Search Results

1. Class III and V restorations
2. Restoration of primary teeth
3. Core build-up
4. Cases where radiopacity is required
5. Base material for Class I and Class II cavities using a sandwich laminate technique.

GC Fuji Direct is a light-cured resin-modified restorative glass ionomer cement. The device consists of two pastes filled in a Paste Pak Cartridge. Paste A and B are dispensed with Paste Pak Dispenser II and hand mixed. Paste A and B can also be automixed by attaching the GC Fuji Direct Mixing Tip to the Paste Pak Dispenser II and applied directly to the prepared cavity. The bioactive material sets by acid-base reaction of fluoroalumino-silicate glass and Polyacrylic acid, and polymerization of methacrylate monomers.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information based on the provided text, structured to include all your requested points:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

The document primarily describes bench testing against ISO standards and biocompatibility assessments. Therefore, there isn't a "test set" in the context of a clinical study with human or biological samples in the way this question typically implies for AI/diagnostic devices. The data provenance is related to laboratory testing, likely conducted by or for GC America Inc., a US-based company, referencing the specified international standards. No country of origin for the specific test data is given beyond the company's location. The testing appears to be prospective (as part of the 510(k) submission).

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

N/A. This is a bench test and biocompatibility assessment against technical specifications rather than an evaluation requiring expert-established ground truth on a test set (e.g., medical image interpretation). The "ground truth" for these tests is the quantitative and qualitative requirements of the ISO standard.

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

N/A. This is a bench test against technical specifications, not a study requiring adjudication of expert 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

N/A. This device is a dental cement, not an AI software/diagnostic device that would typically involve human readers or AI assistance.

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

N/A. This device is a dental cement, not an algorithm, so this question is not applicable.

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

The "ground truth" for the performance testing is adherence to the technical specifications defined in ISO 9917-2:2010 (Dentistry - Water-based cements - Part 2: Resin-modified cements) and the protocols outlined in ISO 10993-1:2009, ISO 10993-5, and ISO 10993-10 for biocompatibility. These are objective, predefined standards for material properties and biological response.

8. The sample size for the training set

N/A. This is a dental material, not an AI model, so there is no "training set."

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

N/A. As there is no training set for an AI model, this question is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

Primary teeth restorations
Small Class I restorations
Class III and Class V restorations
Transitional restorations
Filling defects and undercut areas in crown preparations
Core buildup where at least half the coronal tooth structure is remaining to provide structural support for the crown
Laminate sandwich technique

LCR is a light curing, radiopaque, fluoride-releasing, resin-modified glass ionomer restorative system. The restorative system consists of a base and catalyst paste and a primer. LCR is available in 8 shades. The restorative paste will be available in both the multi-dose 3M ESPE Clicker dispensing system or a unit dose option.

The provided document does not contain information about acceptance criteria and a study proving a device meets them in the format requested.

This document is a 510(k) Summary of Safety and Effectiveness for the LCR, Light-Curing Glass Ionomer Restorative System. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than establishing specific acceptance criteria for performance and then proving them through a dedicated study.

Here's why the requested information cannot be fully extracted based on the provided text:

• Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Table 1): The document states that LCR is designed to retain the excellent physical, mechanical and clinical properties of existing Vitremer Core Buildup/Restorative System. It also mentions that the performance characteristics of LCR were compared to 3M ESPE Vitremer Core Buildup/Restorative System, 3M ESPE Photac-Fil Aplicap and GC Fujill LC. However, it does not enumerate specific performance metrics with their acceptance criteria and the corresponding reported values for LCR. It broadly claims similarity in properties.
• Sample Size, Ground Truth, Adjudication, MRMC, Standalone Study (Points 2-7): The document describes a comparison of LCR's performance characteristics with predicate devices and biocompatibility testing by independent research institutes. These are not clinical studies in the sense of evaluating a diagnostic algorithm against a ground truth established by experts. There is no mention of test sets, experts, adjudication methods, or MRMC/standalone performance as would be relevant for devices involving diagnostic or interpretive algorithms. Cosmetic/device characteristic studies often do not use these methods.
• Training Set Sample Size and Ground Truth (Points 8-9): Since this is not a study involving machine learning algorithms that require training data, there is no mention of a training set or how its ground truth would be established.

In summary, the provided document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence of a modified dental restorative system regarding its chemical composition, intended use, shelf life, storage conditions, and general safety and effectiveness through comparison to existing predicate devices, rather than a study with defined acceptance criteria and detailed performance metrics as would be typical for a diagnostic or AI-driven device.

Ask a specific question about this device