|
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.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: type of investigation codes were added: 4109, 4111 and 3331.H6: investigation findings code was added: 213.H6: investigation conclusions code was added: 4315.H10: narrative/data was updated.Zimvie received the reported implant for evaluation.Visual evaluation of the as returned device identified the implant with minor signs of use.No apparent malfunction was identified.Product within specification.Functional testing to recreate the reported event could not be performed due to the nature of the device & event.Dhr review was completed for the subject lot number 1243314.No deviations or non-conformances, which could have caused or contributed to the reported event, were noted as part of the dhr.Complaint history review was performed for the reported lot number 1243314 for similar events and no other complaint was identified.Per the applicable ifu, zimmer dental implants should not be placed if there is an insufficient volume of alveolar bone to minimally support the implant (minimum 1mm circumferential and 2mm apical).Implants placed in the maxilla should not perforate the sinus floor membrane.Poor bone quality, poor patient oral hygiene, heavy tobacco use, uncontrolled systematic diseases (diabetes, etc.), reduced immunity, alcoholism, drug addiction, and psychological instability may contribute to lack of integration and/or subsequent implant failure.Based on the investigation and risk management file review, the most likely root causes determined from the investigation are customer error/patient factors.Therefore, based on the available information, device malfunction did not occur.The reported event was non-verifiable with all the available information.No further investigation or 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.
|