Search Results

DESS Dental Smart Solutions abutments are intended to be used in conjunction with endosseous dental implants in the maxillary or mandibular arch to provide support for prosthetic restorations.

All digitally designed custom abutments for use with DESS Ti Base abutments or Pre-Milled Blank abutments are to be sent to a Terrats Medical validated milling center for manufacture.

The purpose of this submission is to add components to the DESS Dental Smart Solutions system, which includes dental implants, abutments, and prosthetic components cleared previously in various submissions. The previously cleared abutments and prosthetic components are compatible with a variety of original equipment manufacturer (OEM) dental implants as well as DESS Dental Smart Solutions dental implants.

This submission adds various abutments to the DESS and OEM implant lines as summarized on the following pages in Table 1 Summary of Subject Device Abutment Designs, and Table 2 Summary of Subject Device Abutment Sizes.

The subject device abutment designs include Cover Screws, Healing Abutments, Temporary Abutments, Ti Base Abutments, AURUM Base Abutments (Ti Base abutments with a screw channel design that allows easier instrument access to the abutment screw), CoCr Base Abutments, Pre-Milled Blank Abutments, Multi-Unit Abutments (straight and angled), DESSLoc Abutments (Locator-type abutments), and abutment screws.

This document is a 510(k) summary for the DESS Dental Smart Solutions, a line of endosseous dental implant abutments. It details the device's characteristics, intended use, and a comparison to predicate devices to establish substantial equivalence.

Based on the provided text, the device itself is a physical medical device (dental implant abutments and associated components), not a software or AI-driven system. Therefore, the questions related to AI acceptance criteria, training/test sets, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, and ground truth establishment for AI would not be directly applicable to this product as described.

The document focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices through:

• Identical Intended Use: The device is intended for "functional and esthetic rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible or maxilla" by providing support for prosthetic restorations, which is the same as the predicate devices.
• Similar Technological Characteristics: The device utilizes similar designs, materials (Ti-6Al-4V, Co-Cr-Mo alloy), manufacturing processes, and sterilization methods as its predicates.
• Performance Data: Non-clinical testing (mechanical testing per ISO 14801, MR environment assessment) and comparison to existing data from predicate devices are used to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Therefore, many of the requested elements for describing AI acceptance criteria and studies are not present or applicable in this document.

However, I can extract information relevant to the device's performance assessment and criteria for its type of submission.

Here's an attempt to answer the questions based solely on the provided text, acknowledging that the nature of the device (a physical implant component) means many AI-specific questions will be answered as "Not Applicable" (N/A):

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

The document does not explicitly state quantifiable "acceptance criteria" in a table format with corresponding "reported device performance" metrics for this specific 510(k) submission. Instead, it relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices.

The underlying "acceptance criteria" for demonstrating substantial equivalence for this device type are primarily through:

• Mechanical Testing (ISO 14801): This is a critical performance standard for dental implants and abutments. The document states that mechanical testing was "conducted according to ISO 14801 to support the performance." The acceptance criteria would be successful completion of these tests, demonstrating the device's mechanical strength and fatigue resistance are comparable to or better than predicate devices. The reported performance is simply that the tests supported the performance.
• Material Conformance: Materials must conform to specific ASTM standards (e.g., ASTM F136 for Ti-6Al-4V, ASTM F1537 for Co-Cr-Mo). The reported performance is that the materials conform to these standards.
• Biocompatibility: While not detailed in this excerpt, the mention of "biocompatibility" in relation to predicates implies conformance to relevant biocompatibility standards (e.g., ISO 10993 series). The reported performance is that it is compatible.
• Sterilization Validation: Demonstrated sterility assurance level (SAL) of 10⁻⁶ via validated methods (moist heat or gamma irradiation). The reported performance is that validation was performed and met this SAL.
• Dimensional Compatibility: The abutments must fit the corresponding OEM implants correctly. The reported performance is that reverse engineering dimensional analysis confirmed compatibility.

Due to the nature of the document being a 510(k) summary focusing on substantial equivalence rather than a full study report, specific numerical performance results for the device tests are not provided in this text.

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

• Sample Size for Mechanical Testing: The document states "mechanical testing conducted according to ISO 14801." For such tests, ISO 14801 typically specifies minimum sample sizes (e.g., 10-11 samples for static strength, typically more for fatigue). The exact number of samples used for this specific submission is not explicitly stated, but it would have followed the standard's requirements.
• Data Provenance: The mechanical testing and material analyses are assumed to be "non-clinical data submitted or referenced" by the manufacturer, Terrats Medical SL, based in Barcelona, Spain. The "reverse engineering dimensional analysis" was done by Terrats Medical SL or through contractual agreement. This is prospective testing performed to support the 510(k). The document itself does not specify the country of origin for the underlying OEM implant data used for reverse engineering, although the OEM companies are listed (e.g., Astra Tech AB, BioHorizons).

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

N/A. This is a physical device. Ground truth, in the context of AI, refers to validated labels for data used to train and test an algorithm. For a physical device, performance is evaluated through engineering and biocompatibility testing against defined standards. There are no "experts" establishing ground truth in the AI sense. Testing would be performed by qualified engineers and technicians.

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

N/A. Adjudication methods are typically used in clinical studies involving interpretation (e.g., by radiologists) to resolve discrepancies. This document describes non-clinical performance testing of a physical device.

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

N/A. This product is a dental implant abutment, not an AI software intended to assist human readers.

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

N/A. This is a physical device, not an algorithm.

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

N/A. For engineering tests of physical devices, the "ground truth" is typically derived from established engineering principles, international standards (e.g., ISO 14801 for mechanical properties, ASTM for materials), and the physical properties of the materials and designs themselves. There isn't "expert consensus" or "pathology" in the AI or clinical trials sense.

8. The sample size for the training set

N/A. This is a physical device; there's no "training set" in the machine learning sense. The device is manufactured based on established engineering designs and material specifications.

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

N/A. No training set for AI. For device manufacturing, the "ground truth" for design and production parameters comes from established engineering best practices, prior successful device designs (predicate devices), and adherence to quality systems regulations (21 CFR Part 820).

Ask a specific question about this device

DESS Dental Smart Solutions abutments are intended to be used in conjunction with endosseous dental implants in the maxillary or mandibular arch to provide support for prosthetic restorations.

All digitally designed custom abutments for use with DESS Bases or Blanks are to be sent to a Terrats Medical validated milling center for manufacture.

The purpose of this submission is to add components to the DESS Dental Smart Solutions system, which includes abutments cleared previously in K170588, K173908, K191986, K203464, K212577, and K212628. This submission adds various abutments to eight (8) OEM implant lines from Keystone Dental, Inc., having three (3) implant-abutment connections (Internal TiLobe, Internal Conical). The subject device abutment designs include Multi Unit Abutments (straight and angled 17° and 30°), Ti Base abutments, and Premilled Blank Abutments. Abutments are provided with the appropriate abutment screw (if applicable) for attachment to the corresponding implant, and the appropriate prosthetic screw (if applicable) for attachment of a screw-retained prosthesis. All abutments and screws are provided non-sterile.

The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for a dental device (DESS Dental Smart Solutions abutments). It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices, primarily through engineering specifications, material composition, and non-clinical performance data for mechanical integrity and biocompatibility.

Crucially, this document does not describe an AI/ML-driven device or study parameters related to AI/ML performance. Therefore, most of the requested information (related to AI acceptance criteria, training/test sets, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and ground truth establishment for AI) cannot be extracted from this text.

The document details the physical characteristics, intended use, and mechanical testing of dental abutments, which are physical components used in dental implants. There is no mention of algorithms, artificial intelligence, machine learning, or any form of image analysis or diagnostic support that would involve such technologies.

Therefore, I can only provide information related to the device itself and its non-clinical testing, not an AI/ML study.

Here's what can be extracted from the document:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance (for non-AI device):

The document discusses "performance data" in the context of non-clinical analyses, referencing compliance with various ISO standards and published literature. The acceptance criteria are implied by adherence to these standards and the demonstration of substantial equivalence.

Regarding the AI-specific questions (2-9), the document provides no relevant information.

• 2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance: Not an AI device.
• 3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not an AI device.
• 4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not an AI device.
• 5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done: Not an AI device.
• 6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not an AI device.
• 7. The type of ground truth used: Not an AI device (ground truth concepts apply to AI/diagnostic performance, not mechanical devices). For this device, "ground truth" would be the measured physical properties and clinical use case defined by dental/medical standards.
• 8. The sample size for the training set: Not an AI device.
• 9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not an AI device.

Summary of Device and its "Study":

The device is a set of dental implant abutments. The "study" described is a non-clinical bench testing and engineering analysis to demonstrate the physical and material characteristics of the abutments and their substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices. It involves:

• Material composition analysis: Ensuring materials meet ASTM standards (Ti-6Al-4V ELI).
• Biocompatibility testing: Referenced from previous 510(k) submissions.
• Sterilization validation: Referenced from previous 510(k) submissions.
• MR environment compatibility analysis: Based on scientific rationale and published literature.
• Mechanical testing: Static compression and compression fatigue testing performed in conformance with ISO 14801 on worst-case configurations of the Multi Unit Angled Abutments and compatible implants.

This document clearly states: "No clinical data were included in this submission." This reinforces that the review process for this particular device is based on technical specifications and non-clinical performance, not clinical trials or AI/ML performance evaluations.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Proximerge™ 2 Dental Implant System is designed for use in edentulous sites in the mandible or maxilla as a single tooth replacement. These implants are indicated for delayed loading.

The Proximerge 2TM Dental Implant System is an integrated system of endosseous dental implants with corresponding abutments, temporary abutments, and closure screws. The implants are designed with elongation in the mesial-distal dimension. The implants have a 7mm length and a mesial-distal elongated footprint in 4.5x6.3mm, 4.5x7.6mm, 4.5x9.1mm, and 4.5x10.5mm options and are press-fit into the bone. The abutments have a 0° angulation, have post and gingival heights of 4.5mm and 2.4mm respectively for each implant size, and have a tapered implant-abutment interface . Temporary tissue former abutments (also called healing abutments) and healing caps are offered to protect the implant until the abutment is attached; the tissue formers and healing caps have the same angulation and implant-abutment interface as the permanent abutments. An M1.8 capture screw attaches the abutment, the tissue forming abutment, or the healing cap to the implant. All components in the Proximerge™ 2 Dental Implant System are manufactured from Ti-6A1-4V ELI per ASTM F136.

The provided text describes a medical device, the Proximerge™ 2 Dental Implant System, seeking 510(k) clearance from the FDA. It details device characteristics, comparisons to predicate devices, and performance data from non-clinical testing. However, it does not include acceptance criteria for an AI/ML powered device, nor does it describe a study involving an AI/ML model's performance.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information regarding AI/ML acceptance criteria or a study proving an AI device meets them based on the input text. The information requested (acceptance criteria table, sample size, expert qualifications, adjudication, MRMC, standalone performance, ground truth, training set size, etc.) is specifically for AI/ML performance evaluation, which is not present in this document about a dental implant system.

Ask a specific question about this device