific sample sizes for these tests are provided in this summary, but it's stated that "No significant changes have been performed to the subject implants since clearance so previously cleared bench data continue to be representative."

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

• For the "smokers' claim" (literature review): The "ground truth" (i.e., the reported outcomes like adverse event rates and implant failure rates) was established by the authors of the original 5 clinical publications. The document does not specify the qualifications of these individual authors. However, given they are "published clinical studies," it's understood that dental/medical professionals (e.g., oral surgeons, periodontists, implantologists) would have conducted these studies and reported the outcomes.
• For the equivalence discussion of Indications for Use: The "ground truth" is established by comparing the proposed wording against the previously cleared wording in the primary and reference predicate devices, which were approved by the FDA based on clinical and scientific evidence at the time of their clearance. This comparison itself is performed by regulatory affairs experts on behalf of the manufacturer.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• For the "smokers' claim" (literature review): The adjudication of adverse events and implant failure rates was performed within each of the original 5 clinical studies. The specific adjudication methods used in those individual studies are not detailed in this 510(k) summary. Given the nature of scientific literature, these studies would typically involve clinical follow-up and assessment by the treating clinicians/researchers.
• For the Indications for Use equivalence: This is a comparison process, not a clinical adjudication. The equivalence of wording is assessed by regulatory experts against the historical FDA clearances.

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

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was NOT done. This submission is for labeling changes for dental implants, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

• Not applicable. This submission is for a medical device (dental implants), not a software algorithm or AI.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• For the "smokers' claim": The ground truth was clinical outcomes data reported in peer-reviewed published clinical studies. These outcomes included adverse events (e.g., failure to osseointegrate, peri-implantitis, bone loss) and implant failure rates.
• For other performance tests (sterility, fatigue, etc.): The ground truth would be established through defined bench testing protocols and adherence to international standards (e.g., ISO, FDA guidance).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This submission is not for a machine learning or AI device that requires a training set. The "smokers' claim" was based on a literature review which leverages existing published clinical data, akin to an external validation set rather than a training set for the current submission.

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

• Not applicable. (See point 8.)

Ask a specific question about this device

Straumann® Variobase® Abutments: The Straumann® Variobase® abutments are prosthetic components placed onto Straumann dental implants to provide support for customized prosthetic restorations. Straumann® Variobase® abutments are indicated for screw retained single tooth or cement-retained single tooth and bridge restorations. A temporary restoration can be used prior to the insertion of the final components to maintain, stabilize, and form the soft tissue during the healing phase. Temporary restorations are indicated to be placed out of occlusion. Final abutments and restorations may be placed into occlusion when the implant is fully osseointegrated. All digitally designed copings and/or crowns for use with the Straumann® Variobase® Abutment system are intended to be sent to Straumann for manufacturing by a validated milling center.

Straumann® nice® Zirconia discs: Once finalized into a suitable design: n!ce® Zirconia LT and n!ce® Zirconia HT restorations are indicated for inlays, onlays, veneers, crowns, and bridges up to full arch. n!ce® Zirconia XT restorations are indicated for inlays, onlays, veneers, crowns, and bridges up to 3 units.

The purpose of this bundled premarket notification is to obtain regulatory clearance for the Straumann subject devices: Straumann® Variobase® Abutments (NHA) A two-piece abutment consisting of a Variobase (bottom half) and ceramic component (top half), Straumann® n!ce® Zirconia discs (EIH). Straumann® Variobase® Abutments are two-piece abutments. The Variobase is the bottom half of the two-piece abutment. The top half of the two-piece abutment is a CAD/CAM designed and manufactured ceramic component milled from Straumann n!ce Zirconia (ZrQ2), also subject to this submission as a material suitable for fabrication of the coping or crown that, when bonded to the previously cleared Variobase abutment base, forms a finished dental prosthesis. All digitally designed ceramic components for use with the Straumann Variobase abutments are intended to be sent to Straumann for manufacture at a validated milling center. The following materials are available within the digital workflow for the manufacturing of dental prosthetic restorations: (i) low translucency (LT), (ii) high translucency (HT), and (iii) extra high translucency (XT) n!ce Zirconia. The materials come in various shades (excluding White). Straumann Variobase abutments are available to interface with the following Straumann dental implant platforms: Regular Neck (RN), Wide Neck (WN), Regular CrossFit (RC), Wide Base (WB), Regular Base (RB), Narrow TorcFit (NT), Regular TorcFit (RT), Wide TorcFit (WT) and were previously cleared (K120822, K170356, K190082 and K200586). Straumann® n!ce® Zirconia discs are intended to be milled to produce prosthetic restorations for prepared natural teeth and endosseous dental implant abutments. The material is suitable for use in inlays, onlays, veneers, copings, crowns, and multi-unit restorations. Straumann n!ce Zirconia (ZrO2) discs will be offered in 3 translucencies: low translucency (LT), high translucency (HT) and extra high translucency (XT).

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for Straumann® Variobase® Abutments and Straumann® n!ce® Zirconia discs. It describes the device, its intended use, and compares its technological characteristics and performance to predicate and reference devices to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

However, the document does not describe a study involving a device that uses AI, nor does it discuss acceptance criteria and performance in the way typically expected for an AI/ML medical device submission (e.g., in terms of metrics like sensitivity, specificity, AUC, etc., or human reader performance with and without AI assistance). The "performance testing" section refers to mechanical and material testing (dynamic fatigue, static strength, biocompatibility, sterilization, flexural strength, chemical solubility, CTE, shrinkage factor) to demonstrate that the dental components meet established physical and biological standards.

Therefore, I cannot answer the questions about AI device performance, sample sizes for test sets, expert ground truth adjudication, MRMC studies, or training set details as this information is not present in the provided document.

Assuming this question is posed in the context of an AI/ML medical device, and the provided document is a misunderstanding, I will state explicitly that the document does not contain the requested information regarding AI device performance.

If the question implies that the dental devices themselves are the "device" in question and that their "acceptance criteria" pertain to their physical and material properties, then I can extract some relevant information as follows, though it won't perfectly match the structure of AI/ML device performance reporting.

Based on the provided text, the "device" refers to Straumann® Variobase® Abutments and Straumann® n!ce® Zirconia discs, which are physical dental prosthetics and materials, not an AI/ML medical device. Therefore, the acceptance criteria and study descriptions do not involve AI performance metrics or human reader studies.

The acceptance criteria are primarily related to biocompatibility, mechanical strength, and material properties as per established international standards for dental materials and implants. The "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" refers to non-clinical performance testing of these physical properties.

Here's an interpretation based on the document's content, tailored to the questions where applicable, but noting the absence of AI/ML-specific details:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

For the Straumann® n!ce® Zirconia discs, key mechanical properties are compared to predicate devices, and these represent the performance thresholds that align with ISO 6872 standards. The document implicitly states that the Straumann® Variobase® Abutments also met relevant standards (ISO 14801).

For Straumann® Variobase® Abutments, the document states that "Dynamic fatigue and static strength tests were conducted according to ISO 14801 and the FDA guidance document... and demonstrated the two-piece Straumann Variobase Abutments with Straumann n!ce Zirconia are equivalent to the primary predicate and reference devices." This implies meeting the strength and fatigue requirements of these standards.

Biocompatibility for both devices was confirmed with chemical characterization and in-vitro cytotoxicity testing according to ISO 10993-5, 10993-12, and 10993-18.

Sterilization process for the Abutments was validated according to ISO 17665-1, ISO 17665-2, and applicable FDA guidance.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance
The document does not specify exact sample sizes for the mechanical and biological "test sets." It refers to "tests" and "evaluations" that meet ISO standards, which inherently include sample size requirements, but these are not enumerated.
Data provenance is implicitly "non-clinical laboratory testing" by the manufacturer, or a validated testing partner. It is not patient data (retrospective or prospective).

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
Not applicable. Ground truth for these studies is based on objective, standardized physical, chemical, and biological measurements performed in a laboratory, not expert human interpretation (like in imaging studies).

4. Adjudication method for the test set
Not applicable, as ground truth is established by objective measurements against 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 is not an AI/ML device.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.

7. The type of ground truth used
The ground truth used for these dental devices is based on established international standards (e.g., ISO 6872, ISO 14801, ISO 10993 series) for material properties, mechanical performance, and biocompatibility. This includes objective measurements of flexural strength, chemical composition, thickness, and results from in-vitro cytotoxicity tests.

8. The sample size for the training set
Not applicable. There is no concept of a "training set" for physical product testing in this context, as it's not an AI/ML device.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

Noris Medical Dental Implants System is intended to replace missing tooth/teeth in either jaw for supporting prosthetic devices that may aid in restoring the patient's chewing function. The procedure can be accomplished in a one-stage or two-stage surgical operation. All implants are appropriate for immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading.

Noris Medical Dental Implants are tapered internal hex 2.1. implants, designed to enable easy insertion while supporting excellent initial stability. The variable thread design enables self-tapping, thus providing solutions for a variety of bone conditions. Noris Medical multi-design features offer a solution for immediate placement and immediate loading. The implantation procedure can be accomplished in a one-stage or two-stage surgical operation. Packaging has been designed for quick identification and easy opening. The scope of this submission is Noris Medical Cortical Implant as part of the Noris Medical dental Implants system identical platform. Cortical implants are able to undergo immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading. The Cortical system can be used in extraction sites for immediate implantation. Cortical implant is available in different sizes to suit relevant implantation site. Made of titanium alloy Ti 6Al 4V ELI.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the Noris Medical Dental Implants System - Cortical meets those criteria, based on the provided FDA 510(k) summary:

Overview

The provided document is a 510(k) Summary for the Noris Medical Dental Implants System - Cortical. The core purpose of a 510(k) submission is to demonstrate that a new medical device is "substantially equivalent" to a legally marketed predicate device, meaning it is as safe and effective. In this case, the clinical test section details a study that supports the safety and effectiveness of the implant with respect to a specific performance criterion: marginal bone loss. The non-clinical tests (biocompatibility, sterilization, performance testing) also contribute to demonstrating substantial equivalence but are not the focus of a comparative clinical performance criterion for this device.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample Size: 40 Noris cortical implants were placed in 19 patients. The document states "The sample population was statistically derived as n=38" which is a bit ambiguous; it likely refers to the minimum required sample size for the study to achieve statistical significance, with 40 implants actually being tested.
• Data Provenance:
  • Country of Origin: Israel ("Israeli private clinic").
  • Retrospective or Prospective: Retrospective clinical study.

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

The document does not specify the number of experts or their qualifications for establishing ground truth (specifically, measuring crestal bone height/loss). Measurements were taken from panoramic radiographs and CT scans. It's common in such retrospective studies that image analysis is performed by the researchers or a trained technician, often validated by a clinician. However, this detail is not provided.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not specify an adjudication method. Since it's a retrospective study, it's possible that data was collected and analyzed by a single party or an unadjudicated team.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

• Was it done?: No. This study is an observational clinical study assessing the performance of the Noris Medical Dental Implants System - Cortical in a real-world setting, focusing on marginal bone loss and survival rate. It does not involve human readers comparing AI-assisted vs. non-AI-assisted diagnosis or treatment.
• Effect size of improvement with AI vs. without AI assistance: Not applicable, as this was not an AI-assisted MCMC study.

6. Standalone (Algorithm-Only) Performance Study

• Was it done?: No. This device is an endosseous dental implant, a physical medical device, not a software algorithm. Therefore, "standalone" performance in the context of an algorithm is not relevant. The performance (e.g., marginal bone loss) is an inherent characteristic of the physical implant itself when used in patients.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Clinical Outcomes/Measurements: The ground truth for the clinical study was established through quantitative measurements of crestal bone height and subsequent calculation of marginal bone loss from panoramic radiographs taken at baseline and follow-up intervals (e.g., 6, 12, 24, and up to 33 months). Implant survival (100%) was also a key outcome.
• Note: The document mentions "Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set" in the prompt template, which implies a study where human readers interpret data. In this clinical study, measurements are taken directly from images or clinical observation, not through a diagnostic interpretation process that requires expert consensus adjudication in the same way an AI diagnostic algorithm might.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This report describes a physical medical device (dental implant), not a machine learning or AI algorithm that requires a training set. The clinical study described served as a test/validation set for the device's performance in humans.

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

• Not applicable. See point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device