Application of Risk Management For Dental Implants Based On ISO 14971
Application of Risk Management For Dental Implants Based On ISO 14971
Application of Risk Management For Dental Implants Based On ISO 14971
* ** *** †
윤지훈․김영진 ․전계록 ․정창모
오스템임플란트(주) 임플란트연구소․*부경대학교 공과대학 시스템경영공학과
**
부산대학교 의학전문대학원 의공학과․***부산대학교 치의학전문대학원 보철과
(2011. 12. 7. 접수 / 2012. 3. 19. 채택)
Abstract : Risk management is the process that helps to identify hazards, analyze them, and then to create an action
plan to avoid and mitigate these hazards. The main objective of risk management in product development and manu-
facturing is to provide safe and efficient products without spending too many resources. Medical device manufac-
turers also face enormous risks - regulatory, legal, and financial - based on their products and processes, and the
concepts of risk management are particularly important because any single failure may result in serious damages to
body or loss of life. In this regard, a set of guidelines for the application of risk management to medical devices has been
issued by ISO and specified in the document ISO 14971 Medical devices - Application of risk management to me-
dical devices. The main objective of this study is to investigate the application of risk management to dental implant
development and manufacturing processes based on ISO 14971. A general risk management process is first
introduced, and the application of ISO 14971 to dental implants is further investigated.
Key Words : risk management, ISO 14971, medical devices, dental implants, case study
92
치과용 임플란트에 대한 ISO 14971 기반의 리스크관리
and unacceptable regions. For these risks, the resi- 3.1. Hazard Identification
dual risk is acceptable for the option that reduces the Referring to Annexes C and E of ISO 14971, identi-
risk to the lowest practicable level. It may be conve- fication of intended use and characteristics related to
nient to use the ALARP approach for risks of which the safety of the medical device are prepared by the
probability cannot be estimated. Completing the eval- risk analysis personnel. Twenty nine potential haza-
uation of overall residual risk acceptability, a review rds have been identified as shown in Table 1. Most
of the risk management process should be carried out of the hazards are identified on the basis of clinical
prior to release for commercial distribution of the papers, ISO standards, and internal information on
medical device. Schematic representation of the risk production and maintenance.
management process is depicted in Fig. 1.
3.2. Risk Estimation and Acceptability
3. Application to Dental Implants Referring to Annexes C and E of ISO 14971, A
semi-quantitative analysis specified in D.3.4.2 of ISO
The leading company of dental implant market in
14971 has been adapted, and a 5 × 5 risk matrix is
Korea has initiated the risk management process in
cooperation with KFDA (Korea Food and Drug Admi-
Table 1. Hazard identification of dental implant
nistration) in 2008, and the process has been imple- ID Hazard Hazardous Situation
mented for development and manufacturing of dental R1 Errors of Selecting Material
implants and surgical tools. Risk management for the Design
R2 Errors in the Fixture Design
development of newly designed implant fixture is R3 Errors in Measuring a Bone Quality
Diagnosis
briefly discussed in the below. R4 Errors of Measuring an Anatomic Structure
R5 Misrepresentation of the Specification Info.
R6 Misrepresentation of Precautions
R7 Misrepresentation of Directions
R8 Surgical Use of an Expired Product
R9 Operation Over Torque
R10 Errors of the Insertion Depth
R11 Errors of Connecting Mounts
R12 Errors of Connecting Cover Screw
R13 CNC Programming Errors
R15 Defects in Cutting Tools
R16 Out of Specification
R17 Out of Tool Holder Setting Point
R18 Cleaning Machine Stoppage
R19 Post Machine Stoppage
R20 Residual Chip and Dump
R21 Product Mixed Up
Production
R22 Defects in Masking Jig
R23 Steam Cleaner Stoppage
R24 Dropping Product
R25 Defects in Alkali Recycling
R26 Double Marking
R27 Blister Unforming
R28 Label Information Errors
1)
Fig. 1. Risk management process R29 Humidity Out of Specification
used. The severity levels of individual harms are deter- ted to be acceptable as shown in Table 4. For exa-
mined on the basis of focused group interviews (FGIs) mple, a hazard in diagnosis may lead to a hazardous
with expert dentists with over 10 years of experience situation of committing errors of measuring a bone
in implant dentistry, and descriptions on each seve- quality, which may cause the harm of bone loss or
rity level are also derived from FGIs. The proba- insufficient initial stability. The severity and proba-
bility of occurrence of harms is estimated by analy- bility of the harm are evaluated to be 2 and 3, respec-
zing published FDA data and internal customer com- tively, which results in ALARP. In this case, allevia-
plaints database. Thus the severity and probability of ting severity of the harm would be costly and time
occurrence of harms are estimated for all harms consuming.
identified. Risk acceptability criteria are indicated in Thus, risk control measures to reduce the proba-
a 5 × 5 risk evaluation matrix as shown in Table 2. bility of occurrence would be more practicable. One
It is noted that an ALARP approach is adapted. No of the identified control measures to reduce the occur-
harms are evaluated to be unacceptable and six harms rence of the harm R3 is to optimize the design of
are located in ALARP regions as shown in Table 3. surgical drills which has a significant effect on the
Risks associated with individual harms are calculated bone loss and initial stability. A twist drill is mostly
by multiplying the severity and probability scores. used to secure enough space at the site for an effec-
tive and safe placement of dental implants. Drilling
3.3. Risk Control Measures: An Example causes a certain amount of heat around the alveolus
Risk control option analysis has been performed bone, which often results in the bone loss and insuf-
to determine whether risk reduction is required for ficient initial stability of implant fixtures. Thus the
harms in ALARP regions, and risk control measures amount of heat generation is clearly affected by the
have been implemented for all harms in ALARP design of surgical drills. There are many design fac-
regions. Residual risk for individual harms is evalua tors affecting the performance of drills including point
angle, helix angle, relief angle, flute geometry, and
Table 2. Risk evaluation matrix tip shape, among which angle-related design factors are
Severity*
Probability** specified based on the prior experiments. To reduce
1 2 3 4 5
the amount of heat generated when drilling, an experi-
1 ACC ACC ACC ACC ALARP
ment is conducted with two design factors: flute
2 ACC ACC ALARP ALARP IR
geometry and tip shape. Four different drills arepre-
3 ACC ALARP ALARP IR IR
pared to conduct a two-level factorial experiment as
4 ACC ALARP IR IR IR
5 ALARP IR IR IR IR
Table 4. Risk control measures
※ IR : Intolerable Region, ACC : Acceptable Region
*
Severity Score: 1 (Negligible), 2 (Minor), 3 (Serious), 4 (Critical), ID Harm Severity Probability Risk
5 (Catastrophic) Design Optimization of
**
Probability Score: 1 (Frequent), 2 (Probable), 3 (Occasional), 4 (Re- Surgical Drill
mote), 5 (Improbable) R3 2 2 4
Providing Proper Information
on Surgical Procedures
Table 3. Harms in ALARP regions Providing Surgical
R6 4 1 4
ID Harm Severity Probability Risk Information in User’s Manual
Bone Loss or Insufficient Expression of the Available
R3 2 3 6 R8 3 1 3
Initial Stability Period in User’s Manual
Inflammation Provocation & Implantation Torque Test
R6 5 1 5 R9 Providing Proper Information 2 2 4
Loss of Function by Infection
on Surgical Procedures
Inflammation Provocation &
R8 5 1 5 Packaging IOQ
Failure of Osseo-Integration
R26 Validation of Packaging 3 1 3
R9 Fracture of Alveolar Bone 2 4 8 Inspection Records
R26 Out of Specification 3 3 9 Chart Record Monitoring
R28 3 1 3
R28 Increased Bacteria 3 2 6 Bioburden Test
Drilling on artificial bone specimens with uniform A 3-Flute, No-Step Drill 22.72 ± 1.63
B 3-Flute, Step Drill 19.92 ± 0.82
density using the equipment shown in Fig. 2, five mea-
C 2-Flute, No-Step Drill 15.10 ± 1.02
surements of temperature are taken with respect to
D 2-Flute, Step Drill 7.16 ± 1.15
drilling depth.
Experimental results are summarized in Table 6
and Fig. 3, and a two-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) indicates that both factors have significant
effects on changes in temperature with p-value less
than 0.01 and 96.87% of R-square. Since changes in
temperature are much smaller, 2-flute is preferable to
3-flute with respect to flute geometry. Further, conven-
tional no-step drills may be replaced by step drills to
reduce the changes in temperature. In conclusion, 2-
flute step drill design has been adapted and deployed
for further validation. Afterward, new surgical drills
have been shipped out to customers and clinical data
are currently stacked for updating risk management
profiles. In addition to the optimization of surgical
Fig. 3. Temperature changes with respect to depth.
Table 5. Factor levels
Levels Table 7. ANOVA Table
Factor
Low High Sources DF SS MS F
Flute Geometry 2-Flute 3-Flute Flute 1 559.7 559.7 392.1
Drill Tip Shape No-Step Drill Step Drill Drill Tip 1 124.0 124.0 86.9
Interaction 1 23.8 23.8 16.7
Error 16 22.8 1.5 -
Total 19 730.3 - -
※ R-square = 96.87%, R-square(adj.) = 96.29%
4. Conclusions