Search Results

STERI-OSS Implant System is intended for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxilla, in support of single of multiple-unit restorations including; cemented retained, or overdenture restorations, and terminal or intermediate abutment support for fixed bridgework. STERI-OSS Implant System is for single stage surgical procedures. This system is intended for delayed loading.

STERI-OSS Implant System, Fixture is a medical device made of titanium that is inserted into the maxillary or mandibular alveolar bone to support prosthesis such as artificial teeth for the patient's recovery of masticatory function.
STERI-OSS Implant System. Abutment is inserted to support prosthesis such as artificial teeth, and is a medical device made of titanium alloy. It connects artificial teeth with a fixture implanted in the maxillary or mandibular alveolar bone where teeth are lost.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the STERI-OSS Implant System, which is a dental implant system. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than providing a study where the device meets pre-defined acceptance criteria for performance in a clinical setting. For medical devices undergoing 510(k) clearance, the primary goal is to show that the new device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device, not necessarily to meet specific novel performance acceptance criteria through clinical studies.

Therefore, the requested information elements such as "acceptance criteria and the reported device performance," "sample sizes used for the test set," "number of experts used to establish ground truth," "adjudication method," "MRMC comparative effectiveness study," "standalone performance," "type of ground truth," "sample size for the training set," and "how ground truth for the training set was established" are typically not applicable in the context of a 510(k) substantial equivalence submission for a device like a dental implant. These elements are more commonly associated with clinical trials or performance studies for novel devices or software with AI/ML components requiring new clinical evidence.

The document describes non-clinical testing to demonstrate that the differences between the subject device and predicate devices do not affect substantial equivalence.

Here's a breakdown of the available and non-applicable information based on your request:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

This information is not applicable in the format typically used for performance studies with defined acceptance criteria for clinical outcomes. The document instead presents a comparison of technological characteristics with predicate devices and reports on non-clinical engineering and materials testing to support substantial equivalence.

Ask a specific question about this device

The UNIdental Symphony Implant System is indicated for use in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae, in support of single or multiple-unit restorations including cemented retained, or overdenture restorations, and terminal or intermediate abutment support for fixed bridgework. The UNIdental Symphony Implant System is for single and two stage surgical procedures. It is intended for delayed loading.

The UNIdental Symphony Implant System is a dental implant system made of Titanium 6AL 4V ELI alloy and CP Ti Grade 4 intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw arches for loading after a conventional healing period. The implants may be used to replace one or more missing teeth. The systems are similar to other commercially available products based on the intended use, the technology used, the claims, the material composition employed and performance characteristics. Symphony 1 Fixture is Bone level, and Symphony 2 Fixture is Tissue level.

Symphony 1 Fixture is a taper shape that gradually decreases the outer diameter of the lower part from the upper part.

And It is a taper shape that gradually decreases the outer diameter of the lower part from the upper part. It is a structure that can perform a tapping function at the same time without a separate tap. It couples up with the abutment and its hexagon shape.

Symphony 2 Fixture is a structure with a round shape at the end. It couples up with the abutment and its octagon shape. The area that touches the patient's gums is pure titanium surface.

The upper structure of the abutments support prosthetics such as artificial teeth to restore patient's total mouth function.

The provided text details the 510(k) summary for the UNIdental Symphony Implant System, focusing on its substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than directly presenting acceptance criteria and performance data in the traditional sense of a clinical study for an AI/CADe device.

This document describes a dental implant system, which is a physical medical device, not a software or AI-driven diagnostic device. Therefore, the questions related to "AI vs without AI assistance," "standalone algorithm performance," "number of experts for ground truth," "adjudication methods," and "training/test set size and provenance" are not applicable to this type of medical device submission.

The "acceptance criteria" for a dental implant system of this nature typically revolve around meeting established engineering standards and demonstrating comparable performance (e.g., mechanical strength, biocompatibility, sterilization efficacy) to already cleared predicate devices. The "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" refers to the non-clinical testing performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

Here's an interpretation of the provided information based on the typical requirements for a physical medical device:

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

The document doesn't explicitly list "acceptance criteria" in a numerical table format for each performance metric, as one might see for an AI device's sensitivity/specificity. Instead, the acceptance is implicitly demonstrated by showing substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices through various non-clinical tests and material comparisons. The "performance" is implicitly deemed acceptable if it meets the established standards that the predicates have also met.

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance:

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not explicitly stated as a "test set" in the context of an AI model. For the non-clinical physical testing (fatigue, biocompatibility, sterilization, etc.), the sample sizes would be determined by the specific ISO/ASTM standards referenced. These standards usually specify the number of samples required for robust statistical analysis to demonstrate compliance. This is not a "data provenance" like for AI models, but rather the laboratory conditions under which the physical tests were conducted. The document doesn't specify the country of origin for the non-clinical testing data, but the submitter is UNIdental Co., Ltd. in Korea. This is inherently a prospective testing process for the device being submitted.

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

• Not Applicable. This is a physical dental implant, not a diagnostic AI device requiring expert consensus for ground truth.

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

• Not Applicable. See point 3.

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:

• Not Applicable. This is a physical dental implant, not an AI-assisted diagnostic device.

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

• Not Applicable. This is a physical dental implant, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• For physical devices, "ground truth" is established through adherence to recognized national and international consensus standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM) for material properties testing, mechanical performance, biocompatibility, and sterilization. For example, the "ground truth" for fatigue resistance is meeting the load cycles and fracture limits defined by ISO 14801. Biocompatibility "ground truth" is meeting the criteria of ISO 10993 series.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not Applicable. This is a physical device submission; there is no "training set" in the context of an AI model.

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

• Not Applicable. See point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Biogenesis Implant System –Kisses is in partially or fully edentulous mandibles and maxillae, in support of single or multiple-unit restorations including; cemented retained, or overdenture restorations, and terminal or intermediate abutment support for fixed bridgework.

The Biogenesis Implant System - Kisses is for single and two stage surgical procedures. It is for delayed loading.

The Biogenesis 110 Implant System - Kisses is a dental implant system made of titanium intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw arches. This product is a substructure of a dental implant system to replace a single tooth, partial tooth and the lost root of edentulous patients. It consists of the hex part to be coupled to the superstructure, the single thread part to be fixed to the bone, and the cutting edge part with the self-tapping function.

The Biogenesis™ Implant System offers bone level implants in the size range of 3.8 – 5.5 mm diameter with 7 – 14.5mm length.

The Biogenesis TM Implant System also offers the following components.

• · Duplex Abutment
• Duplex Milling Abutment
• Simplex Abutment
• Temporary Abutment
• · Solid Screw Abutment
• · Ball Abutment
• Ball Cap

The implants are intended for use with straight implant only straight implants are included in the submission.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Biogenesis™ Implant System - Kisses, a dental implant system. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than proving the device meets specific performance acceptance criteria through the kind of studies you describe.

Therefore, the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, reported device performance, sample sizes, data provenance, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and ground truth for training/test sets cannot be fully extracted from this document. This kind of detailed study information is typically found in the full submission, not in the public 510(k) summary.

However, I can provide the limited information available regarding non-clinical testing and general acceptance of performance.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document states that "the test results met the pre-set criteria" for various performance tests. However, it does not explicitly list quantified acceptance criteria or specific numerical reported device performance values. It only confirms conformance.

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

The document does not provide details on:

• Specific sample sizes used for the non-clinical tests (e.g., sterilization, shelf life, biocompatibility).
• Data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective) for any test sets. Non-clinical studies like these are typically lab-based and not derived from clinical patient data in the same way clinical trials are.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts

This information is not applicable to the non-clinical bench testing described. These tests involve laboratory measurements and standards conformance, not expert assessment of clinical data to establish ground truth.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable to the non-clinical bench testing described.

5. If a Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through comparison of technical characteristics and non-clinical bench testing to predicate devices, not on evaluating human reader performance with or without AI assistance.

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

No, a standalone (algorithm-only) performance study was not mentioned. The device is a physical dental implant system, not a software algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

For the non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" or reference points were established by recognized international and national standards:

• ISO 17665-1/2 and ANSI/AANI ST79 for sterilization validation.
• ASTM F1980 for shelf life testing.
• ISO 10993-1 for biocompatibility testing.
• FDA Guidance Document for Endosseous Dental Implants and Abutments for overall conformance.

These standards define methods and acceptable limits for the performance characteristics being evaluated.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable. This document describes a physical medical device (dental implant), not an AI/ML algorithm that would typically require a training set.

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

This information is not applicable, as there is no mention of a training set for an AI/ML algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device