|
It was reported that the patient's general dentist was unable to restore the implant at tooth site #4.It was suspected that there was either a fracture or stripped interior threads on the implant.An additional appointment was anticipated, however, no additional information was provided.
|
|
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 code was added: 10, 4109, 3331 and 4111.H6: investigation findings code was added: 3252.H6: investigation conclusions code was added: 4307.H10: narrative/data was updated.Zimvie received the reported device for evaluation.Visual evaluation was performed.Returned implant shows extensive signs of wear/use.Bone debris can be observed on its external threads.Fracture observed on its collar.Dhr review was completed for the subject lot number.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 for similar events, and no other complaint was identified.The customer did not submit images for the reported event.Based on the investigation and risk management file review, the most likely root cause determined from the investigation was patient factors.Therefore, based on the available information, a device malfunction did occur.The implant was fractured at the collar.The reported event was confirmed.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.
|