Search Results

Geo Abutments are intended for use to support a prosthetic device in a partially or completely edentulous patient. They are intended to support a single-unit or multi-unit cement-retained prosthesis in the mandible or maxilla. Geo Abutments are compatible with the following implants. All digitally designed custom abutments for use with Geo Abutments are to be sent to a GeoMedi Co. Ltd. validated milling center for manufacture.

The purpose of this submission is to obtain marketing clearance for Geo Abutment from GeoMedi Co., Ltd. a line of titanium base abutments (identified as Multibase) and machinable blank abutments (identified as CMFit) to interface with compatible dental implants from four (4) manufacturers, and a total of seven (7) implant-abutment connections. The compatible implant body diameters range from 3.0 mm to 8.0 mm. The subject device prosthetic platform diameters range from 4.0 mm to 4.6 mm. All patient-specific abutments prepared from subject device Geo Abutment are to be manufactured at a GeoMedi validated milling center.

Geo Multibase abutments are two-piece abutments in which the Geo Multibase Abutment comprises the first part of the two-piece abutment and a patient-specific zirconia superstructure comprises the second part; the assembly becoming a final finished medical device after cementation of the superstructure on the subject device abutment. They are provided in straight designs, and two (2) connection types: for single unit prostheses (engaging connection) and for bridge or multi-unit prostheses (non-engaging connection). They are not intended for angulation correction, as the design parameters for the superstructure are restricted to straight abutments only.

These abutments are made of titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) with a titanium nitride (TiN) coating on the coronal portion of the external surface, not including the implant-abutment interface.

The Geo Multibase abutment and corresponding zirconia superstructure are provided to the clinician either with the superstructure cemented to the abutment by the dental laboratory or separately, for the clinician to bond together chairside, using the cement required in the labeling (3M ESPE RelyX Unicem bonding cement, cleared in K022476 as RelyX RMGIP).

All patient-specific custom zirconia superstructure fabrication is by prescription on the order of the clinician.

The design parameters for zirconia superstructures to be used with Geo Multibase abutments are:

• Minimum wall thickness – 0.5 mm
• Minimum cementable post height for single-unit restoration – 4.0 mm (minimum cementable post height for single-unit restoration is defined as the height above the restorative margin)
• Minimum gingival height of the superstructure – 0 mm (Geo Multibase abutments have minimum gingival height of 1.0 mm)
• Maximum gingival height – 5.0 mm
• Maximum angle – 0° (straight only)

All zirconia copings (superstructures) for use with the subject device Geo Multibase abutment will be made at a GeoMedi Co., Ltd. validated milling center under FDA quality system regulations, and the material will conform to ISO 13356, Implants for surgery – Ceramic materials based on yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia (Y-TZP).

Geo CMFit abutments are cylindrical titanium alloy abutments designed to be used for fabrication of a one-piece, all titanium patient-specific abutment by a CAD/CAM process. The portion of the abutment available for milling is either 9.9 mm in diameter by 20 mm in length or 13.9 mm in diameter by 20 mm in length. Geo CMFit abutments are available in engaging and non-engaging connections.

All patient-specific abutment fabrication is by prescription on the order of the clinician. The design parameters for all CMFit patient-specific abutments are:

• Minimum wall thickness – 0.65 mm
• Minimum cementable post height for single-unit restoration – 4.0 mm (minimum cementable post height for single-unit restoration is defined as the height above the restorative margin)
• Minimum gingival height – 0.5 mm
• Maximum gingival height – 5.0 mm
• Maximum angle – 30°

Manufacture of the Geo Abutment CMFIT patient-specific abutment is to be performed at an GeoMedi Co., Ltd. validated milling center.

The provided text is a 510(k) clearance letter for a dental implant abutment, not an AI/ML medical device where performance characteristics like sensitivity, specificity, or reader studies are typically discussed.

The document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through:

• Indications for Use (IFU) comparison: Showing that the intended use of the Geo Abutment is the same as already cleared devices (supporting prosthetic devices in edentulous patients, compatible with various implants).
• Technological characteristics comparison: Detailing similarities in design, materials (titanium alloy, TiN coating, zirconia for superstructures), manufacturing processes (CAD/CAM, milling center), mechanical properties, and sterilization methods.
• Non-clinical performance data: This section lists types of tests conducted (e.g., mechanical testing per ISO 14801, shear/tension testing per ASTM F1044/F1147, sterilization validation per ISO 17665-1/2, biocompatibility per ISO 10993-5/12) to ensure the device meets safety and performance standards equivalent to the predicate. However, it does not provide acceptance criteria or specific numerical results from these tests. It only states that these tests were done to "demonstrate that the subject devices... have sufficient strength for the intended use" and "characterize the mechanical properties."

Therefore, based on the provided document, I cannot fulfill your request for:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: This detailed information is typically part of the test reports submitted to the FDA, but not usually summarized in the publicly available 510(k) clearance letter or summary in this level of detail (i.e., the specific pass/fail thresholds and the measured values for each test). The document only states what was tested and the conclusion that it demonstrated "sufficient strength."
2. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance: This information is not present in the 510(k) summary. These details would be in the specific test protocols and reports.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth... and their qualifications: This is not applicable as this is a physical device, not an AI/ML diagnostic aid requiring human expert annotation for ground truth.
4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable for this type of device.
5. MRMC comparative effectiveness study: Not applicable for a physical dental abutment. This is typically for AI/ML diagnostic devices.
6. Standalone (algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance): Not applicable for a physical device.
7. The type of ground truth used: For a physical device like a dental abutment, "ground truth" relates to material properties, mechanical strength, dimensional accuracy, and biocompatibility, as demonstrated through engineering tests and material characterization, not clinical outcomes or expert consensus in an AI sense. The document refers to ISO and ASTM standards, which define the test methods and what constitutes acceptable performance (the "ground truth" for material and mechanical properties).
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

In summary, the provided document demonstrates substantial equivalence for a physical dental device through comparison to predicate devices and adherence to established engineering and material standards, rather than through clinical study formats typically seen for AI/ML diagnostic tools.

To answer your question, if this were an AI/ML device document, the "acceptance criteria" and "reported device performance" would typically be found in sections describing performance metrics like:

• Sensitivity, Specificity, Accuracy
• Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve (AUC)
• Positive Predictive Value (PPV), Negative Predictive Value (NPV)
• F-score or Dice coefficient (for segmentation tasks)
• Comparison to a "clinical standard of care" or "expert performance."

And the "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" would be a clinical validation study (often a retrospective or prospective reader study or a standalone algorithm performance study) with clearly defined ground truth, reader qualifications, and statistical analysis. None of these elements are present because the device is a physical dental abutment.

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 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