Regulatory Open Forum

 View Only
  • 1.  specification developer, distributor or ?

    Posted 06-Nov-2020 20:55

    Hello:
    I have a conundrum.  I help with a company that is a service provider to dentists, i.e. a dental service organization (not a manufacturer).  They want to provide a home teeth impression kit (not for aligners) for other oral appliance.  They want to use the kit in conjunction with a home teledental visit.  The kit has all class 1 products, except for the putty, which is class II (US), class I Canada.  I would classify as a convenience kit. 

    The service provider has specified to the contract manufacturer what contents they want, how packaged etc....in the impression kit.  The kit has UDI from contract manufacturer. The kit is not specifically branded to the service provider.  The service provider sends the kit to the patient on the Rx of the DDS, after the impressions are done, the impressions are sent to a dental laboratory.  

    I know Smile Direct, Byte and Candid (and others) have similar product, i.e. home teeth impression kits for aligners, the process is essentially the same. A citizen petition was lodged by the ADA for an injunction, but was denied by FDA per 21 CFR Part 10.30 .  I have yet to find an actual 510k for a home teeth impression kit (if anyone can help :)) , the components i.e. putty have a 510k, but the impression trays are class 1 exempt.  I have looked through the convenience kits guidance documents (one from 1997 [these types of kits are not listed] and the newer UDI).  I was able to locate a kit on GUDID, but funny enough, for the question of kit, it says no, although the device name states home teeth impression kits. But which lists the K# for the putty, but not a kit itself.  

    It is a big ask, but if anyone has suggestions for this situation, I would be grateful. 





    ------------------------------
    robyn woidtke
    Castro Valley CA
    United States
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: specification developer, distributor or ?

    Posted 07-Nov-2020 10:06
    Hi robyn

    Sounds like two main questions ​here. One on defining roles and responsibilities, and one on classifying a device/kit intended for preparing some kind of oral appliance?

    For the first, it might be a good idea for the service provider to make an agreement with the contract manufacturer, defining a shared understanding of the areas that could look gray.

    If the contract manufacturer is registering their own UDI for the kit, it seems they are identifying themselves as the responsible manufacturer, in which case the service provider would simply be filling a distributor role. (The customer may have asked the manufacturer if they could provide a certain product and the manufacturer agreed to develop and supply it.)

    Who is writing and validating the instructions for use? If that's the service provider, they may be filling the specification developer or relabeler role, in which case they'll register as a manufacturer. (Or they may be providing a labeling development service for the manufacturer.)

    Whose contact information will appear on the label? The label will need to identify a company and its role as manufacturer, specification developer, or distributor. (Like "manufactured by X", "manufactured for X", or "distributed by X")

    Who will be handling any complaints received?

    Who is keeping the DHF for the kit?

    What are the responsibilities of the service provider and the contract manufacturer if any of the kit components are recalled?

    ------------------------------
    Anne LeBlanc
    Manager, Regulatory Affairs
    United States
    ------------------------------



  • 3.  RE: specification developer, distributor or ?

    Posted 08-Nov-2020 08:03
    Hi Robin

    It is really unclear to me if the putty is this kit is 510k cleared?

    If not, the answer is the service provider will need a 510k for the kit, including the putty.   They can reference the exemption on the exempt products (maybe multi-function products guidance FDA just put out), but the issue is with the putty, does it meet ISO standard for putty, has service provider already done all the design controls for the putty, etc. Biocomp  and usability issues for home use come to mind as key issues for me.  Most putties requires pro use. I personally hate getting putty impressions  because if left too long, hard to get out without damaging dental work or deforming the impression..

    Service provider is putting their name on the kit, do they have a QSR compliant QMS ?

    For UDI,  kit level yes will need UDI, AMas will the putty but the Class 1 device requirements for UDI are delayed. 

    Perhaps you could better explain the service providers materials -are they buying a commercial putty and repacking in a kit? Sounds like it if it has a UDI? a private label?



    ------------------------------
    Ginger Cantor, MBA, RAC
    Founder/Principal Consultant
    Centaur Consulting LLC
    River Falls, Wisconsin 54022 USA
    715-307-1850
    centaurconsultingllc@gmail.com
    ------------------------------



  • 4.  RE: specification developer, distributor or ?

    Posted 08-Nov-2020 12:19
    Thank you Anne and Ginger for your responses, echoing my thoughts for sure and I am appreciative of the input. Ginger, yes the putty does have 510k from a qualified supplier.  ​ 

    My apologies for not being as clear as I could have been. 
    1. The contract manufacturer is working under their QMS and will be the responsible party, the service provider does have an agreement with them. The UDI labeling is the contract manufacturer.  The kit itself is rather agnostic i.e. just states home impression kit, the service providers name is not currently included. 
    2.They are repackaging the putty from larger to smaller containers. 
    3. The service provider would have a DDS via teledental consult guide the patient.  In these times, there a lot of folks who do not want to go to the see a doctor or dentist, yet need treatment. Hopefully by engaging via real-time with the patient, the issues with impressions will be alleviated. Throughout this process, it has been amazing to me that the home teeth impression kits for the purpose of providing aligners have proliferated with little support from the suppliers (amazon as well) for the patients who are guided by videos etc.. 
    4. IFU development is a collective effort and primary was driven by what is currently on the internet for home impression kits for aligners.  I recently reviewed it and have given some feedback. 

    My role is not really an actual role, I had some concerns for a colleague moving in this direction, so I thought I could help them out.  

    Thanks again for your insights.  
    Robyn

    ------------------------------
    robyn woidtke
    Castro Valley CA
    United States
    ------------------------------