its effect upon certain glands; but such grooving is certainly not decay. Br. Dwinelle seemed to think that this peculiar grooving of teeth had been and could be brought about by artificial means, which, with all due respect to chemistry and Dr. Dwinelle, we doubt. We can cut a groove into a tooth with an emery wheel, but, so long as nature does not use such means, such a groove proves nothing.

Dr. Bogue, while recognizing cleanliness as an important factor in the prevention of decay, tried (it seemed to me quite unnecessarily) to make a point that my conclusions are not based so much on practical information as on chemical theory. It is true that every gentleman present at the meeting knew probably many times more about practical dental matters than I do, but when they discuss and explain cases from the stand-point of chemical science, our positions become more nearlv equal. Granting that Dr. Dwinelle, or any other member of the society, may be a hundred times my superior in practical dentistry, yet when, in generalizing, he enters the domain of another science, he can no longer rely upon his dental experience for the support of bis theories. Thus, if one of these gentlemen should state that decay is produced by the action of nitric acid from the oxidation of ammonia, even though his knowledge of chemistry were at least equal to mine, I could with propriety reply that, having made many experiments, I had reason to believe that such action was not possible,—in other words, admitting my ignorance of dentistry, I may at least discuss chemical principles with dentists.

Dr. Bogue could hardly credit his ears that I said "bugs are always first." He said the same thing himself, though he did not realize that he was saying it. He said, u They will do no harm to the tooth until the enamel shall have been penetrated by chemical action, which chemical action is probably fermentative." What is fermentation? Does it not necessarily presuppose and require bugs? 3STo fermentation can take place without micro-organisms, vulgarly called "bugs." Dr. Bogue acknowledges that one class of bugs must be there before another class can do any mischief,—exactly as I put it, "bugs are always first." It is true that I did not specify what kind of bugs, but I meant to include all the fermentative micro-organisms, as well as the bacterium termo, under this appellation. This is the practical point in the theory and treatment of decay. If the bugs are there first, we have to treat differently than if acids were there first. If micro-organisms are the first cause, carbolic acid, bichloride of mercury, eucalyptol, etc., are the proper remedies. If the acids are there first, such remedies are worthless, and soda, chalk, or some similar base, is indicated. The practical dentist (Dr. Bogue), not the theoretical chemist, has long ago decided this question in his own practice. By using the first-mentioned remedies, he shows his belief in the theory, u bugs " first.—Chas. Mayr.

To The Editor Of The Dental Cosmos:

Dr. E. C. Koons, of Sheridan, "Wyoming, visited the Custer battle-field in August last, and found protruding from the soil a part of the superior and the entire inferior maxillary bones, with the teeth in place. They are now in his possession. While in Sheridan I examined them, and send you a description, with the idea that the dentist who did the work would be likely to read the article, and could in this way identify the officer or soldier Dr. Koons marked the spot. It was within a few feet of where Custer himself fell. The entire cutting surface of the right superior central, the anterior surface of the left superior lateral, and the posterior surface of the right superior cuspid are filled with gold; the inferior first and second molars on the right side are missing ; the dens sapientiee on the right side is filled with amalgam. The person was about thirty-five to forty years old ; lower jaw rather broad and angular.—Thomas F. Coryell, Dayton, Wyoming.

THE

DENTAL COSMOS.

Vol. XXVII. PHILADELPHIA, AUGUST, 1885. No. 8.

ORIGINAL COMMUNICATIONS.

00N0EENIM SEPAEATOES,

BY SAFFORD G. PERRY, D.D.S., NEW YORK, N. Y.

The advantages to be derived from a device by which the teeth without previous wedging, can be drawn apart and held in position while operations are made upon their approximal surfaces are so great that it seems unnecessary to call the attention of the profession to them.

To the dentist whose practice is that of heedlessly making permanent separations between the teeth, with no thought of the safety and comfort of the gum or of the future change of position of the teeth, such a device may be of but little value. But to the one who, in making permanent separations, endeavors to leave a point of contact to protect the gum, and hold the teeth in position, or to the one who makes strict restorations of contour, it is a device of the greatest value.

The Jarvis separators, brought out in 1875, demonstrated the fact that by means of the screw most of the teeth could be somewhat separated, and that it was an operation which could be performed safely and with no more pain than would be willingly borne by most patients. But the usefulness of these separators was greatly lessened by the fact that when in position they were in the way, and prevented approach to the surfaces they were intended to expose.

Appreciating the advantage which must arise from a separator which would open and retain the teeth, and at the same time be so constructed as to be out of the way, I devised the separator wThich is shown in Fig. 1. [It holds in place a matrix which will be described later.] This separator I exhibited at the annual meeting of the Dental Society of the State of New York, held at Albany, in May, 1877. In a paper on the "Treatment of the Approximal Surfaces of the Bicuspids and Molars," read at that meeting, Vol. Xxyii.—29.

and published in the Dental Cosmos for May, 1879,1 advocated the restoration of the shapes of the teeth, and exhibited this device as one of the aids to such practice. At the request of one of the agents of the late Dr. S. S. White, this separator, which was adapted to the bicuspids and cuspids only, was put into his hands with a view of completing the patterns for a set of separators adapted to the shapes of the different teeth. In due time it was returned to me with an abstract of the Jarvis patent and the statement that the improvement was undoubtedly covered by the Jarvis claim, and as the Jarvis separators were in the hands of the Johnston Bros., and being manufactured by them, it did not seem advisable to complete the set of patterns and undertake the manufacture of the separators. A year or two later the Johnston Bros., from a pattern which I gave them, made and sold to the profession the separator shown in Fig. 2. [This also holds in position a half matrix, which will be described later.] In this separator an effort was made to

Fig. 1. Fig. 2.

employ adjusting screws set in the inner jaws of the separators, and not shown in the cut, which should better fit them to teeth of different sizes and position; but, owing to some inadvertence, they were not submitted to me for revision and approval before being finished and put on the market, and, not being rightly made, they proved to be somewhat disappointing, and I believe but few of them were ever sold.

After a thorough trial of this separator it became evident to me that the adjusting screws would not accomplish the object expected of them, and that the only way to meet the requirements of teeth of flifferent size and shape would be to return to the plan of the original separator, and make a set which should contain one for the front teeth, one for the bicuspids, one for the molars, and perhaps one for the molars and bicuspids.

Patterns, therefore, for these four, which had been commenced in 1877 and 1878, were worked upon from time to time, but were not completed until November, 1883, at which time they were put into the hands of The S. S. White Dental Manufacturing Co., who had in the meantime come into possession of the Jarvis patents. A set of separators made from these patterns is shown by the accompanying cuts. (Fig. 3.)

They were finished and sent by The S. S. White Dental Manufacturing Co. to be exhibited at the meeting of the American Dental Association, at Saratoga, in August, 1884; but they were not shown there, as I was not present to explain their use. They were subsequently exhibited at the October meeting of the New York Odontological Society, and a description of them published in the Dental Cosmos for January, 1885. As will be seen by the cuts, the general

Fig. 3.

plan of the original separator was followed in completing the patterns for the full set. The shanks were turned down in the same manner, for the purpose of getting them out of the way, and to allow the screw to be placed nearly on a line with the points of bearing of the jaws. The shanks were somewhat shortened to allow their use far back in the mouth without interference from the cheek when used on the outside, or from the tongue when used on the inside, of the mouth. Except in the case of the one adapted to the incisors, the bows were made only large enough to go over the largest teeth that might be met with. They were kept as small as possible, in order to be out of the way in working over them, and to lessen the danger of disturbance or displacement. In the one de

signed for the incisors the size of the bow was increased beyond the need which might be apparent at first sight. This was done for the purpose of allowing the shank to be used on the outside or the inside of the arch. It seemed desirable to be able to use the separator with the shank and screw on the opposite side from which the approximal surfaces were to be approached. As the upper and lower incisors almost invariably point forward, and as the attachment of the gums is farther from the cutting ends on the outside than on the inside, it will be readily seen that in order to reverse the shank the bow must be enlarged. In other words, a smallbowed, close-fitting separator, which could be most conveniently used with the shank on the outside of the arch, could not be used at all with the shank on the inside, for the small bow would almost invariably strike the ends of the teeth when the separator was thus reversed. I therefore enlarged the bow of this separator so that it could be reversed, even at the risk of the bows being in the way, and of its being more easily disturbed or displaced. As I expected it to be generally used with the screw and shank on the opposite side from which the approximal surfaces were approached, I brought the sides of the shank close together to better fit it for the narrow circle made by the curve of the inside of the arch. At the suggestion of Dr. Wm. Jarvie, I added the watch-key device for turning the screws, and it has proven a great convenience in operating the separators.

Before the pattern for this separator was finished I had seen in the possession of Dr. C. L. Brown, who occupied an office in my house, a separator which he had copied from a modification of one of my original separators, which had been made by Dr. Bogue. This modification consisted in greatly enlarged bows, by which the separator could be applied over a larger number of teeth, and by which means it became more nearly a universal separator than any I had yet seen or made.

In describing my separators before the Odontological Society I failed to mention that I had seen this separator, and as I had no knowledge whatever that Dr. Bogue had made any further efforts to make separators of this class useful, I did not mention his name in connection with them. My failure to mention having seen this large-bowed separator was quite natural, however, as there was but slight resemblance between my finished incisor separator and the one I had seen in Dr. Brown's possession. I have since learned that Dr. Bogue, taking up the separator shown in Fig. 2, has increased the size of the bows and made a set of separators which can be used over most of the teeth,

I soon became dissatisfied with the working of this reversible