Search Results

Paltop Short Implants (Internal Hex and Conical Connections) are in surgical and restorative applications for placement in the bone of the upper or lower jaw as an artificial root structure for single tooth replacement or for fixed bridgework to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, in order to restore the patient's chewing function. Paltop Short Implants are indicated to be used only with straight abutments and are for delayed loading only.

The purpose of this submission is for the marketing clearance for the Paltop Short Implants which comprises endosseous root-form dental implants, cover screw, and compatible abutments.

The Subject device abutments are compatible with prior cleared implant bodies, and abutments from prior clearances are compatible with new Subject device implant bodies. Subject device abutments are also compatible with previously cleared implant bodies in K112795. Subject device are compatible with straight abutments previously cleared in K112795, K131451, K220200, and K221381.

Endosseous dental implants are surgically implanted into a patient's mouth to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, in order to restore the patient's chewing function. Endosseous dental implant abutments are secured to dental implants with a retaining screw to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, in order to restore the patient's chewing function.

The Paltop Short Implant System includes endosseous screw type dental implant bodies, which can be used in twostage surgeries with associated compatible abutments. The Subject device abutments provide a range of cementretained and screw-retained prosthetic solutions for dental implant restoration. Paltop Short Implant System includes six compatible implant abutment designs: Healing Caps, Straight, Temporary, Snap-On Abutment System (SAS) Abutment, and Straight Ball Abutment.

The implant bodies, titanium abutments and cover screw are fabricated from a Titanium 4 Vanadium ELI titanium alloy (Grade 23) which conforms to ASTM F136, Standard Specification for Wrought Titanium-6Aluminum-4Vanadium EU (Extra Low Interstitial) Alloy for Surgical Implant Applications (UNS R56401). The Subject device implant bodies are surface treated with SLA (Sand-blasted, Large Grit, Acid Etched). The Snap On Abutment System(SAS) Abutments are supplied sterile with a PEEK cap.

All implants and prosthetic components are one-time use device components are provided sterile and sterilized by gamma irradiation except for the replacement cover screws which are provided nonsterile. Devices provided as non-sterile are sterilized by steam.

I am sorry, but the provided text does not contain the specific details about the acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria. The document is an FDA 510(k) summary for Paltop Short Implants, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than presenting detailed acceptance criteria and study results for device performance in the way you've requested.

The text does mention "Comparative testing in the form of Pull-Out, surface area and BIC testing was performed to ensure that the performance of the subject device is appropriate for its intended use," but it does not provide the acceptance criteria for these tests, nor does it present the reported device performance values from these tests. It also states that "static and dynamic testing were not required" because the device is not significantly different from predicate devices.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for the detailed table and study information as the necessary data is not present in the provided document.

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 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

INNO SLA Submerged Narrow Implant System is intended for two-stage surgical procedures in the following situations and with the following clinical protocols:

• The intended use for the 3.3mm, 3.5mm diameter INNO Sub Narrow Implant is limited to the replacement of maxillary lateral incisors and mandibular incisors.

• Immediate placement in extraction situations with a partially or completely healed alveolar ridge.

• It is intended for delayed loading.

The INNO SLA Submerged Implant System offers the following components.

1 INNO SLA Submerged Narrow Fixture (Narrow) Ø 3.3 x 8.00, 10.00, 12.00, 14.00 mm Ø 3.5 x 8.00, 10.00, 12.00, 14.00 mm
2 Cover Screw (Narrow) Ø 2.84 x 5.0 mm Ø 3.23 x 6.0 mm Ø 3.62 x 7.0 mm
3 Healing Abutment (Narrow) Type 1 Ø3.5 x 6.7, 7.2, 9.2, 10.2, 11.2 mm
4 Healing Abutment (Narrow) Type 2 Ø 4.5 x 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 mm
5 Cemented Abutment (Narrow) Ø 4.5 x 7.85, 8.85, 9.85, 10.85, 11.85, 12.85, 13.85, 14.85mm Ø 4.5 x 9.35, 10.35, 11.35, 12.35, 13.35 mm Ø 4.5 x 7.65, 8.65, 9.65, 10.65, 11.65, 13.65, 14.65 mm Ø 4.5 x 9.15, 10.15, 11.15, 12.15, 13.15 mm
6 Angulated Abutment (Narrow) Ø 4.5 x 11.85, 12.85, 13.85, 14.85 mm (15°, 25°)
7 Multi S Abutment Ø 4.5 x 5, 5.8, 6mm
8 Multi A Abutment Ø 4.5 x 6.42, 7.42, 8.42, 6.96, 7.96mm (15°,30°) – Hex type Ø 4.5 x 6.23, 7.22, 8.22, 6.76, 7.76mm (15,30°) – Non Hex type
9 Multi Hybrid Ti-Base Cylinder Ø 4.5 x 4.5mm
10 Abutment Screw (Narrow) Ø 2.25 x 10.2 mm Ø 1.95 x 8.7 mm
Ø 1.95 x 9.3 mm
12 Multi Cylinder Screw Ø 2.25 x 5 mm
13 Straight Abutment Ø 3.5 x 13.5, 14, 15, 16, 17 mm
14 Temporary Abutment Ø 4.5 x 10 mm
15 Multi Titanium Cylinder Ø 4.5 x 9 mm

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device (INNO SLA Submerged Narrow Implant System). This type of document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices, not on proving clinical effectiveness or meeting specific performance acceptance criteria through a dedicated study.

Therefore, the document does not contain any information regarding:

• Acceptance criteria in the traditional sense of a clinical or performance study with numerical targets for metrics like sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, etc.
• The study that proves the device meets acceptance criteria (as no such study with performance metrics is presented).
• Sample size used for the test set or data provenance.
• Number of experts used to establish ground truth or their qualifications.
• Adjudication method.
• Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study.
• Standalone (algorithm only) performance.
• Ground truth type for a performance study.
• Sample size for the training set.
• How the ground truth for the training set was established.

Instead, the document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through:

1. Performance Data (Non-Clinical):

The performance testing listed focuses on engineering and material characteristics, leveraging previous clearances and established standards.

• Gamma radiation sterilization and shelf-life: Leveraged from Cowellmedi Co., Ltd.'s previous clearance K132242.
• Steam sterilization of abutments: Leveraged from Cowellmedi Co., Ltd.'s previous clearance K201323.
• Five-year shelf life and packaging: Leveraged from Cowellmedi Co., Ltd's previous clearance K132242.
• SLA surface treatment: Leveraged from Cowellmedi Co., Ltd.'s previous clearance K132242.
• Fatigue test in accordance with ISO 14801: This is an engineering test to ensure the mechanical integrity of the implant system. The document states: "We have performed the fatigue test to make sure the differences do not raise and the test result of the test supported substantial equivalence." However, no specific numerical acceptance criteria or results are provided in the summary.
• Biocompatibility endpoints: Leveraged from Cowellmedi Co., Ltd.'s previous clearance K132242.
• Non-clinical worst-case MRI review: Performed using scientific rationale and published literature to evaluate displacement force and torque.

2. Substantial Equivalence Discussion and Comparison Chart:

This section directly compares the subject device (INNO SLA Submerged Narrow Implant System) with various predicate and reference devices, highlighting similarities in:

• Intended Use
• Material (Titanium Grade 4 or Ti-6Al-4V ELI)
• Principle of Operation
• Design
• Surface Treatment (SLA, TiN Coating)
• Sterility (Gamma Sterilization, Non-sterile with terminal sterilization via moist heat/autoclave, End User Sterilization)
• Shelf Life (5 years)

The document asserts that slight differences, such as in abutment size options or diameter ranges, do not affect substantial equivalence or raise concerns about safety or performance.

In summary, for a traditional clinical or AI/ML performance study as requested, all fields would be "Not Applicable" or "Not Provided" based on the content of this 510(k) summary. The "acceptance criteria" here are implicitly that the device performs equivalently to the listed predicates based on the non-clinical tests and functional comparisons detailed.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Genesis ACTIVE Implant System is intended for use in single-stage or two-stage surgical procedures for replacing single or multiple missing teeth in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae. The Genesis ACTIVE Implant System supports single or multiple-unit restorations to re-establish patient chewing function and esthetics. Genesis ACTIVE implants are intended for placement following natural tooth loss or for immediate placement into an extraction socket. Immediate function may be achieved when good primary stability is established, and appropriate occlusal loading is applied.

All digitally designed custom abutments for use with Genesis ACTIVE Implants are to be sent to a Keystone Dental validated milling center for manufacture.

The KDG-Osteon Precision Milled Suprastructure is indicated for attachment to the Genesis ACTIVE Multi-Unit abutments in the treatment of partially or fully edentulous jaws for the purpose of restoring chewing function. The KDG-Osteon Precision Milled Suprastructure is intended for attachment to a minimum of two (2) abutments.

The purpose of this submission is for the marketing clearance for the Genesis ACTIVE Implant System which comprises endosseous root-form dental implants, mating compatible abutments, abutment screws, and other associated components for single-unit, multi-unit, and overdenture restorations.

Endosseous dental implants are surgically implanted into a patient's mouth to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, in order to restore the patient's chewing function. Endosseous dental implant abutments are secured to dental implants with a retaining screw to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, in order to restore the patient's chewing function. Prosthetic devices used with the dental implant abutments in this submission may be screw-retained or cement-retained.

The Genesis ACTIVE Implant System includes endosseous screw type dental implants which can be used in either single- or two-stage surgeries with associated compatible abutments, screws, and other associated accessory components. The Genesis ACTIVE Implant System includes eleven (11) compatible implant abutment designs: Healing Abutments, Straight, Angled Multi-Unit, Angled Multi-Unit, PEEK Straight Temporary, PEEK Angled Temporary, Temporary Cylinder, Titanium Temporary Immediate, Titanium Blank. There are four minor variations of the Titanium Base design: Ti-Base, ANGLEBase®, C-Base®, and ELLIPTIBase®. Prosthetic devices used with the dental implant abutments in this submission may be screw-retained or cemented.

The KDG-Osteon Precision Milled Suprastructure is an overdenture bar which is compatible with the Subject device Multi-Unit abutments. The overdenture bar is a dental restorative device that is intended for screw-retained attachment to dental abutments to aid in the treatment of partial or totally edentulous patients for the purpose of restoring their chewing function. The KDG-Osteon Precision Milled Suprastructure is fabricated by means of CAD/CAM technology by a Keystone Dental Group company and is used to facilitate the attachment of both fixed and removable prostheses.

Subject device implants are manufactured from Commercially Pure (CP) – Grade 4 titanium conforming to ISO 5832-2, Implants for surgery — Metallic materials — Part 2: Unalloyed titanium and ASTM F67, Standard Specification for Unalloyed Titanium, for Surgical Implant Applications (UNS R50250, UNS R50550, UNS R50700). They are anodized pink (AnaTite™) to provide a pink color and have the BioSpark™ surface treatment which results in a hydrophilic surface enriched with calcium and phosphorous ions.

All titanium Subject device abutments, accessories and screws are manufactured from titanium alloy conforming to ASTM F136, Standard Specification for Wrought Titanium-4Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) Alloy for Surgical Implant Applications (UNS R5640). Except for the Titanium Blank abutment design, all titanium Subject device abutments are anodized pink. Post surfaces of select abutments receive a media blasting treatment referred to as AnaTite™ or TiPink.

Subject device PEEK temporary abutments are fabricated from PEEK (PolyEther Ether Ketone) material.

All implants and prosthetic components are one-time use devices. All Subject device components are provided sterile and sterilized by gamma irradiation, except for Titanium Blank abutments and the KDG-Osteon Precision Milled Suprastructure which are provided non-sterile. Devices provided non-sterile or modified are sterilized by steam.

The provided text describes the 510(k) summary for the Keystone Dental Inc. "Genesis ACTIVE Implant System." It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through technical comparisons and non-clinical performance testing. The document explicitly states that no clinical data were included in this submission, which means there was no study proving the device meets acceptance criteria related to human performance or clinical outcomes.

Therefore, many of the requested information points, particularly those pertaining to acceptance criteria for AI performance, sample sizes for test sets in clinical studies, expert involvement in ground truth establishment for such studies, MRMC studies, and standalone performance, cannot be answered from the provided text.

The document primarily discusses bench testing and material/design comparisons to establish equivalence, rather than clinical performance acceptance criteria or studies involving human readers or AI.

Here's what can be extracted from the provided text:

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

The document focuses on non-clinical performance testing (bench testing) and material/design specifications for establishing substantial equivalence, rather than specific performance metrics or acceptance criteria typically seen for AI/diagnostic devices in clinical settings. The acceptance is based on demonstrating the new device performs similarly and is as safe and effective as the predicate device through these non-clinical tests.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not applicable in the context of this 510(k) submission, as it relies on non-clinical data (bench testing) rather than a clinical test set. The number of samples for each bench test is not specified in this summary document.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable for clinical data. For non-clinical (bench) testing, the tests were conducted according to recognized international standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM, USP).

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

• Not applicable. No clinical test set or ground truth established by experts is described, as the submission focuses on non-clinical data.

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

• Not applicable. No test set requiring adjudication in a human reader study is described.

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

• No MRMC study was done. The document explicitly states: "No clinical data were included in this submission."

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

• Not applicable. This device is a physical dental implant system, not an AI algorithm. Its "performance" is mechanical and biological, not diagnostic or algorithmic.

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

• Not applicable for clinical ground truth. The "ground truth" for this submission are the standards and specifications (e.g., ISO 14801 for mechanical fatigue, ISO 10993 for biocompatibility) against which the device's physical and material properties are tested in a lab setting.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device that requires training data.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device.

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

KDG Abutments are pre-manufactured prosthetic components for direct connection to endosseous dental implants and are intended for use as an aid in prosthetic rehabilitation.

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

Endosseous dental implants are surgically implanted into a patient's mouth to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, in order to restore the patient's chewing function. Endosseous dental implant are secured to dental implants with a retaining screw to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, in order to restore the patient's chewing function. Prosthetic devices used with the dental implant abutments in this submission may be screw-retained or cemented.

The purpose of this submission is the marketing clearance for KDG Abutments which comprises endosseous rootform dental abutments, abutment screws, and other associated components for single-unit, and overdenture restorations. The Subject device abutment components introduce 30° post correction angle multi-unit abutments compatible with the sponsor's previously cleared implants.

The Keystone family of abutments are compatible with the Keystone implants which have a hex-lobe internal connection. The Paltop family of abutments are compatible with the Paltop implants which have hex-wall internal connection.

The KDG-Osteon Precision Milled Suprastructure is an overdenture bar which is compatible with the Subject device abutments. The overdenture bar is dental restorative device that is intended for screw-retained attachment to dental abutments to aid in the treatment of partial and totally edentulous patients for the purpose of restoring their chewing function. The KDG-Osteon Precision Milled Suprastructure is fabricated by means of CAD/CAM technology and is used to facilitate the attachment of both fixed and removable prostheses.

The Osteon Precision Milled Suprastructure is designed for an individual patient from scans of the patient's impression. The suprastructure is manufactured in biocompatible Titanium alloy with the aid of Computer Aided Design (CAD) and Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAM) technology. All CAD/CAM fabrication is performed by Osteon Medical, within our premises. The abutment-born Suprastructure is only indicated for straight placement and is not to exceed the maximum angulation of the connected multi-unit abutments.

KDG-Osteon Precision Milled Suprastructures facilitate the attachment of both removable and fixed dental prosthesis and hence categorized as type B.

The Subject device abutments, abutment screws, and bar suprastructure are fabricated from Ti-6Al-4V ELI titanium alloy (Grade 23) which conforms to ASTM F136, Standard Specification for Wrought Titanium-6Aluminum-4Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) Alloy for Surgical Implant Applications (UNS R56401).

All Subject device components are one-time use device components are provided sterile and sterilized by gamma irradiation except for the Single-Unit and Multi-Unit copings, the KDG-Osteon Precision Milled Suprastructure and all replacement screws which are provided non-sterile. Devices provided as non-sterile are sterilized by steam.

The provided document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from the FDA to Keystone Dental Inc. regarding their KDG Abutments. This document primarily focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on indications for use and technological characteristics, supported by non-clinical performance data.

Crucially, this document does NOT contain information related to a study that proves the device meets specific acceptance criteria for AI/ML performance, nor does it describe a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study, standalone algorithm performance, or the establishment of ground truth for training or test sets in the context of an AI-powered device.

The acceptance criteria mentioned in the document refer to the performance of dental abutments in the context of mechanical testing (fatigue testing per ISO 14801:2016) and biocompatibility, not the performance of an AI/ML algorithm.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information for acceptance criteria and studies related to AI/ML performance based on the input text. The information in the document pertains to traditional medical device clearance.

Ask a specific question about this device