PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

J M Finley

Publications and source records attributed to J M Finley.

14 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1998

Palatal extension of removable prostheses related to implant positions.

Once the decision has been made to construct a maxillary implant-supported overdenture prosthesis, implant location and number are important determining factors for palatal design. Eight clinical scenarios are described. Four cases require full palatal coverage, and four cases permit modified palatal coverage. Only two, with an increased number of implants and more posterior locations, permit a completely open palatal design similar to fixed prostheses.

Dental Prosthesis Design↗
PubMed1998

Restoring the edentulous maxilla using an implant-supported, matrix-assisted secondary casting.

The selection of appropriate implant treatment modalities for the edentulous maxillary arch is complex. Although many patients are candidates for an implant-supported removable prosthesis, two major considerations affecting choice of treatment type are the amount of residual alveolar bone and soft tissue, and cost. A technique is described that employs a cast milled primary bar and a secondary casting constructed using a vacuum-formed 0.040-in plastic matrix. The secondary casting is intimately adapted to the primary bar and incorporates the retentive elements within it. The resulting prosthesis is less expensive than comparable designs, and retentive elements are easily replaceable. The technique is adaptable to most implant systems. The matrix-assisted secondary casting technique provides a design that is esthetic and hygienic. The prosthesis may also be easier to insert and remove than implant-supported removable prostheses that use plunger- or latch-type retention.

Alveolar Bone Loss↗
PubMed1995

Proper function, phonetics, and aesthetics achieved with implant-supported restorations: a multidisciplinary approach.

In a multidisciplinary restoration of the edentulous patient, close cooperation of involved personnel is essential during the treatment planning and the restorative procedures. This presentation is an overview of the rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla, posterior maxilla, and the challenges of the single tooth implant-supported restorations. The prerequisite of teamwork is emphasized, past achievements and benefits of this treatment modality are reviewed, and three prosthetic challenges addressed. Clinical cases are used to illustrate the presentation.

Dental Implantation, Endosseous↗
PubMed1993

Breast cancer after mammary augmentation.

Augmentation mammoplasty has been said to reduce the risk for subsequent development of mammary gland carcinoma, but it may confer a worse prognosis should breast cancer develop. Nine patients who had breast cancer after augmentation mammoplasty were treated at the Ochsner Foundation Hospital and Clinic. The mean interval between augmentation and the development of a palpable mass was 6.8 years (range, 2 to 20 years). Four patients were treated with modified radical mastectomy, one was treated with radical mastectomy, and four were treated with tylectomy, axillary dissection, and radiotherapy. One of the four treated with tylectomy required salvage mastectomy. Reconstructions were done in all except one mastectomy patient. Five patients had stage I disease and four had stage II disease at the time of diagnosis. Over a mean follow-up of 4.75 years from the time of diagnosis of carcinoma of the breast, three of the four patients with stage II disease have either had recurrent disease or died of breast cancer, and one of the patients with stage I disease died with hepatic metastases. Mammography was not found to be useful for the detection of masses after augmentation mammoplasty. Needle aspirations were useful for diagnosis of nodal disease outside the breast, but not helpful in diagnosis of the breast lesion proper. Our analysis suggests that breast augmentation and the patient's psychologic considerations may delay the diagnosis of breast cancer. Additionally, patients may fare worse when breast cancer develops after mammary augmentation. We recommend preoperative mammography in most patients before mammary augmentation, particularly in those over the age of 30 years and those with a family history of breast cancer.

Adult↗
PubMed1991

Roentgenographic evaluation of the augmented breast.

We performed a retrospective study to determine the sensitivity of mammography in detecting breast cancer arising in women with augmented breasts. Of eight women with breast implants in whom breast cancer developed, six had mammograms before biopsy. Only two of the six cancers were identified mammographically (sensitivity = 33%), and one of these two was seen only in retrospect. In both cases, the mammographic findings suggested a benign rather than a malignant process. All eight women had a palpable mass and early disease, and all are clinically disease-free at present. The sensitivity of mammography in detecting palpable cancers in a control group of women without implants was 92% (118 of 128). For tumors of 2 cm or less, the sensitivity was 88% (58 of 66). These results suggest that the sensitivity of mammography in detecting breast cancer is decreased when implants are present. Further investigations are needed to determine the effects of prostheses on mammographic evaluations.

Adult↗
PubMed1983

Wound healing. Helping a natural process.

Wound healing calls for little outside interference. All the physician need do is ensure that the wound is clean and debrided and decide whether closure by suture or by granulation tissue formation is indicated. Suture repair should be delayed if the wound is heavily contaminated. Use of skin tapes or of constant-pressure garments may enhance results.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗
PubMed1978

Revascularized periosteal grafts--a new method to produce functional new bone without bone grafting.

Rib periosteum was transplanted to the groins of 9 dogs. In half of the periosteal grafts, no microvascular anastomoses were done (free grafts); at 6 weeks after grafting they had become resorbed. The other periosteal grafts were revascularized by microvascular anastomoses of the intercostal vessels to local muscular vessels; at 6 weeks those with confirmed vascular patency had all formed substantial amounts of new bone. Five cm, full-thickness defects were created in the tibias of 10 dogs. The control animals (without grafting) did not heal in two months. However, the experimental dogs, with vascularized periosteal grafts in the defects regenerated their tibias with healthy new bone by 6 weeks--and were walking on them then.

Animals↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Osteogenesis from periosteal autografts in ulnar defects in dogs.

The quantity of new bone formed by revascularized periosteal grafts was compared with that formed by nonvascularized periosteal grafts in ulnar diaphyseal defects in dogs. Although in general the revascularized periosteal grafts produced a greater quantity of bone than their nonvascularized counterparts, this osteogenic behavior was not consistent. The results, however, are sufficiently encouraging to merit further investigation into the free transfer of revascularized periosteal autografts.

Animals↗