Omaha daily bee., 1915-12-06
Tooth Brush Controversy
Literary Digest.


THE STRIKING assertions that the tooth brush
i does more harm than good. that II not only does
not clean the teeth. but itself dis
senator OF Infection have not been allowed to pass
without denial, though the denials admit that tho
brush should receive a more thorough cleansing and
sterilization than II usually has In reply to widely
circulated article contributed by DIR. Bernard Field
to oral hygiene, other dentists assure us, that
the brush Is all right that 1t Is easily sterized. and
that II properly used II is capable OF doing precisely
what have been taught from childhood that II
intended to do
number OF these rejoinders to DIT. Feldman APP
pear in the pages OF the journal In which his
paper printed For instance. DIR. w. H. Barth
Of Great Falls. Mont. writes in It follows: THE
use Of the tooth brush. either soft medium, has
caoused little harm II any either to the teeth
or the gums and It has done a great deal to reduce
inflammation Of the gums when used TO brush them
In place Of 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 say that in so per OF the
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 substitute But
that does not mean should not silk floss. for
silk floss is a very good adjunct No dentist would
dispute the statement that the mouth in which
tooth brush has been used 10 clean and free
from decay than one in which It had not been used.
foss, strips. etc.2 The tooth brush is handler. and
II can be made clean and aseptc as the forefnger
Dr. Benedict Furniss of New York writing in the
same paper his opinion that there Is moth
ing menacing about the weli-made tooth brush
than there is about ones hair brush ones
when n reasonable hygienic Is taken OF all OF
them. and he goes to say:
Besides the fact that the mouth that Is cleaned
once twice. three times a day cannot possibly
supply bacteria in menscing numbers. It must be
membered that the tooth-brstles. bathed and
saturated frequently with tooth-paste ingredients
less antsceptc. furnish anything but
happy abIding-pace for germ-pests matter how
vital and resistant they be. SO that II merely
hang the tooth brush somewhere In the sunshine at
decent intervals need not get worrying about
virulent bacteria.
"If something more sanitary than the modern
tooth brush can DO devised and made adaptable not
alone for the dentists office but for home USE let
us give the fellows who endeavoring to do II all
the helpfulness But while we're waiting for
them. it won't help them or ourselves to throw
the best thing we know about now
That proper use of the brush involves motion in
the direction Of the toohs length and that the usual
crosswlse brushing may do injury s hid by Dr.
Jules J. sarrazn of New orleans. writing in The
Medical and Surgical Journal OF that city Dr.
Sarrasin does believe that the brush carries in
fection. "Of course, he writes III ten 100 surgi
caly clean brushes sweep in many filthy septic
mouths and later. after thorough rinsing in cold
water and drying (Which nhibt bacterial growth)
are used TO inoculate culture tubes abundant
growth Of pathogenic must surely result Con-
illusions drawn from such procedure strikingly
unscentific because they take of the
that vastly more infectious material will have been
removed from the mouth than possibly be left
In the brush because they do not duplicate conditions
which obtain when truly sermicidal dentifriees
employed and because mouth-infecton is
reduced by repeated brushings II will continue TO
remain 80 far in excess Of that in the brush to
render the latter insignificant.
Dentists who entertain a sentimental or sensa-
tonai fear OF the tooth brush would more wisely
by advising Its immersion in aqueous solution of
iodin. followed by rnsng after each Notwithstanding
than by misleading the laity. decrying the brush
without offering real substitute for IT,
Neither the proper. root-to-biting surface brush
motion. efficient polisher carried by It dry,
has injured tooth-structure II Is the improper
crosswse motion of bristes which wears transverse
cervical and irritates ginsiva margins quite
regardless OF the dentrifce employed unless II be
gritty beyond Bristles and water, OF soap,
and chalky impalpable dentrfices unable TO re-
move completely septic films from and develop tho
protecting polish exposed surfaces teeth while
a waxed thread tape Is similarly inefficient in
comparison with positive polishing powder applied by
suitable agents In both instances. II has proved
that five years daily polishing OF teeth with
finely puverized pumicestone resulted in perfect
lustrous dental surfaces"
Here. however. are apparently touching a
feature OF the toothbrush controversy that really
divides the dental profession. Many dentists advo-
cate the usual. crosswise brushing that DR. sar-
rain condemns. In a symposium printed recently IN
Items Of Interest New York dental journal. both
methods advised and both condemned The
editors conclusion be that the rotary method
is to be preferred. but not when limited TO single
skirmish." Repeated OF II only removes
invading parasites but produces influx Of blood,
exciting greater antiseptc activity Of the white
cOrpuscles It will noted that the question of the
use nonuse of the brush did not enter into this
controversy all Of the participants believing in II as
valuable agent of Neutrality-suspicious..