On (b)(6), 2021, (b)(6) received a phone call from a dental office about an nsk handpiece overheating.Upon receipt of the information, (b)(6) visited the dental office for further information about the event.The details (b)(6) obtained from the visit are as follows: the event occurred around (b)(4), 2021.(the exact date is unknown.) the dentist was removing a crown for root separation during the tooth extraction procedure using the z95l (serial no.(b)(4) or z85l handpiece (serial no.(b)(4).The patient was under anesthesia.During the procedure, the device overheated and burned the patient, however neither the dentist nor the patient noticed the injury.A few days later, when a follow-up was conducted with the patient, the patient reported pain in the buccal mucous membrane.The dentist was made aware of the burn injury.The dentist could not identify which one of the two devices caused the above event.Therefore, (b)(6) is submitting two separate mdrs for this event based on the information from the dentist.This mdr is regarding the z85l handpiece with the serial number (b)(4).
|
Upon receiving the device involved in the mdr event, nakanishi conducted a failure analysis of the returned device [report no.C210218-06].These activities are described in more detail below.Methodology used: a) nakanishi examined the device history record and the repair history for the subject z85l device [serial number (b)(6).There were no problems observed during the manufacturing or testing noted in the dhr.The repair history showed 3 service records ((b)(6) 2018, (b)(6) 2018, and (b)(6) 2019) since the device was shipped.According to the service records, after repairing the handpiece (replacement of cartridge, drive shaft, and dog clutch for all of the repairs), nakanishi performed all of the necessary operation checks and confirmed that all of the criteria were met.B) nakanishi connected the handpiece to the motor and tried to rotate the motor.However, the handpiece was locked and the motor did not rotate at all.Therefore, nakanishi was not able to conduct temperature testing of the device.Identification of the specific failure mode(s) and/or mechanism(s) of the associated device components was conducted as follows: a) nakanishi disassembled the handpiece and performed a visual inspection of the internal parts.Nakanishi observed the following: - the ball bearing on the rear side of the cartridge was broken.- the gear was damaged, discolored, and soiled.B) nakanishi took photographs of all the disassembled parts and kept them in investigation report (b)(4).Conclusions reached based on the investigation and analysis results: a) nakanishi could not replicate the temperature increase from the event, but based on the findings in the visual inspection, as well as many years of experience, nakanishi identified that the cause of the handpiece overheating was frictional resistance generated by contact between the ball bearing part and the outer race (bearing outer metal part), which was caused by the broken ball bearing.B) nakanishi considers the possibility from many years of experience that the cause of the broken ball bearing was the ingress of undesirable materials into the bearing.C) a lack of maintenance caused the accumulation of debris on the internal parts, which caused debris ingress into the ball bearing during rotation.This contributed to the handpiece overheating.D) nakanishi took the following actions in order to prevent a recurrence of the handpiece overheating.D.1) nakanishi reviewed the operation manual and reconfirmed the clarity and understandability of the instructions.D.2) nakanishi reported the above evaluation results to the dentist, and reminded the dentist of the importance of maintenance and checking of the handpiece prior to use to prevent overheating, as instructed in the operation manual.
|