|
This report is being submitted to report additional information.The following sections are being reported: d4: expiration date and unique identifier (udi) number.H2: if follow-up, what type.H3: device evaluated by manufacturer.H4: device manufacturer date.H6: type of investigation.H6: investigation findings.H6: investigation conclusions.H10: additional narratives/data.One healing abutment was returned for investigation.Visual evaluation of the as returned product identified no malfunction.During a functional test the abutment seated on an in-house implant as intended.Dhr review for the lot had revealed no deviations nor non-conformances which could have caused or contributed to the reported event.All products were conforming at the time they left zimvie.Lot was inspected and passed all acceptance criteria by qa.Complaint history review was performed for the reported lot and no similar event or complaint was found.Based on the investigation and risk management file review, and ifu, the most likely root cause determined from the investigation was incorrect technique used during placement.Therefore, based on the available information, device malfunction did not occur.However, the reported event could not be verified.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.
|