Clinical Evaluation 4 answers

Is a US-based test dataset mandatory for FDA clearance of dental AI software?

Anonymous · Published March 15, 2026 · 1 comment
At our company, we are developing dental AI software and are preparing for FDA clearance in the US. We understand that having data from US sources is beneficial, but is it always mandatory? Our product does not pose severe risk to patients or users. We would like to hear from those who have experience with FDA submissions for AI medical devices, especially regarding the origin of your test datasets and FDA expectations.

Join the discussion. Leave a comment. Guest comments are welcome — add your email to get reply notifications.

Anonymous 3 months ago
Are there specific population- or race-dependent efficacy or safety issues with your device?
Reply to this comment

Discussion

4 Answers

Accepted answer Dr. Oliver Eidel · Founder & CEO, OpenRegulatory ·
In my experience, the FDA never explicitly stated what was wrong with our non-US clinical data, but they strongly suggested we include at least one US site in a multicenter study. They raised concerns about factors like skin color and obesity, but conceded these weren't relevant after discussion and review of our data. We referenced ISO 14155 to explain our protocols, even though our data was historical. Overall, US data was not officially mandatory, but there was significant pressure to include it, especially for non-US manufacturers.

Join the discussion. Leave a comment. Guest comments are welcome — add your email to get reply notifications.

No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.

A
Anonymous ·
From what I've heard from FDA experts, using a US dataset is good but not strictly necessary, unless there are population-dependent safety or efficacy concerns. It's important to address these concerns in your pre-submission to the FDA and justify your data sources.

Join the discussion. Leave a comment. Guest comments are welcome — add your email to get reply notifications.

No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.

A
Anonymous ·
We were more or less required to use a US dataset due to differences in acquisition protocols, patient characteristics, equipment, and reading protocols. However, our device's indication was quite different from dental AI, so your experience may vary.

Join the discussion. Leave a comment. Guest comments are welcome — add your email to get reply notifications.

No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.

A
Anonymous ·
From my two 510(k) applications (not for active devices), I saw that the process was much faster for a US manufacturer using the same data and indication. As a non-US manufacturer, we faced far more questions and were eventually forced to withdraw our application. It feels like the FDA is more protective of the US market and demands more from non-US manufacturers, regardless of the scientific rationale.

Join the discussion. Leave a comment. Guest comments are welcome — add your email to get reply notifications.

No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.

Want to add your answer to this question?
Write an answer under your name by logging in or signing up, or post anonymously.

Keep reading

All questions

Still have a question? Ask a question here publicly — for free.

Or talk to one of our consultants — first calls are free. Check out our services and prices.

Looking to automate your regulatory work? Check out our eQMS, Formwork. Built for lean, founder-led companies. There’s a free version too.