Search Results

Indicated to soothe and cool teething babies and help reduce teething pain.

The proposed Water-filled teether is a simple plastic shaped device which is filled with water. It may be placed in a refrigerator to be cooled and then provided to the teething baby to help sooth any pain from teething. This is an OTC device.

The provided text is for a Water-Filled Teether, which is a medical device of Class II (Fluid-filled teething ring, 21 CFR 872.5550). This type of device does not typically involve complex algorithms, AI, or advanced imaging, and as such, the concept of a "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in the context of clinical trials with human readers, ground truth establishment, or multi-reader multi-case studies, as described in your prompt's subsequent questions, is not applicable here.

Instead, acceptance criteria for this device are based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through non-clinical performance testing against established safety standards for toy and medical device materials, as well as an identical indication for use.

Here's an analysis based on the provided document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Regarding the other questions in your prompt, as explained above, they are not applicable to the evaluation of this specific medical device (a water-filled teether) as described in the 510(k) summary. This document concerns a physical product with predetermined safety and performance characteristics, not an AI or software-driven diagnostic or image analysis tool.

Here's why the other points are not relevant in this context:

• 2. Sample size for the test set and data provenance: No "test set" in the sense of patient data is used. The testing involves physical samples of the device and its materials. The provenance of the actual materials used for the physical device would be its manufacturing origin (Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province, China).
• 3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and their qualifications: "Ground truth" in this context refers to compliance with established international and national safety standards (ISO, CFR, ASTM, CPSIA, CA Prop 65). The "experts" are the regulatory bodies and standard-setting organizations that define these criteria, and the laboratories that perform the tests according to these standards, not medical experts evaluating AI performance.
• 4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable. Compliance is determined by objective laboratory test results against predefined pass/fail criteria for each standard.
• 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, as this is not an AI/diagnostic device.
• 6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable.
• 7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): The "ground truth" for this device is the objective performance against established safety standards and regulatory requirements. For example, a "pass" on a phthalates test means the device's material has phthalate levels below the regulated limit.
• 8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable, as no algorithm or AI model is being trained.
• 9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Water Filled Teether is used for the temporary relief of pain and discomfort in infants and toddlers caused by teething.

Not Found

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification letter from the FDA regarding a Water Filled Teether. It is a regulatory approval document, not a study report. Therefore, it does not contain the information requested about acceptance criteria, device performance, study details, or ground truth establishment.

The letter confirms that the device is "substantially equivalent" to legally marketed predicate devices, meaning it has met the regulatory requirements for this type of device based on existing standards, rather than new performance studies with specific statistical outcomes.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information from the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device

All teethers instruct consumer to: .

• Clean before use with a damp cloth and mild soap. Air dry. o
• o Not dishwasher safe
• Freezer safe ◆

Teether acts as an aid in relieving an infant's gums due to teething. .

Fluid Filled Teether - Gel

I am sorry, but the provided text does not contain information about the acceptance criteria and study proving device performance as requested. The document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for a "Fluid Filled Teether - Gel" (K092025), which indicates that the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices. It discusses regulatory classification, general controls, and compliance requirements.

However, it does not include:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance.
2. Details about sample sizes for test sets, data provenance, or retrospective/prospective nature.
3. Information on the number or qualifications of experts used to establish ground truth.
4. Adjudication methods.
5. Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness studies or effect sizes.
6. Standalone algorithm performance.
7. The type of ground truth used (e.g., pathology, outcomes data).
8. Sample size for the training set.
9. How ground truth for the training set was established.

This document is a regulatory approval, not a technical study report detailing performance metrics and study methodologies.

Ask a specific question about this device

The MAM Twister Teether was developed for the needs of babies who are having their first teeths. It is designed to offer optimum comfort and safety for the baby and offers all the soothing textures and cooling comfort in order to ease babies teething pain.

Class II Fluid-Filled Teething Ring (Teether with waterfilled part) that that meets requirements of USP , ASTM F963 section 4.3.6.1 & 4.3.6.3, 16 CFR 1303 - Ban of lead-containing paint (

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the "MAM Twister" Fluid-Filled Teething Ring. It outlines the device's technical characteristics and how it meets various safety standards.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This is a physical device undergoing non-clinical safety and performance testing against predefined standards, not a machine learning model that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable. No training set is involved in the evaluation of this device. The standards themselves serve as the "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests.

Ask a specific question about this device

The intended use or purpose of the Device is to provide a teething child with a cool soothing effect on the gums when the Device is chewed upon.

Teething Ring – Water or Gel Filled

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a Teething Ring - Water or Gel Filled. It does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study that proves the device meets specific performance criteria in the way medical device AI/software studies typically do.

The FDA 510(k) clearance process for this type of device (a physical teething ring) focuses on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than requiring specific performance studies with quantitative metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or reader improvement.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information because it is not present in the provided text. The document is primarily a regulatory clearance letter and an "Indications For Use" statement.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Fu Hong Industries Limited Soother Teether is a fluid filled teether indicated to help to relieve the teething discomfort of teething infants by providing a cool soothing effect.

Not Found

This document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the "Fu Hong Industries Limited Soother Teether". It determines that the device is "substantially equivalent" to legally marketed predicate devices.

The document does not describe acceptance criteria or a study that proves the device meets specific acceptance criteria in the way you've outlined for medical device performance. Instead, the FDA's 510(k) process focuses on showing substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than requiring new clinical trials to establish safety and effectiveness from scratch for every new device.

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

• No Acceptance Criteria or Performance Study: The document explicitly states "substantially equivalent" rather than detailing specific performance metrics or a study. The FDA review in this context typically compares the new device's technological characteristics, materials, and intended use against a lawfully marketed predicate device.
• Device Type: This is a teether, which is a Class II device. While Class II devices have "Special Controls," the provided letter does not elaborate on them. For many Class II devices, particularly consumer-facing ones like a teether, the "substantially equivalent" determination does not typically involve the rigorous clinical performance studies (with acceptance criteria, sample sizes, expert ground truth, MRMC studies, standalone performance, etc.) that would be associated with more complex or higher-risk medical devices (e.g., AI-powered diagnostic tools).

The provided text focuses on regulatory compliance aspects and the determination of substantial equivalence, not on a detailed performance study as you've requested.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Fluid-filled Teether is indicated to help to relieve the teething discomfort of teething infants by providing a cool soothing effect.

Not Found

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a "Fluid-Filled Teether" (K092910). This document is a regulatory approval letter and does not contain information about acceptance criteria, study methodologies, or performance data as typically provided for medical devices that undergo rigorous clinical or technical validation.

The "Fluid-Filled Teether" is a Class II device (Teething Ring, Product Code: KKO), which falls under general controls and potentially special controls, but the specifics of those controls or any performance studies are not detailed in this letter. The letter simply states that the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information. The document focuses solely on the regulatory approval for marketing the device based on substantial equivalence, not on a detailed performance study with acceptance criteria and results.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Water Filled Teether is used for the temporary relief of pain and discomfort in infants and toddlers caused by teething.

Water Filled Teether

I am sorry, but this document contains no information about acceptance criteria or study results for a medical device. The document is a 510(k) premarket notification letter from the FDA to Allied Hill Enterprises, Limited, regarding a "Water Filled Teether." It primarily discusses the substantial equivalence determination for the device and regulatory requirements.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Fluid-filled Teether is indicated to help to relieve the teething discomfort of teething infants by providing a cool soothing effect.

Not Found

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification decision letter from the FDA for a Fluid-Filled Teether, a non-AI medical device. Therefore, the requested information regarding acceptance criteria and studies proving the device meets those criteria, specifically concerning AI-related metrics, multi-reader multi-case studies, standalone algorithm performance, and ground truth establishment, is not applicable and cannot be extracted from this document.

The document indicates that the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices and is intended to relieve teething discomfort by providing a cool soothing effect.

Here's a breakdown based on the document:

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

• Not Applicable. This document establishes substantial equivalence based on the device's intended use and comparison to predicate devices, not on specific performance metrics typically associated with AI/software devices. The "acceptance criteria" for a 510(k) for this type of device would generally involve demonstrating safety and effectiveness comparable to a predicate.

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

• Not Applicable. No specific test set or data provenance is mentioned as this is a traditional medical device (teether), not an AI/software device whose performance would be evaluated on such a dataset.

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

• Not Applicable. No ground truth establishment by experts for a test set is mentioned.

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

• Not Applicable. No test set or adjudication method is described.

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 fluid-filled teether, not an AI device.

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

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

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

• Not Applicable. Ground truth, in the context of AI/diagnostic devices, is not relevant here. The "truth" for this device revolves around its physical properties and intended physiological effect (soothing discomfort).

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not Applicable. No training set for an AI model is mentioned or implied.

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

• Not Applicable. No training set or ground truth establishment relevant to AI is mentioned.

In summary, this document pertains to a traditional, non-digital medical device (a teether) and evaluates its substantial equivalence to predicate devices, not its performance against specific AI-related metrics or clinical study criteria typically associated with AI/software.

Ask a specific question about this device

The gumEase® dental mouthpiece provides temporary relief from oral discomfort resulting from dental work, brace pain, denture irritation, post surgical pain or minor oral trauma.

The gumEase® dental mouth piece is manufactured from biocompatible plastic tubing that is filled with a NaCl solution.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for the "gumEase® dental mouthpiece." This submission focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on safety and effectiveness, rather than reporting on a clinical study with acceptance criteria and performance metrics for a novel diagnostic or treatment device.

Therefore, the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, device performance, study design, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, expert involvement, and MRMC studies is not available in the provided document.

The document states that substantial equivalence was established by the "principle of similarity of the Intended Use, Biocompatibility operation, device design and Simmanty of the predicate devices." It also mentions "Biocompatibility testing was performed in accordance with the ISO 1993 guidelines and all test results confirmed the device is biocompatible."

Essentially, this is a regulatory clearance for a low-risk device based on its similarity to existing cleared devices, not a study evaluating and quantifying its performance against specific clinical efficacy or diagnostic accuracy criteria.

Ask a specific question about this device