The dentist refused to provide the patient's id and weight.Upon receiving the device involved in the mdr event, nakanishi conducted a failure analysis of the returned device [(b)(4)].These activities are described in more detail below.Methodology used: nakanishi examined the device history record and the repair history for the subject s-max m500l device [serial number (b)(4)].There were no problems observed during manufacturing or testing noted in the dhr.There were also no repair history records since the device was shipped.Nakanishi conducted a visual inspection of the returned device and performed a manual reproducibility test.There was no problem connecting the handpiece with the coupling.Nakanishi then pulled the handpiece by hand from the coupling without pulling the connector ring of the coupling to see whether or not the handpiece was removed from the coupling.Nakanishi did not observe the handpiece removal as reported by the user.Nakanishi supplied the handpiece with air with the manufacturer's recommended pressure (0.25mpa) and stopped supplying repeatedly (100 times) to replicate the reported phenomenon.Separation of the handpiece from the coupling was not observed during the test.Nakanishi evaluated pull length of the handpiece by pulling the handpiece from the coupling using force specified in the specifications (100n or greater).The handpiece did not separate from the coupling.Conclusions reached based on the investigation and analysis results: nakanishi could not identify the exact cause of the handpiece separating from the coupling because nakanishi was not able to replicate the phenomenon during testing and did not observe any abnormalities in the visual inspection.In spite of the fact that nakanishi did not identify the cause, nakanishi considers the possibility from many years of experience that the cause of the handpiece separation from the coupling was that the connector ring of the coupling was accidentally pulled in the lock release direction by external factors or that the connection was temporarily unstable due to foreign materials.Carelessness by the user causes erroneous operation leading to the reported handpiece separation.In order to prevent a recurrence of the handpiece separating from the coupling, nakanishi reported the above evaluation results to the dentist and urged the dentist to exercise caution in use of the device.
|
On february 27, 2019, nakanishi found that there was another handpiece (s-max m500l, serial no.(b)(4)), in addition to the 4 handpieces reported in the initial reports (mdr#9611253-2019-00007, #9611253-2019-00009, #9611253-2019-00010, #9611253-2019-00011), that may have been involved in the event.Nakanishi is submitting another mdr about that s-max m500l handpiece (serial no.(b)(4)).The event occurred on (b)(6) 2019.The dentist attached one of the above handpieces to the coupling and rotated the device in the patient's mouth.The patient was not under anesthesia.Suddenly, the coupling along with the hose popped out of the handpiece when pressure was applied.The dentist lost hold of the handpiece causing it to contact and cut the inside of the patient's mouth.Since the injury was minor, the dentist determined that no medical attention was required for the injury.According to the dentist, there were no abnormalities in the device observed prior to use.
|