Search Results

NobelProcera Zirconia Implant Bridge (previously cleared per K202452) The NobelProcera® Zirconia Implant Bridge are indicated for use as a bridge anatomically shaped and/or framework in the treatment of partially edentulous jaws for the purpose of restoring chewing function.

TiUltra Implants and Xeal Abutments (previously cleared per K202344) NobelActive TiUltra NobelActive TiUltra implants are endosseous implants intended to be surgically placed in the upper or lower jaw bone for anchoring or supporting tooth replacements to restore patient esthetics and chewing function. Nobel Active Tilltra implants are indicated for single or multiple unit restorations in splinted applications. This can be achieved by a 2-stage or 1-stage surgical technique in combination with immediate, early or delayed loading protocols, recognizing sufficient primary stability and appropriate occlusal loading for the selected technique. NobelActive TiUltra 3.0 implants are intended to replace a lateral incisor in the maxilla and/or a central incisor in the mandible. Nobel Active TiUltra 3.0 implants are indicated for single-unit restorations only. NobelReplace CC TiUltra NobelReplace CC TiUltra implants are endosseous dental implants intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw arches to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as an artificial tooth, in order to restore patient esthetics and chewing function. The NobelReplace CC TiUltra implants are indicated for single or multiple unit restorations. The NobelReplace CC Tilltra implants can be used in splinted or non-splications. The NobelReplace CC TiUltra implant may be placed immediately and put into immediate function provided that initial stability requirements detailed in the manual are satisfied. NobelParallel CC TiUltra NobelParallel CC TiUltra implants are endosseous implants intended to be surgically placed in the upper or lower jaw bone for anchoring or supporting replacements to restore patient esthetics and chewing function. NobelParallel CC TiUltra implants are indicated for single or multiple restorations in splinted applications. This can be achieved by a 2-stage or 1-stage surgical techniques in combination with immediate, early of delayed loading protocols, recognizing sufficient primary stability and appropriate occlusal loading for the selected technique. Implants with

Not Found

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification decision letter from the FDA to Nobel Biocare AG regarding their Dental Implant Systems Portfolio - MR Conditional. It explicitly states that the letter covers indications for use and general controls, but does not contain information about acceptance criteria or performance studies for the device itself.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information for the following reasons:

1. Acceptance Criteria and Performance Data: The document is a regulatory clearance letter, not a clinical study report. It does not contain acceptance criteria for device performance, nor does it present any data from studies proving the device meets particular criteria. The letter confirms substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices, which means the FDA has determined the device is as safe and effective as a previously cleared device, not that specific performance metrics were tested and met in a new study.
2. Study Details (Sample size, data provenance, experts, adjudication, MRMC, Standalone, Ground Truth, Training Set): Since no performance study data is included in this FDA 510(k) clearance letter, none of these details can be extracted. The document refers to various previously cleared predicate devices (e.g., K202452, K202344, K181869), but it doesn't describe the studies that led to their clearance.

In summary, the provided text does not contain the information necessary to describe acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria.

Ask a specific question about this device

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 Abutments are compatible with the following implant systems:

Ref. No. Platform compatibility Implant diameter
AB-BRA411213-US Nobel Biocare® / Brånemark® RP 3.75 mm & 4 mm
AB-BRA351213-US Nobel Biocare® / Brånemark® NP 3.3 mm
AB-BRA511213-US Nobel Biocare® / Brånemark® WP 5 mm

All digitally designed Elos Accurate® Customized Abutments are intended to be manufactured at an Elos Medtech approved milling facility.

The Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment is a patient specific abutment 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 the implant using the included Elos Prosthetic Screw and attached to the crown/coping manually by cementation. The Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment 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 Brånemark® endosseous dental implant. The customized shape of the abutment is intended to be manufactured by an Elos Medtech approved milling facility. The Elos Accurate® customized abutment is 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 Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment provides clinicians and laboratories with a prosthetic device that can be used in definitive (permanent) single- or multi restorations.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (Elos Accurate® Customized Abutment). It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting a study with specific acceptance criteria and detailed device performance metrics in the way a clinical trial or algorithm validation study would.

Therefore, the requested information, particularly regarding acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria with specific performance metrics, sample sizes of test sets, number of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and training set details, is not fully available in this type of regulatory document.

However, I can extract the information related to the non-clinical testing performed to support substantial equivalence, which serves a similar function in demonstrating device safety and effectiveness.

Here's an organized breakdown of the available information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are not explicitly stated in a quantitative table with specific performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy). Instead, the non-clinical testing aims to demonstrate that the subject device's mechanical, material, and biological properties are equivalent to or better than the predicate device and comply with relevant international standards and FDA guidance.

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

This information is not provided in the document. For engineering and biocompatibility tests, sample sizes are typically determined by relevant standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM), but specific numbers are not disclosed here. The document describes tests on the device itself, not patient data.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications

This information is not applicable as the document describes non-clinical testing of a physical medical device, not a diagnostic algorithm requiring expert-established ground truth from medical images or patient data.

4. Adjudication Method

This information is not applicable for the same reasons as point 3.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

This information is not applicable as the document describes non-clinical testing of a physical medical device, not a diagnostic algorithm or AI assistance requiring human reader evaluation.

6. Standalone Performance (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance)

This information is not applicable as the document relates to a physical medical device (dental abutment), not an algorithm.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for this device's performance is established through:

• Compliance with international standards (e.g., ISO 14801 for fatigue, ISO 10993-5 for biocompatibility, ISO 17665-1 & -2 for sterilization).
• Compliance with FDA guidance documents (e.g., "Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Root-form Endosseous Dental Implants and Endosseous Dental Abutments").
• Physical measurements and engineering analysis compared against established specifications and predicate devices.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable as the document describes a physical medical device, not a machine learning algorithm that requires a training set.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

This information is not applicable for the same reasons as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

Anthogyr dental implants are intended for use as artificial root structures for replacement of missing teeth. They can be used for stabilization of removable prostheses or fixation of single tooth restorations or partial dentures. Anthogyr dental systems are indicated for one-stage or two-stage surgery. It is up to the practitioner to decide whether immediate or delayed loading is most appropriate, based on clinical factors like good primary stability and appropriate occlusal loading.

The AXIOM® PX implant system has been designed in order to enhance the functional and aesthetic integration of implant supported restorations. The file concerns the implants and abutment screws. The prosthetic components and surgical instrumentation are the same as for the AXIOM® REG (see 510(k) K101913 and K131066) and are compatible with Axiom® PX implants. Implants: Replacement of a missing root for placement of a dental restoration. The implant is screwed in the upper or lower jaw. Material: Ti6AI4V-ELI Surface treatment: BCP® Dimensions, Ø3.4, length 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 mm Ø 4.0, length 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 mm Ø4.6, length 6.5, 8, 10, 12, 14 mm Ø5.2, length 6.5, 8, 10, 12 mm Screws: Screwing the abutment into the implant and the secondary parts into the abutment. Material: Ti6AI4V-ELI Surface treatment: DLC Dimensions: M1.4, length 5, 7.9 mm

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study information based on the provided document.

It's important to note that this document is a 510(k) summary, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting a standalone study proving a new device meets predefined acceptance criteria in the way a clinical trial for a novel AI device might. The "acceptance criteria" here are largely implied by the need to show equivalence to existing, legally marketed devices and adherence to relevant standards.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Given that this is a 510(k) submission for a dental implant system (AXIOM® PX), the "acceptance criteria" are primarily established by the performance characteristics of its predicate devices and compliance with relevant industry standards and FDA guidance. The study presented is a non-clinical performance testing suite designed to demonstrate substantial equivalence to these predicates.

Study Details

1. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • Sample Size: The document does not specify the exact numerical sample sizes for each test (e.g., number of implants tested for fatigue, number of animals for biocompatibility). It generally refers to "representative worst case" scenarios for mechanical testing and indicates tests were performed.
   • Data Provenance: The studies are non-clinical (laboratory/bench testing, and in-vitro/animal biocompatibility). Provenance is likely the testing labs approved by Anthogyr SAS, based in Sallanches, France. It is retrospective, meaning the tests were conducted prior to this submission.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g., radiologist with 10 years of experience):

   • This is not applicable as the studies described are non-clinical performance and biocompatibility tests for a physical medical device (dental implant). The "ground truth" is established by adhering to widely accepted international standards (ISO, ASTM) and FDA guidance, with results interpreted by qualified laboratory personnel, rather than clinical experts establishing a diagnostic ground truth.

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

   • Not applicable for non-clinical bench and biocompatibility testing. The methods are standardized and results are objectively measured per the specified test protocols (e.g., force to failure, chemical composition analysis, cell viability).

4. 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:

   • No. This is not an AI/Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) submission. It's a traditional physical medical device (dental implant) 510(k).

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

   • No. This is not an AI/SaMD submission.

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

   • The "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests is adherence to established, validated test methodologies and performance criteria outlined in international standards (ISO, ASTM) and FDA guidance documents. For example, for biocompatibility, the ground truth is whether the device elicits a toxic or inflammatory response as defined by the ISO 10993 series. For mechanical testing, it's whether the device meets or exceeds the strength and fatigue limits specified by ISO 14801 or exhibits equivalence to the predicate device.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of this traditional medical device submission, as it does not involve machine learning or AI.

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

   • Not applicable, as there is no training set.

Ask a specific question about this device