Search Results

Elos Accurate Hybrid Base
The Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base The intended for attaching to dental inplants in order to provide basis for dental implant and a zirconia superstructure and will be attached to the implant using a prosthetic screw and attached to the zirconia superstructure by cementing.
The Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base™ is compatible with the implant systems listed in table 1:
Table 1.
Implant Platform compatibility | Platform diameter [mm] | Implant Body diameter [mm]
Straumann BLX RB/WB | Ø3.4/Ø3.5/Ø4.5 | Ø3.5/Ø3.75/Ø4/Ø4.5/Ø5/Ø5.5/Ø6.5
The zirconia superstructures for use with the Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base "" are either intended to be sent and manufactured at a FDA registered Elos Medtech approved milling facility or to be designed and manufactured according to digital dentistry workflow system integrates multiple components of the digital dentistry workflow: scan files from Intra-Oral Scanners, CAD software, ceramic material, milling machine and associated tooling and accessories.

Elos Accurate Customized Abutment
The Elos Accurate® Customized Abutments are intended for attaching to dental implants in order to provide basis for single or multiple tooth prosthetic restorations. The Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment will be attached to a dental implant using the included Elos Prosthetic screw.
The Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment is compatible with the implant systems listed in table 1: Table 1.
Implant Platform compatibility | Platform diameter [mm] | Implant Body diameter [mm]
Straumann BLX RB/WB | Ø3.4/Ø3.5/Ø4.5 | Ø3.5/Ø3.75/Ø4/Ø4.5/Ø5/Ø5.5/Ø6.5
Astra Tech 3.0 | Ø3. | Ø3
Astra Tech EV 3.0 | Ø3 | Ø3
All digitally designed CAD/CAM customizations for the Elos Accurate® Customized Abutments are either intended to be sent and manufactured at a FDA registered Elos Medtech approved milling facility or to be designed and manufactured according to digital dentistry workflow system integrates multiple components of the digital dentistry workflow: scan files from Intra-Oral Scanners, CAD software, CAM software, milling machine and associated tooling and accessories.

The Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment and Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base™ are both patient-specific components designed for attaching to dental implants, providing a basis for single or multiple tooth prosthetic restorations.
The Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment and Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base™ will be attached to the implant using the included Elos Prosthetic Screw.
The Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base™ is a two-piece abutment composed of the pre-manufactured prosthetic component, the Hybrid Base in Titanium alloy per ASTM F136, as the bottom-half, and the zirconia superstructure as the top-half, which the laboratory/clinic is designing by use of the 510(k) cleared design software (3Shape Abutment Designer™ Software, K151455), which when assembled comprises the finished medical device. The laboratory designed superstructure is manufactured from 510(k) cleared Zirconia (Lava Plus, K011394) according to digital dentistry workflow. The laboratory designed superstructure is attached to the Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base by use of 510(k) cleared cement (Multilink Hybrid Abutment, K130436 or Panavia V5, K150704) While the Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment is a one-piece abutment which consists of an Abutment Blank used in fabricating of a full patient-specific abutment in Titanium alloy per ASTM F136. The Abutment Blank used in creation of the Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment has a pre-manufactured connection interface that fits directly to a pre-specified dental implant. The same applies to the Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base™ which fits directly to an endosseous dental implant. The customized shape of the abutment is intended to be manufactured according to a digital dentistry workflow or intended to be manufactured at an FDA registered Elos Medtech approved milling facility.
The Elos Accurate library files for both Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment and Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base™ have built-in design limitations, and the user isn't allowed to exceed these limitations as follows:
Customized Abutments: | Hybrid Base abutments (zirconia part):
Min. wall thickness 0.4 mm | Min. wall thickness 0.5 mm
Gingival height min. 0.5mm or max. 5 mm | Gingival height min. 0.5mm or max. 5 mm
Max. angulation 20° or 30°. | Max. angulation 20°.
Min. post height* 4 mm | Min. post height* 4 mm
*The post height is defined as the cementable height of the abutment.
The Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment and the Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base™ are both delivered non-sterile and the final restoration including corresponding Elos Prosthetic Screw is intended to be sterilized at the dental clinic before it is placed in the patient.

The provided text describes the submission of a 510(k) premarket notification for the "Elos Accurate® Hybrid Base™" and "Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment" dental devices. The purpose of this submission is to demonstrate that these devices are substantially equivalent to previously marketed predicate devices. The document details the indications for use, product descriptions, a comparison of technological characteristics with predicate devices, and a summary of non-clinical testing.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study proving device conformity:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria & Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are not explicitly stated with numerical targets in the document. Instead, the document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices. The "reported device performance" is primarily presented as the devices meeting the same or similar functional and safety standards as the predicate devices, with specific validations for expanded compatibility and design workflows.

The "Element of Comparison" table acts as a de facto set of acceptance criteria, where the subject device's characteristics are compared against the predicate devices, and "Substantial equivalent" is the reported "performance."

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

The document does not specify a "test set" in the context of an AI/human performance study. Instead, the testing described is primarily engineering and material characterization:

• Fatigue testing per ISO 14801: This testing involves multiple samples to assess mechanical durability. While the exact number of samples isn't given, standard ISO 14801 typically requires a significant number of samples tested to failure or for a specified number of cycles.
• Biocompatibility testing for cytotoxicity (ISO 10993-5): This testing would use biological samples or cell lines. The document states it's leveraged from previously cleared products (K230317/K231317) on "identically manufactured abutments and prosthetic screws manufactured from the same material."
• Sterilization validation (ISO 17665-1 & ISO 17665-2): Involves using Biological Indicators (BIs) or other validation methods, typically multiple cycles and samples. Leveraged from K230317/K231317.
• MRI Conditional Safety Evaluations (ASTM F2052, ASTM F2119, ASTM F2213, ASTM F2182): A "worst-case assembly" was tested, implying at least one, but possibly multiple, physical assemblies to cover various MRI conditions. Leveraged from K230317/K231317.
• Digital dentistry workflow validation: Conducted on "selected model of subject product lines," implying a representative set of designs.

Data Provenance: The data comes from non-clinical testing performed by the manufacturer (or leveraged from prior submissions by the same manufacturer, Elos Medtech Pinol A/S). The origin is Denmark (company location). The testing is prospective for the current submission but leverages retrospective data from previous clearances.

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

This information is not applicable to this submission. The device is a physical dental abutment, not an AI/diagnostic device that generates an output requiring expert interpretation for ground truth establishment. The "ground truth" for this device relates to its physical, mechanical, and biological properties, which are established through standardized engineering and laboratory tests, not expert consensus on diagnostic images.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

This is not applicable as there is no test set involving expert interpretation or a diagnostic outcome that would require adjudication.

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 is not applicable as the device is a physical dental abutment, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool or software.

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

This is not applicable as the device is a physical dental abutment. The "digital dentistry workflow" involves software (3Shape Abutment Designer Software) but this is used for design and manufacturing, not for standalone diagnostic performance assessment.

7. The type of ground truth used

The "ground truth" for this engineering-focused submission is established through:

• Engineering and dimensional analysis: Measurements and specifications of various components (abutments, implants, screws).
• Mechanical testing: Fatigue testing per ISO 14801 to assess durability and strength under simulated physiological loading.
• Biocompatibility testing: Standardized testing (ISO 10993-5) to confirm non-cytotoxicity.
• Sterilization validation: Standardized testing (ISO 17665-1 & ISO 17665-2) to confirm sterility.
• MRI compatibility testing: Standardized testing (ASTM F2052, ASTM F2119, ASTM F2213, ASTM F2182) to confirm MR conditional status.
• Design software validation: Testing that the software (3Shape Abutment Designer) adheres to "built-in design limitations" and prevents users from exceeding them.

8. The sample size for the training set

This is not applicable. The submission is not for an AI/machine learning device that requires a training set. The descriptions of "design limitations" and "digital dentistry workflow validation" refer to the validation of software and manufacturing processes, not the training of an algorithm in the machine learning sense.

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

This is not applicable as there is no training set for the reasons outlined above. The "design limits" mentioned for the digital dentistry workflow are predefined by Elos Medtech based on engineering principles and safety considerations for dental prosthetics.

Ask a specific question about this device