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.

The purpose of this submission is to expand the DESS Dental Smart Solutions abutment system cleared under K221301 to add the ability for the subject device Base Abutments and Pre-milled (Blank) Abutments to be designed using AbutmentCAD software in the digital dentistry workflow, as well as add angulation to some of the Pre-Milled (Blank) Abutments. The subject devices are to Terrats Medical validated milling centers for manufacture, or to be designed and manufactured via a digital dentistry workflow. The digital dentistry workflow integrates multiple components: scan files from intra-oral and lab (desktop) scanners, CAD software, CAM software, titanium and ceramic material, milling machine, and associated tooling and accessories. The proposed change is to allow the subject devices to be designed using AbutmentCAD by exocad GmbH, the current workflow allows only the use of 3Shape by 3Shape A/S for the design software. Another purpose of this submission is to expand the design parameters to allow angulation (up to 30°) on Pre-milled (Blank) Abutments that are compatible with Neodent Grand Morse, Nobel Active/Nobel Parallel Conical 3.0 mm, and Straumann BLX implants. There are no changes to the abutment design or implant compatibilities. All part numbers have been cleared for manufacturing via a validated milling center and digital dentistry workflows in under K221301.

The subject device DESS Dental Solutions abutments provide a range of prosthetic solutions for dental implant restoration. DESS abutments are offered in a variety of connection types to enable compatibility with currently marketed dental implants. All abutments are provided non-sterile, and each abutment is supplied with the appropriate abutment screw (if applicable) for attachment to the corresponding implant.

Subject device Base Abutments are designed for fabrication of a patient-specific CAD/CAM zirconia superstructure on which a crown may be placed. They are two-piece abutments for which the second part (or top half) is the ceramic superstructure. They also may be used for support of a crown directly on the abutment.

All patient-specific custom abutment fabrication for Base Abutments and Pre-milled (Blank) Abutments is by prescription on the order of the clinician. The subject device Pre-milled (Blank) Abutments and all zirconia superstructures for use with the subject device Ti Base Interface, DESS Aurum Base, ELLIPTIBase, and DESS C-Base will be manufactured using a validated milling center or a digital dentistry workflow. A validated milling center will be under FDA quality system regulations. The digital dentistry workflow scans files from intra-oral and lab (desktop) scanners, CAD software, titanium and ceramic material, milling machine and associated tooling and accessories.

The digital dentistry workflow uses scan files from intra-oral and lab (desktop) scanners, CAD software, CAM software, ceramic material, milling machine and associated tooling and accessories. The digital workflow includes the following products (not subject devices of this submission):

• Ceramic material: VITA YZ ST and VITA YZ XT (K180703)
• . Cement: Ivoclar Vivadent Multilink Hybrid Abutment Cement (K130436)
• . Intraoral Scanner: 3Shape TRIOS A/S Series Intraoral Scanner (510(k) exempt under 21 CFR 872.3661)
• Desktop scanner: 3Shape D900 Dental Lab Scanner (510(k) exempt under 21 CFR 872.3661)
• Abutment design software: 3Shape Abutment Designer Software (K151455) and AbutmentCAD ● (K193352)
• . Milling machine: VHF R5 by vhf camfacture AG with DentalCAM and DentalCNC 7 software

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for DESS Dental Smart Solutions, which are dental implant abutments. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving a device's effectiveness through clinical performance studies with specific statistical acceptance criteria for accuracy, sensitivity, or specificity.

Therefore, the document does not contain the information requested regarding:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance (in terms of clinical metrics like accuracy, sensitivity, specificity).
• Sample size used for the test set or its provenance.
• Number of experts used to establish ground truth or their qualifications.
• Adjudication method for the test set.
• Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study or its effect size.
• Standalone (algorithm only) performance.
• Type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data).
• Sample size for the training set.
• How the ground truth for the training set was established.

The study described in this document focuses on non-clinical performance data to demonstrate substantial equivalence, specifically:

1. Sterilization validation: According to ISO 17665-1, ISO 17665-2, and ISO 14937.
2. Biocompatibility testing: According to ISO 10993-5 and ISO 10993-12.
3. Fatigue testing and reverse engineering analysis: Of OEM implant bodies, OEM abutments, and OEM abutment screws to confirm compatibility. This includes fatigue testing of OEM implant bodies with patient-specific abutments made at worst-case angled conditions.
4. MR Conditional labeling.
5. Validation testing of CAM restriction zones: Including verification to show avoidance of damage or modifications of the connection geometry, and locking of restriction zones from user editing in the CAM software.
6. Software verification: Included testing of restrictions that prevent design of components outside of the stated design parameters. The abutment design library was validated to demonstrate that established design limitations and specifications are locked and cannot be modified by the user.

The acceptance criteria and reported "performance" for this submission are based on these engineering and design validations, ensuring the device meets safety and performance standards equivalent to the predicate device, K221301. The key "performance" metrics are about maintaining physical and material integrity and compatibility.

The core of the submission is to expand the DESS Dental Smart Solutions abutment system to:

• Allow design using AbutmentCAD software (in addition to 3Shape software).
• Add angulation (up to 30°) to some Pre-milled (Blank) Abutments for specific implant systems.

The document explicitly states: "No clinical data were included in this submission." and "The subject device, the predicate device, and reference devices have the same intended use, technological characteristics, and are materials. The subject device, the predicate device, and reference devices encompass the same range of physical dimensions, manufactured by similar methods, are packaged in similar materials, and are to be sterilized using similar methods. The data included in this submission demonstrate substantial equivalence to the predicate devices listed above."

Therefore, this FDA submission is for a physical medical device (dental implant abutment) and its manufacturing/design software modifications, not an AI or diagnostic device that would involve clinical performance metrics like sensitivity or specificity.

Ask a specific question about this device

NobelProcera® Titanium ASC Abutments:

NobelProcera® Abutment Titanium is a patient-matched CAD/CAM prosthetic component directly connected to endosseous dental implants and is indicated for use as an aid in prosthetic rehabilitation.

Omnigrip Clinical Screw Titanium:

Clinical and Abutment Screws are indicated for use to secure a dental abutment or framework to a dental implant in the maxilla or mandible for supporting tooth replacements and are indicated as an aid in prosthetic rehabilitation.

The Subject Device NobelProcera® Titanium ASC Abutment is composed of two device lines: NobelProcera® Titanium ASC Abutment and the Clinical Screw Omnigrip Titanium.

NobelProcera® Titanium ASC Abutment is a patient matched CAD/CAM dental prosthesis which is connected to the Nobel Biocare implants featuring an internal conical and/or internal tri-channel connection, is available in the platform sizes NP, RP WP and 6.0 (for internal tri-channel connection only) and is intended for use as an aid in prosthetic rehabilitation to restore chewing function and esthetic appearance.

NobelProcera® Titanium ASC Abutments undergo patient matched customization at a Nobel Biocare production facility for the final, finished abutment device manufacturing.

NobelProcera® Titanium ASC Abutment is connected to the implant with a clinical screw and features an angulated screw channel which can be defined by the customer in an angulation (to the implant's axis) between 0° and 25°, in addition the abutment can be angulated to a maximum of 30°. The clinical screw features the Omnigrip Interface which allows tightening up to 25°.

NobelProcera® Titanium ASC Abutment and Omnigrip Clinical Screw Titanium are composed of titanium vanadium alloy Ti6Al4V ELI (ISO 5832-3, ASTM F136) and the surface of the abutments are provided with and without anodization and the Omnigrip Clinical Screw Titanium are provided with and without DLC coating.

The finished NobelProcera® Titanium ASC Abutment supports the placement of a cement-retained dental prosthesis.

Omnigrip Clinical Screw Titanium is available for the NP, RP, WP and 6.0 (for internal tri-channel connection only) platform, the devices connect the NobelProcera Titanium ASC Abutments to the dental implants. The devices feature an Omnigrip interface.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding acceptance criteria and device performance.

Important Note: The provided document is an FDA 510(k) Premarket Notification letter. This type of document is a submission seeking regulatory clearance, not a standalone study report. As such, it outlines the basis for demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, which includes non-clinical testing. It does not typically contain detailed acceptance criteria and performance data for a study proving a device meets those criteria in the way a clinical trial report or a comprehensive validation study would.

The document primarily focuses on demonstrating that the new device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices, meaning it is as safe and effective. It refers to non-clinical tests that were performed, but does not present the specific acceptance criteria or the numerical results of those tests in a "performance table" format.

Therefore, many of the requested points below cannot be fully extracted from this document, as it's not the type of report that contains that level of detail for acceptance criteria and specific study outcomes. I will highlight what can be inferred or directly stated from the provided text, and what cannot.

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

The document does not explicitly present a table of "acceptance criteria" alongside "reported device performance" in a quantitative manner as one might find in a detailed engineering validation report or a clinical study. Instead, it states that "non-clinical tests demonstrate that the device is substantial equivalent."

The document mentions several tests and standards the device was subjected to:

• Packaging system performance testing: per ASTM D4169. (Specific acceptance criteria and reported performance not detailed.)
• Dynamic loading testing: conducted according to ISO 14801 and FDA Guidance Document ("Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Root-form Endosseous Dental Implants and Endosseous Dental Abutments" (May 12, 2004)). (Specific acceptance criteria and reported performance not detailed.)
• Magnetic Resonance compatibility testing: according to ASTM F2052, ASTM F2213, ASTM F2119, and ASTM F2182. Status: "MR Conditional." (This is a performance outcome, but the specific metrics and acceptance thresholds for each ASTM standard are not detailed.)
• Verification of biocompatibility: in accordance with ISO 10993-1. (The conclusion is that "no new issues regarding biocompatibility were raised," implying acceptance, but specific criteria and test results not detailed.)
• End user cleaning and sterilization validation: in accordance with ISO 17665-1. (Implied acceptance, but specific criteria and results not detailed.)

The "acceptance criteria" here are generally referred to as meeting the requirements of the standards and demonstrating substantial equivalence to the predicate device. The "reported device performance" is summarized as favorable results sufficient for substantial equivalence determination.

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

• Sample sizes: Not specified in the provided text for any of the non-clinical tests mentioned (packaging, dynamic loading, MR compatibility, biocompatibility, sterilization validation).
• Data provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin). The testing is non-clinical/bench testing, not patient data. It is implied to be internal testing by the manufacturer, Nobel Biocare AB (Sweden).
• Retrospective or prospective: N/A, as these are non-clinical/bench tests, not clinical studies involving patient data.

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

• Applicability: This question is not directly applicable to the type of non-clinical, bench testing described for the NobelProcera® Titanium ASC Abutment and Omnigrip Clinical Screw Titanium. "Ground truth" established by experts (e.g., radiologists for image interpretation) is relevant for AI/ML device evaluations, particularly in diagnostics. This document refers to physical device testing (mechanical, biocompatibility, etc.).

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

• Applicability: Not applicable. Adjudication methods are typically used in clinical studies or expert reviews to resolve disagreements in interpretations or diagnoses for establishing "ground truth," which is not the nature of the non-clinical tests described here.

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

• Applicability: Not applicable. This device is a dental abutment and screw, not an AI/ML-enabled diagnostic device for image interpretation. Therefore, no MRMC study or AI assistance evaluation would have been performed.

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

• Applicability: Not applicable. See point 5. This is a physical medical device, not a standalone algorithm.

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

• Applicability: The concept of "ground truth" as typically applied in AI/ML validation (e.g., for diagnostic accuracy) does not directly apply to the non-clinical device testing described. For these tests, the "ground truth" is typically defined by the specified parameters and performance requirements of the relevant international standards (e.g., ISO 14801 for dynamic loading, ISO 10993-1 for biocompatibility). The devices are expected to meet the performance criteria defined by these standards.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Applicability: Not applicable. This refers to the training of an AI/ML algorithm. The document describes a physical medical device.

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

• Applicability: Not applicable. See point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device