down as probably free from dental diseases. Thirty-two had carious teeth. There were seven cases of extensive alveolar abscess. Twenty-two had lost teeth during life, and the consequent absorption had obliterated all trace of their existence. Twelve cases showed extensive absorption about existing teeth. There were two cases of visible exostoses, two apparently rudimentary wisdom teeth, and three irregular dentitions. Only seventeen showed depositions of tartar, and but thirteen gave evidences of much wear.

It will be seen that the teeth of the mound-builders were much more free from calcareous incrustations, and less worn than those of the inhabitants of Peru. This was doubtless owing to their living more largely upon an animal diet. There were less cases of irregularity because they were a larger and more muscular race, with broader, stronger jaws, but the proportion of diseased dentitions did not vary greatly.

The teeth of the Sandwich Islanders were much more beautiful, and instances of irregularity were very rare. But the same prevalence of caries and other dental diseases was observable, though in probably not as great proportion. I was unable, in the limited time at my disposal, to attempt to gather any statistics of the skulls of this people, or of those of the few Mexicans, California Indians, and Patagonians in the collection. It must suffice here to say that all showed the presence of the same diseases which we are called upon to treat to-day, and the proportion, while undoubtedly varying among the different nationalities, was sufficiently large in all cases to have given ample employment to a fair sprinkling of dentists, had they existed.

What is the conclusion of this whole matter? It is that dental caries and oral diseases are not the results of modern civilization. That they are not wholly due to errors of diet, nor to the use of to

bacco, or condiments, or any peculiar manner of preparing food, nor do they have their origin in perverted neural currents and the general deterioration of mankind, since they have accompanied man, so far as we can trace, through all the gradations of his development.

The further consideration of the subject I leave for the future, only insisting that while I do not, in this paper of a necessarily hurried preparation, make pretension to minute exactness, the general truth of the observations made and the approximate accuracy of the statistics given, I will stoutly maintain. Anyone who considers the conditions under which such researches are made, and the care which must be exercised to prevent accidental mutilation of the treasured specimens, the consequent impossibility of making intimate inquiry into the internal condition of the teeth and jaws, and the necessary absence of microscopical investigation of the tissues, will understand that little more than general results can be expected from such an examination as that which I have here reported.Independent Practitioner.

AN exchange says: If from boyhood. to old age everybody, from this time forward, were to use the tooth-brush as they should, and adopt a proper regimen of phosphoric and bone-producing food, in a few generations there would be a return to a primitive condition of tooth structure, and suffering from tooth diseases nearly cease.

HAVE WE TOO MANY DENTAL COLLEGES?

While all progressive dentists desire the advancement of the profession and an elevation of the educational standard-many of them devoting their best efforts and much valuable time to that end-the thought has often occurred to us, if the profession, as a class, are adopting the best means to accomplish this much desired result.

To the superficial observer of the professional field, as he sees new schools springing into existence year after year, and reads the superior advantages offered by each as set forth in their annual announcements, it might appear, with the continuance of those already established, (and the assistance of a few more that no doubt will be established) that it would require but a short space of time to place us head and shoulders above any of the learned professions.

But is all this bustle and activity really a progressive movement? Does this increasing number of dental schools signify an advance in dental education? If a uniform standard could be established and conscientiously adhered to, without deviating one "jot or tittle," then it might be claimed that a multiplication of schools gave so many additional opportunities, and with these a larger proportion of students would receive the benefit. Now this is an assumption that can become a fact only by the concerted action of all the colleges, together with the profession at large. There is no den

is not dependent, either directly or indirectly, upon the size of its class and the amount of fees received therefrom. While this is the case, there must necessarily be considerable rivalry and competition between the different institutions to secure the largest possible number of students; and among the inducements held out, those of a pecuniary character often take precedence of the educational.

It is a common saying that "competition is the life of trade." This may be true of dental colleges, but we fear the effect upon the profession is rather demoralizing; for in this competition for large classes and long lists of graduates, the more recent schools must, perforce, offer some inducements to attract students from those older and better known, and it would seem but natural that a reduction of fees should go hand in hand with a lower educational standard.

Again, the reduction of fees drives from the corps of instructors or professors the more able teachers, and thus faculties, we fear, are sometimes made up of mediocrity, while the original investigators and those best qualified to teach are driven from the field for want of proper compensation. Hence it is that the profession is soon overloaded with disqualified or incompetent practitioners, and this demoralizing tendency, resulting from an excess of dental schools, radiates in many directions, paralyzing the action of those who are struggling for a higher standard in all matters pertaining to dental education.

We are assured by those in a position to know, that the inquiry, "how soon can I get through?" is frequently the most prominent one from men who contemplate attending college. The facilities offered for obtaining a thorough education does not so much concern them as the ease and short space of time required to obtain a diploma, and they will finally be found in that institution which offers

the best inducements in the items of time

and money. Such men usually reflect discredit upon the profession, as well as the particular school which gave them authority to practice. Now, until the possibilities for such an occurrence are removed, the elevation of the profession will be a difficult matter, for in the eyes of the public the constant influx of such offscourings will pollute the whole stream.

We have no wish to detract in any manner from the good which has resulted to the profession and the public through dental schools. Their influence has been powerful in bringing the profession up to their own level, and in giving to the public a class of men better fitted to cope with dental disease. Now that this much has been accomplished, they should plant the standard upon a still higher level, so that the gaze of the practitioner, as well as the student, shall be constantly upwards. It seems to us that this could best be accomplished, not by a multiplication of schools, but by a consolidation of those already in existence. Our dental schools might well be compared to an army scattered in small detachments over a vast territory, neither strong enough in itself to do much more than harass the enemy, while united they could march to a glorious victory.

We do not wish it understood that we would have but one dental college in the country, but in several States there are two colleges, usually located in the same city, and, in one at least, there are three. If, where such is the case, these schools would join their forces, they could organize an institution more powerful for the true advancement of the profession than both, working separately-exactly upon the same principle that in the movement of heavy machinery an engine of 100 horse power will be more effective than one hundred engines of a single horse power. It is quality and force, not quantity, that is needed in our schools, as well as their

graduates to conserve the true elevation of the profession.

With the number of schools diminished, but with strength increased, they would be in a position to dictate a broader and higher course of education, and we feel sure they would receive the cordial support of the profession, so that those not at first inclined would be forced to adopt the same platform or close their doors for want of material. By such an arrangement a larger proportion of students would be brought under the influence of the very best teachers in all the branches, and they would go out to their several communities, not only with a diploma, but with an education that would make its possession honorable and give it a weight in all countries where now its significance is of little import. Then, when our schools are on a proper level, there should be but one entrance into the dental profession, and that through the dental college.

A HISTORICAL REFERENCE TO MECHANICAL DENTISTRY.

BY GEORGE H. PERINE, M.D., D.D.S., N. Y.

Mechanical dentistry is a department which has undergone many changes since hippopotamus bone constituted one of the most important materials employed in the construction of dental plates. In the succeeding pages we will endeavor to give a fair idea of the improvements which have been made, and different methods which have from time to time been adopted in this branch of the specialty.

From a very early period, the subject of cleft palate is one which has occupied the marked attention of medical and dental practitioners, and the invention of many contrivances for its remedy has been the result. The first recorded suggestion of an obturator was made by Petronius, and Pare, in 1541, described appliances for this defect, and Guillemean, fifty years later, tells us that obturators were then in

was very successful in the construction of obturators, as were also Drs. Rowell, Castle, Cone, Barker and others.

Dr. A. C. Castle has informed us, that in 1832, he constructed and inserted an obturator for C. W. Stearns, who was at the time residing at Springfield, Mass. Dr. Stearns, in 1841, originated an improved obturator which was of ingenious construction, and exceedingly well adapted to the purpose for which it was intended. While residing in London in 1847, Dr. Stearns published in The London Lancet a description of this appliance, and also some observations upon congenital cleft palate.

Much credit is certainly due Dr. N. W. Kingsley, who about 1860 commenced his experiments on and improved and simplified these appliances, and thus brought them to their present state of perfection. In 1880, Dr. Kingsley published a work entitled A Treatise on Oral Deformities as a Branch of Mechanical Surgery, which has been received with favor by the profession generally, which has evidently accepted the book as a valuable addition to the literature of the science.

In 1867, Dr. Suersen introduced an improved obturator. It was constructed upon scientific principles, and, up to the time of the introduction of Dr. Kingsley's improvement, was considered the most perfect fixture of its character ever made.

In 1866, Dr. Joseph Richardson published the first edition of A Practical Treatise on Mechanical Dentistry. This work, revised and enlarged, has recently passed through a third edition. It is regarded as a standard authority, and is considered the best and most complete

treatise which has been given upon the subject generally.

Artificial Noses.-The operation of rhinoplasty is gradually being superseded by the introduction of mechanical appliances, owing to the great success which has been attained in the imitation of nature, and the abolishment of pain to the patient.

Many curious and interesting cases could be cited where the ingenuity of these appliances has been made to restore, almost intact, not only the facial appearance, but the power of speech and deglutition. Of these we shall mention but a few.

Dr. Wm. E. Ide, in 1850, reports a case where the entire nose and palate were destroyed, and articulation and mastication much impaired. He supplied an artificial nose and palate, and, by a most ingenious and difficult arrangement, succeeded in almost wholly restoring the speech and power of mastication.

In a case treated by Dr. Hooper, in 1860, an artificial nose. upper lip, and obturator were furnished, with the most satisfactory results. An artificial moustache covered the lip, and aided in the improvement made in the appearance of the patient.

Dr. Wildman, in 1863, records a case in which a mechanical appliance made by him supplied an entire external nose with obturator attached.

Dr. W. H. Herriott describes, in the following year, a very perfect fixture with which he supplied the entire nose and upper lip, which, with the anterior portion of the alveolar process of the superior maxilla, from the right to the last two molar teeth on the left, had been carried away by a fragment of a shell.

Dr. T. W. Hentz constructed an appliance in 1867 for a person who was wounded in the face during the war, having had his entire upper lip, front teeth, and nose carried away, his palate being

cleft. The obturator made by Dr. Hentz had nose and teeth attached, and through the aid of a false moustache and a pair of spectacles, its artificial character was rendered almost indistinguishable. The fixture could be removed and replaced at pleasure, and so perfectly was it arranged that the imperfection of speech was removed.

In 1874, Dr. C. A. Brackett supplied the upper lip, entire nose, and an obturator. To disguise the deficiency in the lip and the external connection between the artificial gum and the nose, an artificial moustache was neatly adjusted, the disguise being complete. The fixture was worn with perfect ease.

Porcelain Teeth-the introduction of which into this country in 1817, by Dr. A. A. Planton, marked an epoch in the annals of the specialty, and led to many important changes in the construction of artificial dentures, were of French origin, though they owe their present state of perfection to American skill and American ingenuity.

Many attempts were made to manufacture these teeth prior to their introduction. Dr. H. Villeers claims to have made them in Boston in the year 1819, and, previous to that time, to have manufactured them in England.

In 1822, Mr. Charles W. Peale was successful in their manufacture, and was followed by Samuel W. Stockton in 1825.

For a long time a number of prominent dentists were experimenting with and constructing these teeth for use in their individual practice; and some very creditable specimens were produced by Dr. Blondin, of Charleston, Drs. Hudson, Burr, Roper, and many others.

In 1838, Dr. S. Spooner, of New York, published a work on artificial teeth.

Stockton and Alcock were the principal manufacturers of porcelain teeth until 1842, when Jones and White brought this work to a greater degree of perfection

than

any who had preceded them. They have since been followed by many others. Experiments were for a long time prosecuted by dentists for the production of carved blocks and teeth made in sections. In order to prevent their cracking when attaching them to the plate, some were made with platina pins inserted and baked in the block, which were passed through holes in the plate and riveted and banded inside and out. Another plan was to attach them to the plate with pins through the blocks, secured with sulphine and other cements. Other devices were resorted to about the same time by Drs. Neall, Keep, Crosby, Crofoot, Porter and others, but Dr. Wildman was unrivalled in perfecting a life-like appearance of teeth and gums.

The manufacture of artificial teeth has greatly increased of late years, and it is estimated that the ten manufactories now in operation in the United States annually produce over 8,000,000 teeth. This statement will convey an idea of what is being 'done in this department of mechanical dentistry, and what a large number of teeth are exported.

The carved block teeth were finally superseded by the introduction of the continuous gum, with which experiments had been made as early as 1815, but with no satisfactory results at that time.

About the year 1846 simultaneous experiments were made by Drs. John Allen and Wm. M. Hunter. Dr. Allen, in 1851, secured a patent upon the process.

In 1852, Dr. Hunter published his method, and says: "To Delabarre must be given the credit of having first conceived and executed the union of artificial teeth already baked, with an artificial gum and plate.

"To Audibron must we give the credit of having first made the claim, so far as I am informed, of having overcome the shrinkage of material, which claim was made in his published work and contested