Search Results

The NB Mini Implant System is indicated for use in surgical and restorative applications for placement in the mandibular central, lateral incisor and maxillary lateral incisor regions of partially edentulous jaws where the horizontal space is limited by the adjacent teeth and roots, to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, in order to restore the patient's chewing function. The NB Mini Implant System is indicated also for immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading.

The NB Mini Implant System consist of below: Fixture - NB Fixture Mini Abutment - Cover Screw - . Healing Abutment - Scan Healing Abutment - Scan Healing Abutment Screw - Cemented Abutment Mini - . Angled Abutment Mini - Abutment Screw The NB Fixture Mini is made of Ti-6AI-4V Eli (Conforming to ASTM F136) which will be placed in the alveolar bone to replace the function of the missing tooth. The NB Mini Implant System consists of dental implants, abutments for use in one or two-stage dental implant placement and restorations. The implant-abutment connection is tight and precise fitting with internal hex and morse taper bevel. The surface of the fixture is treated with SLA (Sandblasted with Large-grit and Acid-etching). It is only part to be implanted into bone, and to provide connection of prosthetic devices or other components of a dental implant set with human body (mandibular or maxillary bone).

This document is a 510(k) summary for the NB Mini Implant System by Arum Dentistry Co., Ltd. It declares that the device is substantially equivalent to existing predicate devices. Consequently, it does not contain a typical acceptance criteria table with reported device performance as would be found in a study demonstrating novel device performance. Instead, it provides a comparison to predicate devices to establish substantial equivalence.

Based on the provided text, here’s an analysis of the "acceptance criteria" and "study" information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

As noted, this document is a 510(k) summary for substantial equivalence, not a standalone performance study with explicit acceptance criteria. The "acceptance criteria" in this context are implicitly that the subject device's performance is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices. The "reported device performance" is presented through direct comparison of features and results of non-clinical benchtop tests against these predicate devices.

The table below summarizes the comparative information provided for the NB Fixture Mini (one component of the NB Mini Implant System) against its primary predicate and a reference device. Similar comparative summaries are provided for other components (Cover Screw, Healing Abutment, Scan Healing Abutment, Cemented Abutment Mini, Angled Abutment Mini, and Abutment Screw), all concluding substantial equivalence.

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

The document refers to a variety of non-clinical testing data for various components of the NB Mini Implant System:

• Mechanical performance testing (Fatigue test): "For each compatible implant line, worst-case constructs were subjected to static compression and compression fatigue testing." No specific numerical sample size is provided.
• Bone to Implant Contact (BIC) analysis: Conducted with NB Fixture Mini implants of diameters less than 3.25mm. No specific numerical sample size is provided.
• Surface area analysis: Conducted with NB Fixture Mini implants of diameters less than 3.25mm. No specific numerical sample size is provided.
• Pullout test: Conducted with NB Fixture Mini implants of diameters less than 3.25mm. No specific numerical sample size is provided.
• Biocompatibility: Demonstrated by reference to ARUM DENTISTRY submission K213506.
• Sterilization validation: Performed according to ISO 11137-1 and ISO 11137-2 (method VDmax25 for 25 kGy dose, referenced from K213506), End User Moist Heat Sterilization Test (ANSI/AAMI ST79, ISO 17665-1, -2, ISO 11737-1, -2 and ISO 11138-1, referenced from K213506), and LAL endotoxin testing (AAMI / ANSI ST72:2011/(R)2016).
• Shelf-Life: Accelerated aging method in accordance with ASTM F1980.

The data provenance is not explicitly stated as country of origin, retrospective or prospective, but all tests are non-clinical, meaning they were performed in a lab setting, likely by the manufacturer or a contract lab. The referenced 510(k) submissions (K213506, K190849, K220079, etc.) indicate these are devices marketed in the US, but the company (Arum Dentistry Co., Ltd.) is from the Republic of Korea.

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

This section is not applicable as the studies described are non-clinical benchtop tests, not clinical studies involving expert interpretation of patient data to establish ground truth.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

This section is not applicable as the studies described are non-clinical benchtop tests, not clinical studies requiring adjudication of human reader interpretations.

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

This section is not applicable. The device is an endosseous dental implant system, not an AI or software-based diagnostic tool that would typically be evaluated with MRMC studies or AI assistance.

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

This section is not applicable as the device is a physical medical implant, not an algorithm or AI system.

7. The type of ground truth used

For the non-clinical performance tests:

• Mechanical fatigue: The "ground truth" or reference for evaluating performance is the established mechanical properties and fatigue resistance standards (e.g., ISO 14801), and the performance of the predicate devices.
• Biocompatibility: Demonstrated via material testing and reference to previous submissions, ensuring the material meets established safety standards for biological interaction.
• Sterilization: Ground truth is defined by sterility assurance levels (e.g., SAL of 10^-6) and adherence to recognized standards (ISO 11137, ANSI/AAMI ST79).
• Shelf-Life: Ground truth is established by test methods (ASTM F1980) that predict long-term stability and integrity.
• BIC, Surface Area, Pullout: These are physical measurements compared against predicate device performance, implying the predicate's performance serves as the reference for "substantially equivalent" ground truth.

8. The sample size for the training set

This section is not applicable as the device is a physical medical implant, not an AI or software system that requires a training set.

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

This section is not applicable as the device is a physical medical implant, not an AI or software system that requires a training set and corresponding ground truth.

Ask a specific question about this device

ARUM Dentistry's Customized Abutments are intended for attachment to dental implants in order to provide support for customized prosthetic restorations. Customized Abutments are indicated for screw-retained single restorations or cement-retained single or multi-unit restorations. The Customized Abutment will be attached to a dental implant using the included ARUM Dentistry prosthetic screw.

Customized Abutments are compatible with the implant systems listed in the Compatibility Table:

| Implant Platform
compatibility | Restorative Platform
diameter (mm) | Implant Body diameter (mm) |
|-----------------------------------|---------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
| NB 1 SA Implant
System | 3.8, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, 5.5, 6.0, 6.5 | 3.8, 4.0, 4.15, 4.25, 4.5, 5.0 |

All digitally-designed Customized Abutments are intended to be sent to an ARUM Dentistry-validated milling center for manufacture.

Patient-specific abutment is made from Ti-6Al-4V Eli conforming to ASTM F136 to be used in fabricating patient-specific abutments. The subject devices are indicated for cemented or screwand cement retained prosthesis (SCRP) restorations. Each patient-specific abutment is individually prescribed by the clinician.

The diameters of patient-specific abutment are 3.8, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, 5.5, 6.0, 6.5 mm and two connection designs (Hex, Non-hex).

Patient-Specific Abutment is compatible with following Implant Systems:

Patient-specific abutments are supplied with an abutment screw previous cleared device as K222131 and 7 newly designed screws and provided non-sterile.

Patient-specific abutment design parameters:

The provided text describes the 510(k) submission for ARUM DENTISTRY Co., Ltd.'s "Customized Abutment." This is a Class II medical device (dental implant abutment). The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, which is a common pathway for FDA clearance.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information, based on the provided text. It's important to note that many of the typical "acceptance criteria" and "study proves that the device meets the acceptance criteria" details for AI/ML devices, such as those related to accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, or reader studies, are not applicable to this type of device. This is a physical, custom-fabricated medical device (dental abutment), not an AI/ML-driven diagnostic or treatment planning system. Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" here refer to performance testing (mechanical, biocompatibility, sterilization) to ensure the device is safe and effective and substantially equivalent to a predicate. The study that proves it meets criteria is the testing performed.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and the Data Provenance

• Test Set Sample Size: The document does not specify a numerical "sample size" in terms of number of abutments tested for mechanical performance. It refers to "worst-case constructs" for each compatible implant line. This is typical for mechanical testing where a representative "worst-case" configuration is tested to demonstrate the device's limits.
• Data Provenance: The testing data is derived from non-clinical performance tests (mechanical testing, sterilization validation, biocompatibility) of the device and its predicate. The origin of the raw data (e.g., specific lab, country) is not detailed, but it is implied to be internal or from a contract testing lab as part of the manufacturer's quality system. It is prospective for the specific tests performed to support this submission.

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

• This is not applicable to this type of medical device submission. Ground truth (in the AI/ML sense) is not established by human experts for mechanical/biocompatibility testing. The "ground truth" for proving the device meets acceptance criteria relies on the results of standardized engineering and biological tests conducted according to recognized standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM).

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not applicable. There is no human adjudication process involved in interpreting the results of mechanical, biocompatibility, or sterilization tests for this device. The results are compared directly to pre-defined criteria in the standards.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done

• No, an MRMC study was not done. This type of study is relevant for diagnostic imaging devices where human readers interpret medical images with and without AI assistance. This is a physical, custom-fabricated dental device, so such a study is not applicable.

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

• Not applicable. This device is not an algorithm. Performance evaluation for this device is based on physical and material properties, not algorithmic output.

7. The type of ground truth used

• The "ground truth" for this device's performance is established by objective, standardized test methods (e.g., stress-strain measurements for mechanical testing, biological assays for biocompatibility, sterility indicator results for sterilization). It is based on engineering and scientific standards rather than expert consensus on medical images or pathology.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This device is not an AI/ML or software device that undergoes "training." Its design and manufacturing are based on established engineering principles for dental abutments.

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

• Not applicable, as there is no "training set" for this type of device. The "ground truth" for its development and validation relies on adherence to design specifications, material standards, and validated manufacturing processes.

Ask a specific question about this device