A History of Dentistry from the most Ancient Times until the end of the Eighteenth Century. Vincenzo Guerini
are generated by the nourishment distributed in the jawbone; they are, in consequence, of the same nature as bones. Their surface, however, is very much harder than that of the bones. The teeth, contrarily to all other bones, grow throughout life, so as to provide for their wearing away through mastication; and for this reason they lengthen when the antagonizing teeth are wanting.98
The teeth differ from all the other bones, therein that they are generated after the body has been already constituted; they are, therefore, secondary formations; and precisely for this reason are able to be shed and to be renewed.
Some of the veins of the head, says Aristotle, terminate with very slender branches inside the teeth.99
The dental system of the monkey is altogether similar to that of man.
The molar teeth exist in viviparous quadrupeds as well as in man; in the oviparous quadrupeds and in fish they are wanting. They serve to grind food, a function in which the lateral movements of the inferior jaw have, in many animals, a large share. For this reason, in animals who have no molars, these lateral movements do not exist.
In birds, the beak takes the place of the lips and teeth; the substance of which it is formed is similar to that of the horn or the nails.
In those animals which, instead of having all the teeth sharp, are furnished with incisors, canines, and molars, these three species of teeth are disposed in the same order as in man.
The setting on edge of the teeth may be produced not only by eating acid things, but also simply by seeing them eaten. This sensation may be made to cease by the use of purslane and salt.
In the book entitled Problems, many of which have reference to medical matters, one is to be found to the following effect:
“Why do figs, when they are soft and sweet, produce damage to the teeth?” Perhaps, answers Aristotle, because the viscous softness of the fig causes small particles of its pulp to adhere to the gums and insinuate themselves into the dental interstices, where they very easily become the cause of putrefactive processes. But, he adds, it may also be that harm is produced to the teeth by masticating the small hard grains of this fruit.
In Aristotle’s Mechanics, the following question relative to the extraction of the teeth is discussed:
“Why do doctors extract teeth more easily by adding the weight of the odontagra (dental forceps) than by using the hand only? Can it be said that this occurs because the tooth escapes from the hand more easily than from the forceps? Ought not the irons to slip off the tooth more easily than the fingers, whose tips being soft can be applied around about the tooth much better? The dental forceps,” adds Aristotle, “is formed by two levers, acting in contrary sense and having a single fulcrum represented by the commissure of the instrument. By means of this double lever it is much easier to move the tooth, but after having moved it, it is easier to extract it with the hand than with the instrument.”
From this passage of Aristotle one may draw various conclusions. First of all, it appears that, at that time, the extraction of teeth was a common enough operation carried out by doctors in general, or, at least, by specialists not indicated by any particular denomination but called doctors (in Greek, ιατροι) just the same as those who dealt with the maladies of every other part of the body. If, therefore (which, however, is very doubtful), there existed in Greece, as there certainly did in Egypt, individuals who occupied themselves exclusively with the treatment of the teeth, they cannot have formed a distinct class of professionals, but merely a section of the medical class. Herodotus, too, as we have already seen, does not say, speaking of Egypt, that there was a proper class of dentists, but gives us to understand that the Egyptian doctors did not occupy themselves indiscriminately with the treatment of all maladies, for some dedicated themselves to curing the eyes, others to the treatment of maladies of the head, others to those of the teeth, and so on.
From the Aristotelian passage on the extraction of teeth, just quoted, it may be concluded that in those times the Hippocratic precept, that only loose teeth were to be extracted, was not observed, for otherwise, Aristotle could not have said that dental forceps are useful to loosen the teeth, but that after this has been done the extraction of the tooth may be more easily effected by means of the fingers than with the instrument.
This last assertion appears very strange. It demonstrates that either the instruments then in use were very imperfect, or that Aristotle, although the son of a doctor and himself possessed of vast medical knowledge, had absolutely no experience as to the extraction of teeth; and, therefore, speaking theoretically, and without any practical basis, he ran into error, as even the greatest men are apt to do when drawing conclusions from purely theoretical reasonings.
From Aristotle to Galen, that is, for the space of five centuries, the anatomy of the dental system, so far as may be deduced from the writings preserved to us, made no sensible progress. But in respect to this, one must take into consideration some historical facts of capital importance. The school of medicine of Alexandria, which arose about three centuries before Christ, numbered among its most brilliant luminaries the celebrated doctors Herophilus and Erasistratus, who were the initiators of the dissection of human corpses,100 thus giving a great impulse to anatomical research. It is, therefore, hardly admissible that these two great anatomists, who studied with profound attention even the most complicated internal organs, should have neglected the anatomy of the teeth. Unfortunately, however, not all the results of their researches have come down to us; nor is this to be wondered at, especially if we reflect on the large number of precious works entirely lost by the destruction of the celebrated library of Alexandria, A.D. 642.
When we come to speak of Archigenes, we shall see how he, in certain cases, advised trepanning the teeth. This would lead to the belief that in his times, viz., toward the end of the first century after Christ, the existence of the central cavity of the tooth was not ignored, and that, therefore, the structure of these organs had already been the object of study.
As to diseases of the teeth and their treatment, there is no doubt that Herophilus and Erasistratus must have occupied themselves with these subjects; and the same may be asserted of Heraclides of Tarentum, a celebrated doctor who lived in the third century before the Christian era. Indeed, we read in Cœlius Aurelianus,101 that the record had come down through the works of Herophilus and Heraclides of Tarentum, of persons having died by the extraction of a tooth.102 The same writer also alludes to a passage of Erasistratus, relating to the odontagogon already mentioned, which was exhibited in the temple of Apollo, and to the practical signification to be attributed to the fact of this instrument being of lead and not of hard metal. Now, if Herophilus, Heraclides of Tarentum, and Erasistratus all spoke of the serious peril to which the extraction of a tooth may give rise, and therefore recommended not having recourse to it too lightly, it is evident that they had given serious attention to this operation and consequently also to the morbid conditions that may render it necessary.
CHAPTER VI.
DENTAL ART AMONG THE ETRUSCANS.
Much earlier than the foundation of Rome (B.C. 753) there flourished in that part of Middle Italy today called Tuscany the highly civilized people known by the name of Etruscans or Toschi. Their political organization had the form of a confederation of twelve principal cities,103 the federal capital being Tarquinii. The Etruscan people were industrious, intelligent, and artistic in the highest degree, possessing special skill in the decorative arts, splendid monuments, some of which still remain to us; they were fond of luxury in all its manifestations, and took great care of their persons; at the same time, however, they were a laborious and courageous race, not only most active and enterprising in agriculture, in art and commerce, but also brave warriors and hardy navigators.
In their long sea voyages the Etruscans frequently visited Egypt and Phœnicia, trading especially in the more flourishing cities, which were at that time Memphis in Egypt, and Tyre and Sidon in Phœnicia. On the other hand, the Phœnicians, who were also active