On (b)(6) 2023, nakanishi became aware of a malfunction of a nsk handpiece through a complaint input into the complaint database by a distributor (nsk america).Details are as follows: the event occurred on (b)(6) 2023.(the exact date is unknown.) a dentist was performing a dental procedure on a patient using the z800l handpiece (serial no.(b)(4) ).During the procedure, the head cap of the handpiece came off in the patient's mouth and the patient was not injured in the event.
|
Upon receiving the device involved in the mdr event from the distributor, nakanishi conducted a failure analysis of the returned device [report no.C230329-01].These activities are described in more detail below.Methodology used: a) nakanishi examined the device history record and the repair history for the subject z800l device [0bf30331].There were no problems observed during manufacturing or testing noted in the dhr.There were no records indicating nakanishi (the manufacturer) repaired the device since the device was shipped.Nakanishi received the repair record from nsk america (the distributor), which included the detailed information about the repair nsk america carried out.Nakanishi kept the repair record in a file.B) nakanishi conducted a visual inspection of the returned device and observed the following: - the headcap and the cartridge were separated from the device.- the bearing of the cartridge rear side was disassembled.C) nakanishi disassembled the handpiece and conducted a visual inspection of the internal parts.Nakanishi observed the following: - there were no abrasion or deterioration of the headcap thread and head thread.- the bearings of the cartridge rear and front sides were slightly soiled.D) nakanishi mounted a new cartridge to the head of the handpiece and rotate the handpiece under no load and cut a melamine plate while rotating the handpiece at the maximum speed (440,000min-1) to check whether or not the headcap would loosen.The reported loosening of the headcap was not replicated in the device evaluation.E) nakanishi took photographs of all the disassembled parts and kept them in the investigation report no.(b)(4).Conclusions reached based on the investigation and analysis results: a) although nakanishi could not replicate the reported event, nakanishi considers the possibility from similar event that nsk has experienced in the past, the combination of the reduced headcap tightening force together with abnormal vibration, which caused by high-load cutting, run-out of the bur, or use of the out-of-specification bur, could result in the reported headcap loosening/separation.B) misuse by the user led to the above issue, which contributed to the reported event.C) in order to prevent a recurrence of the headcap loosening/separation, nakanishi took the following actions: c.1) nakanishi reviewed the operation manual and reconfirmed the clarity and understandability of the instructions.C.2) nakanishi will report the above evaluation results to the distributor and directed the distributor to remind the user of the importance of using the device as instructed in the operation manual.
|