Search Results

ICX-Implant System is indicated for use in partially or fully edentulous patients to support maxillary and mandibular single-unit, multiple-unit, and overdenture dental restorations. ICX- Implant System is indicated for immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading. Implants with lengths less than 7.0 mm are indicated for delayed loading only.

ICX-Implant System CAD CAM abutments are intended for use with dental implants as a support for single unit or multiple unit prostheses in the maxilla of a partially or fully edentulous patient. All digitally designed abutments for use with ICX-Implant System CAD CAM abutments are intended to be manufactured at a medentis medical GmbH validated milling center.

The purpose of this submission is to obtain marketing clearance for an endosseous dental implant and abutment system. ICX-Implant System, from medentis medical GmbH. The ICX-Implant System includes a range of endosseous dental implants and prosthetic components. All implants have a selftapping apical thread with a tapered body and root-form designs with an internal hex implant/abutment connection. The implant body surface is blasted and acid-etched.

Abutments are available in multiple designs, including straight and angled abutments intended for single tooth and multi-unit restorations.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the "ICX-Implant System." This document is a premarket notification for a medical device and, as such, focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices rather than proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria through a standalone performance study.

Therefore, the document does not contain the detailed information required to fully answer all aspects of your request, especially regarding specific acceptance criteria for AI/algorithm performance, multi-reader multi-case studies, or detailed ground truth establishment for a test/training set in the context of an AI device.

The document does describe non-clinical performance data for the dental implant system itself (e.g., sterilization, biocompatibility, mechanical testing) to show its safety and effectiveness, but not for an AI component.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text, highlighting what is present and what is missing:

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

• Missing: The document does not define "acceptance criteria" in the context of an AI/algorithm's performance (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC). Instead, it discusses the substantial equivalence of the ICX-Implant System and its components to predicate devices based on technological characteristics, materials, and indications for use.
• The "Performance Data" section (Page 7) lists non-clinical tests performed, such as:
  • Validation of gamma irradiation sterilization to a sterility assurance level (SAL) of 10⁻⁶.
  • Bacterial endotoxin testing:

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.

The purpose of this submission is to add components to the DESS Dental Smart Solutions system, which includes abutments compatible with a variety of original equipment manufacturers (OEM) of dental implants. This submission adds abutments, designated DESS Multi-Unit Abutments, for implant lines from Zimmer Dental and Biomet 31 (now collectively, ZimVie Dental). The subject device abutments include Multi-Unit Abutments in straight, 17° angled, and 30° angled designs, which are compatible with implants having internal hex connections. This submission is also to change how previously cleared devices are provided; the change is from previously provided nonsterile to now provided sterile. All abutments are provided with the appropriate abutment screw (if applicable) for attachment to the corresponding implant. The subject device is only intended for multi-unit restorations such as bridges and bars.

It appears there might be a misunderstanding of the provided text. The document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a dental implant abutment, not an AI/ML medical device. Therefore, the information typically required for describing an AI/ML device's acceptance criteria and study data (like sample sizes for test and training sets, expert qualifications, ground truth establishment, MRMC studies, or standalone performance) is not present.

The document discusses the substantial equivalence of the DESS Dental Smart Solutions abutment to legally marketed predicate devices. The "performance data" section refers to non-clinical testing to demonstrate the device's physical properties and compatibility, not a study evaluating an AI algorithm's diagnostic or predictive performance.

Let's break down what can be extracted from the provided text relevant to the device's acceptance, and then explain why the AI/ML specific questions cannot be answered.

Understanding the Device and its "Acceptance":

The "acceptance" in this context refers to the FDA's determination that the new DESS Dental Smart Solutions abutments are "substantially equivalent" to predicate devices already on the market. This determination is based on the device having the same intended use and similar technological characteristics (design, materials, performance via non-clinical testing).

Here's a summary of the information available in the document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria (or rather, Equivalence Criteria) and Reported Device Performance:

The document doesn't present acceptance criteria in a quantitative table with performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy, as would be common for an AI/ML device. Instead, "acceptance" is based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices across several characteristics. The performance is shown through non-clinical testing to ensure safety and functionality.

Important Note: The "acceptance criteria" here are qualitative statements of substantial equivalence, backed by quantitative non-clinical engineering and materials testing, not performance metrics from a clinical study or an AI model's accuracy.

Regarding the AI/ML Specific Questions:

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

• Not applicable. This document is for a physical medical device (dental implant abutment), not an AI/ML algorithm. There is no "test set" in the context of data for an AI/ML model. The "testing" refers to mechanical, material, and sterilization validation.

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

• Not applicable. Ground truth establishment by experts is relevant for AI/ML diagnostic devices. This device's performance is assessed through engineering standards and material properties. Compatibility with implant systems is established through design agreements and reverse engineering data (referenced from K170588).

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

• Not applicable. Adjudication methods are used in clinical studies or for establishing ground truth labels for AI/ML datasets.

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

• Not applicable. MRMC studies are for evaluating diagnostic efficacy, particularly with AI assistance. This device is a passive prosthetic component.

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

• Not applicable. There is no algorithm.

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

• Not applicable. The "ground truth" for this device's performance is its adherence to engineering standards (e.g., ISO 14801 for mechanical properties, ASTM for materials/MR safety) and its demonstrated compatibility with specified implant systems, rather than a clinical ground truth like disease presence.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. There is no AI model or training set.

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

• Not applicable. As above, no AI model or training set.

Conclusion from the document:

The provided document describes a 510(k) submission for a Class II medical device, DESS Dental Smart Solutions abutments. The "acceptance criteria" revolve around demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing legally marketed predicate devices. This is achieved through:

• Identical intended use.
• Similar technological characteristics: This includes materials (Titanium alloy), design (multi-unit, screw-retained), and geometric parameters (diameters, gingival heights).
• Performance via non-clinical testing: This includes mechanical testing (ISO 14801), MR safety testing (ASTM standards), sterilization validation (ANSI/AAMI/ISO standards), bacterial endotoxin testing (ANSI/AAMI ST72), shelf-life testing (ASTM F1980), and biocompatibility testing (ISO 10993-5).
• Compatibility with specified implant systems: This is supported by contractual agreements with OEMs (ZimVie/Terrats Medical SL) and referenced reverse engineering data.

The document explicitly states: "No clinical data were included in this submission." This further confirms that the evaluation framework is entirely non-clinical and does not involve AI/ML performance metrics, studies with human readers, or expert ground truthing as one would see for an AI-powered diagnostic tool.

Ask a specific question about this device