Cruxi
FDA record research
The 2021–2025 analysis contains 1 selected substantially-equivalent FDA decisions under primary product code NRQ. Use it to compare documented submissions and evidence with your product. A separate 2026 update contains 0 decisions through 2026-09-27. The latest selected decision across the acquired endpoint is dated 2022-10-12. Neither set establishes a suitable predicate or the route for your device. The complete-year window has 1 decisions; the separate all-observed-date count is 5. These denominators describe different date ranges.
Evidence retrieved 2026-10-06. Source versions and topic-specific limits are listed below.
An exact FDA-record regulation_number match to one acquired Title 21 section. Records with the same normalized scope definition, class, regulation and recorded submission/GMP flags are grouped. Sparse definitions and generic exemption boilerplate do not qualify. No text-similarity equivalence or legal applicability is inferred.
Device made of a material such as titanium or titanium alloy, that is intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw arches to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, in order to restore a patient's chewing function.
Compare the proposed indication, user, anatomy, technology and operating principle with this actual scope; record differences and unresolved facts.
§ 872.3640 Endosseous dental implant. (a) Identification. An endosseous dental implant is a prescription device made of a material such as titanium or titanium alloy that is intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw arches to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, in order to restore a patient's chewing function. (b) Classification. (1) Class II (special controls). The device is classified as class II if it is a root-form endosseous dental implant. The root-form endosseous dental implant is characterized by four geometrically distinct types: Basket, screw, solid cylinder, and hollow cylinder. The guidance document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Root-Form Endosseous Dental Implants and Endosseous Dental Implant Abutments” will serve as the special control. (See § 872.1(e) for the availability of this guidance document.) (2) Classification. Class II (special controls). The device is classified as class II if it is a blade-form endosseous dental implant. The special controls for this device are: (i) The design characteristics of the device must ensure that the geometry and material composition are consistent with the intended use; (ii) Mechanical performance (fatigue) testing under simulated physiological conditions to demonstrate maximum load (endurance limit) when the device is subjected to compressive and shear loads; (iii) Corrosion testing under simulated physiological conditions to demonstrate corrosion potential of each metal or alloy, couple potential for an assembled dissimilar metal implant system, and corrosion rate for an assembled dissimilar metal implant system; (iv) The device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible; (v) Sterility testing must demonstrate the sterility of the device; (vi) Performance testing to evaluate the compatibility of the device in a magnetic resonance (MR) environment; (vii) Labeling must include a clear description of the technological features, how the device should be used in patients, detailed surgical protocol and restoration procedures, relevant precautions and warnings based on the clinical use of the device, and qualifications and training requirements for device users including technicians and clinicians; (viii) Patient labeling must contain a description of how the device works, how the device is placed, how the patient needs to care for the implant, possible adverse events and how to report any complications; and (ix) Documented clinical experience must demonstrate safe and effective use and capture any adverse events observed during clinical use. [69 FR 26304, May 12, 2004, as amended at 79 FR 34625, June 18, 2014]
Read the identification, classification, conditions and referenced limitations in the cited section. A numeric reference match is not a buyer classification or exemption determination.
Historical FDA comparison
All statistics in this section use decisions dated 2021-01-01 to 2025-12-31. The partial 2026 update below is excluded from these distributions.
There are 1 valid recent date pairs. Distribution summaries require at least 20; older records are not substituted for a current benchmark.
Statistical source: FDA openFDA 510(k) decision dataset. Partition 1 Download the identified records and dates (CSV).
Deduplicate by official submission ID across the complete current manifest partitions. Select exact primary product code, K-number format and the stated SE decision codes with valid dates. Recent distributions use the five complete calendar years preceding the latest valid endpoint decision year. Partial-year counts compare equal January-to-cutoff periods. Quartiles use linear interpolation at (n-1)*p and are withheld below 20 valid date pairs. The analysis n describes only its declared complete-year window; selected_se_n separately counts all selected recorded dates through the cutoff.
5 selected records across all observed dates; 0 other/invalid identifier or decision-date records excluded. 0 missing or invalid date pairs in the five-year window.
Date fields: date_received → decision_date. Quantiles: Hyndman–Fan type 7: linear interpolation at (n − 1) × p; displayed to one decimal; n ≥ 20 valid pairs.
Receipt-to-decision calendar elapsed time includes time outside active FDA review; it is not FDA review time, a promised project timeline or an estimate of future clearance. This selected recorded cohort does not include all applications or establish a success probability, predicate suitability, market size, current market availability or legal authorization for another product.
Calculation fda-buyer-research-3 · database cutoff 2026-09-27. CSV rows identify each official K-number, cohort, date pair, exclusion reason and source version.
Separate partial-year update
0 selected decisions from 2026-01-01 to 2026-09-27. The equivalent previous-year period contains 0 decisions through 2025-09-27. These counts describe the records; they are not market growth or submission success rates.
Named records to investigate
These dated records may come from 2026 or earlier years. They are a separate investigation list, not the five-year statistical cohort. Compare the actual indications and technology before considering a record as a comparator.
| Official record / device | Recorded applicant | Decision | Recorded type | Calendar days |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K211872 ↗PiezoImplant System | Rex Implants, Inc. | 2022-10-12 | Traditional | 482 |
| K981954 ↗VARIOUS DENTAL IMPLANTS WITH VARIOUS ABUTMENTS | Healthline Implants, Inc. | 1999-01-25 | Traditional | 235 |
| K822969 ↗GENERATION 5 LINKOW BLADE IMPLANTS | Leonard P. Linkow, D.D.L. | 1982-11-04 | Traditional | 27 |
| K791366 ↗ORATRONICS ENDOSSEOUS FRAME ASSEMBLY | Oratronics, Inc. | 1979-10-09 | Traditional | 76 |
| K791204 ↗MITER ENDOSTEAL BLADE IMPLANT | Depuy, Inc. | 1979-09-28 | Traditional | 92 |
Supporting documents actually acquired
Read the source context, then compare the evidence with your design. Topic locations below are text matches, including possible limitations or negative statements; they are not a mandatory test list.
No reviewed topic index available; open the original document.
The documents are a bounded sample of acquired summaries, not complete evidence coverage of the cohort.
Known context: US. Match the intended use and design with the recorded category before treating it as applicable.
| Source fact | Recorded value |
|---|---|
| FDA product code | NRQ [1] |
| Generic device category | Blade-Form Endosseous Dental Implant [1] |
| Recorded scope | Device made of a material such as titanium or titanium alloy, that is intended to be surgically placed in the bone of the upper or lower jaw arches to provide support for prosthetic devices, such as artificial teeth, in order to restore a patient's chewing function. [1] |
| Recorded class | 2 [1] |
| Regulation | 872.3640 [1] |
| Medical specialty | Dental [1] |
Use this checklist to gather your business or product details before speaking with a specialist. The items below explain what to record and suggest useful supporting documents. You can add your own answers in the editable project brief.
Put your proposed label and design beside the quoted definition. Record matching facts, differences and missing facts separately; naming the category alone cannot resolve scope.
Useful evidence: Proposed indication/design and a definition-to-product comparison with source locators.
Record the applicable paragraph, conditions and cross-referenced limitations after specialist review. Keep a claimed exemption separate from actual establishment, listing and quality-system responsibilities.
Useful evidence: Dated classification/route rationale and the current provisions relied on, with unresolved conditions.
Choose a named record above. Put your proposed claim beside its actual indications-for-use statement. Record different patients, users, anatomy, settings and output claims; do not treat a shared code as proof of equivalence.
Useful evidence: Your draft indications for use + the selected official summary and its exact page.
For each comparison, record the different materials, hardware, software functions and operating conditions. Link each difference to existing evidence or an unresolved evaluation task.
Useful evidence: A three-column matrix: comparator fact / your design fact / evidence or unresolved gap.
This recent cohort has fewer than 20 valid date pairs, so it supplies no median or percentile benchmark. Ask for a schedule based on actual preparation, evidence gaps, interactions and response assumptions; keep any historical decision context separately dated.
Useful evidence: Document/test readiness, unresolved route/evidence tasks and the assumptions behind the specialist’s proposed sequence.
Read the official document in context. The audit details identify the precise locators and preserved versions used for this page.
2026-10-05 · retrieved 2026-10-06
Source key D01 · snapshot 936de5f5d47b9293b702fc32512a79173969fb788c74a63d9b91abe73f3b86a5
2026-10-05 · retrieved 2026-10-06
Source key D01 · snapshot 5a86994ba49a37e71e09be96803fd51981c6c43eaa96caab41aea2b188bfe002
Thu, 01 Oct 2026 22:01:48 GMT · retrieved 2026-10-06
Source key D04 · snapshot 2fb992918a3879de132b47a33c856da2b3234ee3d96cfd79fab03acf30512496
Confirm the facts, scope and contact preference before sharing your project. Preparing this page sends no provider outreach.
Compare FDA 510(k) Submission Services
Find FDA US Agent Services | Compare & Get Quotes · FDA QMSR Transition & Inspection Readiness (ISO 13485 Alignment)