Model Number 10-210-1060 |
Device Problem
Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem (2993)
|
Patient Problems
Inflammation (1932); Itching Sensation (1943)
|
Event Date 01/01/2016 |
Event Type
Injury
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
A device history record (dhr) review was conducted for lot 102268, and it was concluded that the products were inspected and accepted for use by the quality control department on 09/27/10 and met all specified parameters of the receiving inspection report (rir) with no associated nonconformances.
Donor records were also reviewed, and product was approved on 09/23/09.
The device was unable to be evaluated as the paste remained implanted.
However, a medical review and assessment of the event was completed and determined that the reaction was a result of the restorative metals used in the procedure and that the fibrous strands were likely not related to the dynablast paste, as the material could not be identified in the pathology reports and dynablast paste is not comprised of fibrous strands.
The reported allegation of post-operative reaction due to dynablast paste was not confirmed.
A root cause of the fibrous strands was undetermined, and the reaction was determined to be the result of the restorative metals.
Additionally, it was found during the investigation that the implants were placed 3 months after grafting with dynablast.
Per the dfu, implant placement should begin approximately 6 months after grafting with dynablast.
Review of labeling notes: warnings and precautions: sites grafted with dynablast should be allowed to heal approximately 6 months prior to implant placement.
|
|
Event Description
|
In (b)(6) 2011, the patient received dynablast paste in location #30.
In (b)(6) 2011 she received an implant at the site and restoration was completed in (b)(6) 2011.
In 2014, the patient began pulling fibrous strands out of the site.
A pathology report was performed on (b)(6) 2014, and the results were inconclusive.
In 2015, the patient began to experience inflammation and itching around the site and she continued to pull out fibrous strands.
An additional pathology report was performed on (b)(6) 2015 which concluded that she had type iv hypersensitivity to the metals used in the restoration and all restorative components were removed.
However, the patient continued to express signs of allergic reaction and fibrous strands.
Patient was concerned that the issue may have been with the bone graft material.
At the time of contact, no additional event information was available.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
This supplemental is to retract report 2090010-2019-00002, submitted in error, as keystone dental is responsible for mdr reporting requirements per quality agreement.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|