Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1915-12-06

II
not clean the teeth. but itself serves as dis
semlnator OF Infection not been allowed to pass
without denial though the denials admit that tho
brush should receive more thorough cleansing ana
sterilization than It usually has In reply to widely
circulated article contributed by Dr. Bernard feld-
man oral hygiene. other dentists assure US. that
the brush Is all right that It il easily sterzed and
that properly used It is capable OF doing precisely
what we have been taught from childhood that It
intended to do.
number OF these rejonders to DIT. Feldman APP
pear in tho pages OF the journal in witch his own
paper was printed. For instance. DIR. W. II. Barth
OF Great Falls Mont. writes in II an follows The
Of the tooth brush. either soft or medium, has
very little harm II either TO the teeth
the gums and II has done a great deal TO reduce
Inflammation Of the gums when used to brush them
in place using the forefinger to massage them
The use Of the tooth brush has done more for the
preservation Of the teeth and the restoration OF
healthy condition Of the gums than anything else
that has to knowledge
1T Is safe to say that in so cent OF the cases
OF pyorrhea the tooth brush is very seldom used II
at all The proper OF the tooth brush is essential
TO the OF the teeth there is no substitute But
that does not mean should not use silk floss for
silk floss Is a very good adjunct No dentist would
dispute the statement that the mouth in which a
tooth brush has been used Is more clean and free
from decay than in which It had not been used
How many people will massage THE gums, use SIR
floss, strips etc? The tooth brush Is handler, and
- ~N@'' ~ - N'~N-'' ~N
Or. Benedict Furnss of New York. writing in the
paper. expresses his opinion that there is moth
ing menacing about the well-made tooth brush
than there is about ones hair ones sponge
when n reasonable hygienic care IL taken OF all Of
them. and he goes to say:
Besides the fact that the mouth that is cleaned
once, twice, or three times a day cannot possibly
supply bacteria in menacing numbers. 1t must be
membered that the tooth-bristles. bathed and
saturated frequently with tooth-paste ingredients
or less antisceptic. furnish anything but
happy abiding-place for germ-pests. matter how
vital and resistant they may be- so that II merely
hang the tooth brush somewhere In the sunshine at
decent intervals need not get gray worrying about
virulent bacteria.
IF something more sanitary than the modern
tooth brush can be devised and made adaptable not
alone for the dentists office. but for home let
give the fellows who endeavoring to do It all
the hepfulnesa can. But while we're waiting for
them. It won't help them or ourselves to throw out
the best thing know about now"
That proper use Of the brush involves motion in
the direction OF the tooths length and that the usual
crosswise brushing may do injury is held by DR..
Jules ]. sarrazin Of New Orleans. writing in The
Medical and Surgical Journal of that city. DR..
Sarrazn does not believe that the brush carries in
fecton "Of course" he writes III ten 100 surgi
caiy clean brushes sweep in many filthy. septic
mouths and later. after a thorough rinsing in cold
water and drying (Which inhibt bacterial growth).
used TO inoculate culture tubes. abundant
growth of pathogenic germs must surely result Con-
illusions drawn from such procedure are strkingly
unscentfc because they take account OF the fact
that vastly more infectious material will have been
removed from the mouth than can possibly be left
In the brush, they do not duplicate conditions
which obtain when truly germcidal dentifrices are
employed and because, mouth-nfecton il
reduced by repeated brushings, II will continue TO
remain so far in excess OF that in the brush TO
render the latter insignificant
Dentists who entertain sentimental
by advising it's immersion in aqueous solution Of
iodn. followed by rnsng. after each mouth-cleansing
than by misleading the lslty. decrying the brush
without offering real substitute for it.
Neither the proper. root-to-biting surface, brush
motion. efficient posher carried by It dry
has injured tooth-structure. II Is the improper
crosswise motion OF bristles which transverse
cervical and rritates gngval margins quite
regardless of the dentrifice employed, unless II be
gritty beyond Bristes and water soap
and chalky mpapabe dentrifices are unable TO re-
completely septic films from and develop the
protecting polish exposed surfaces OF teeth while
waxed thread tape is similarly inefficient In
comparison with positive polishing powder applied by
suitable agents in both instances 1t been proved
that five years daily polishing OF natural with
finely pulverized pumicestone resulted in perfect
lustrous dental surfaces"
Here, however. we are apparently touching a
feature OF the toothbrush controversy that really
divides the dental profession Many dentists advo-
cate the usual OF crosswee, Drushng that DR.. Sar-
razin condemns. In symposium printed recently in
Items OF Interest. New York dental journal both
methods are advised and both condemned. The
editors conclusion 20 be that the rotary method
is to be preferred but not when limited TO single
skirmish." Repeated of II not only removes
invading parasites, but produces influx OF blood,
exciting greater antiseptic activity Of the white
corpusces II will be noted that the question Of
use nonuse of the brush did enter into this
controversy. all of the participants believing in
valuable agent OF mouth-hygiene.