K-numberK243302
Device name3DMatrix DynaFlex (DynaFlex)
ApplicantPrintbio, Inc.
Product codeOXF
Device classClass II
Decision dateMay 21, 2025
DecisionSubstantially Equivalent
Regulation878.3300
AI Summary extracted from FDA summary PDF · never regenerated
Intended use

The 3DMatrix DynaFlex is a fully absorbable surgical mesh made of polydioxanone (PDO) used to reinforce soft tissue during plastic and reconstructive surgery. It is provided in three sizes, can be cut to fit each application, and degrades over 6-7 months while providing temporary mechanical support and a scaffold for tissue ingrowth. Intended uses include suture line reinforcement, hernia repair, muscle flap reinforcement, and general tissue reconstruction.

Technological characteristics

DynaFlex is identical to the predicate 3DMatrix in material composition (PDO), manufacturing methods, packaging, sterilization mode (ethylene oxide, SAL 10-6), and bioabsorption timeline (6-7 months). The key differences are higher pore size (7.5 ± 0.2 mm² vs. 1.21 mm²), lower density (289 g/m² vs. 392 g/m²), and bi-directional mechanical properties (versus the predicate's non-isotropic properties). These differences are characteristic of other FDA-cleared surgical meshes with similar indications.

Test standards cited

Testing followed ASTM D6797-15 (ball burst strength), ASTM D2261-13 (tear strength), ASTM D5035-11 (tensile strength), and internal test methods for suture pull-out strength. Biocompatibility testing complied with Good Laboratory Practice (21 CFR Part 58) and FDA Guidance for ISO 10993-1, addressing all endpoints required for long-term implant devices with tissue and bone contact.

Substantial equivalence argument

DynaFlex is substantially equivalent because it has identical indications, principle of operation, material composition, manufacturing methods, and sterilization to the predicate 3DMatrix. Nonclinical testing demonstrated equivalent mechanical performance, degradation kinetics, and in vivo bioabsorption. The differences in pore size, density, and bi-directional mechanics do not raise new safety or effectiveness concerns because these same variations exist among other FDA-cleared surgical meshes with substantially similar indications for use.

Extracted by AI from the official FDA summary PDF →
Source

View the full FDA submission: accessdata.fda.gov

Researching this as a predicate?
Want a transparent AI-ranking score, AI-discovered related predicates, ongoing safety and warning-letter monitoring, full predicate chain lineage, and a drafted SE rationale — all saved to your own project? That's what an account adds.
Start free trial →

Everything you need for a 510(k) submission. Nothing you don't.

14-day free trial. No setup. Cancel anytime.

Start free trial →
Building an AI or ML-enabled device? Predicate search, PCCP tracking, and AI-specific FDA intelligence — built exclusively for AI/ML devices. Try AIFDA Intel →