The device has not been returned.However, the non-visual device investigation has been completed and the results are as follows: dhr results: the dhr was reviewed and there was no evidence discovered to indicate that a product defect or non-conformity contributed to the issue.Lot number was not provided - supplier (erkodent) could not review the associated material lot.Stock product reviewed results: no stock product was available for review since the device was fabricated per physician's prescription only.Investigation methods/results: customer stated the device has been returned but to date has not been received.However, the non-visual device investigation has been completed.Root cause: a root cause for this complaint cannot be explicitly determined.Ifu 9091 rev 3.0 (comfort h/s bite splint instruction for use) states to use only clear, cool water to wash the device.Ifu provides warning "do not clean or soak in mouthwash; do not use denture cleanser, hot water, alcohol, hydrogen peroxide; do not place in direct sunlight".It is possible that reactions could be caused by mouthwash, toothpaste, or soaking material.However, the customer did not provide the information regarding how the patient handled and maintained the device.Supplier erkodent reviewed the incident details and determined an allergic reaction would be possible if the device was built-up with acrylic.Glidewell research team and namsa conducted a series of testing on a similar thermoformed sleep device following iso 10993 (biological evaluation of medical devices) and the device was evaluated for potential cytotoxicity, skin irritation, delayed dermal contact sensitization and oral mucosal irritation.The test article was thermoformed with layers of erkodent material (erkoloc-pro and erkodur).The test results were listed below and summarized in biocompatibility report for sleep device (rpt 9733 rev 1.0).· for cytotoxicity testing, the test article extract showed no evidence of causing cell lysis or toxicity.· for skin irritation, there was no erythema and no edema observed on the skin of the animals treated with the test article.· for sensitization testing, the test article extracts showed no evidence of causing delayed dermal contact sensitization.· the test article showed nonirritant to the oral mucosa as compared to the control article.The device materials have been found to be biocompatible through the testing.There was no cytotoxic, sensitization, skin irritation, or oral mucosal irritation found in any of the test articles.
|