|
This report is being submitted to relay additional information and device evaluation.The following sections are being reported: b4: date of this report was updated.D9: device availability and return date were updated.G3: date received by manufacturer was updated.G6: type of report was updated.H2: type of follow up was updated.H3: device evaluated by manufacturer was updated.H6: investigation type codes were added: 3331, 4109, 4110 and 4111.H6: investigation findings code was added: 213.H6: investigation conclusions codes were added: 67 and 4310.H10: narrative/data was updated.One (1) osseotite tapered certain prevail implant 6/5 x 8.5mm (xiitp6585) & one (1) osseotite tapered certain prevail implant 6/5 x 8.5mm (xiitp6585) were returned for investigation.Visual evaluation of the as returned product identified signs of use.No malfunction identified.Based on the evaluation, device malfunction has not occurred.Additionally, there is no existing nonconformance/capa/hhe/d/ie/product holds against the reported devices that could cause or contribute to the reported event.Monthly post market trending review identified no actionable trends or corrective actions for the reported event or devices.Zimvie quality management system (qms) has controls in place to ensure the distribution of conforming product.Therefore, based on the available information, the product was within specifications and likely conforming when it left zimvie.Dhr review was completed for the subject lot numbers (2021070460 & 2021051434).It was confirmed that all operations and inspections were executed as per applicable procedure.No deviations or non-conformance's, which could have caused or contributed to the reported event, were noted as part of the dhr.Lot numbers were inspected and passed all acceptance criteria by qa.Complaint history review was performed for the reported lot numbers (2021070460 & 2021051434) for similar events and no other complaint was identified.The reported event could not be recreated due to the nature of the dental device and event, and the complaint is not related to the functional performance of the devices.A definitive root cause could not be identified.However, based on the investigation, ifu and risk file review, the most likely causes determined from the investigation are clinician places implant in a patient with patient factors (e.G., poor hygiene, periodontal issues, pre-existing medical conditions), clinician inadvertently selects a length of implant that is too long for the depth of osteotomy prepared.No further investigation and no immediate capa/hhe/d escalation is required, as the complaint investigation did not confirm the product was nonconforming at the time of distribution, and no new failure mode, harm, or hazardous situation was identified through the investigation performed.
|