Review of Dental Literature and Art. [Volume: 2, Issue: 3, October, 1860, pp. 170-176]

REVIEW OF DENTAL LITERATURE AND ART.

171

The charge that the engraving was altered intentionally, we deem unworthy of any other notice
than to say that it is difeicult to understand what advantage it could be to us, for i -
not the slightest allusion was
made to it in our comments.
Desiring to be fair and
impartial at all times and
under all circumstances, not-
withstanding the unjust imputations of the writer, the
accompanying engraving has
been prepared for the purpose of representing exactly the separation
between the central incisors described by him.
In the course of his response he remarks: —
"The rotating shaft, as employed in the case urnder immediate consideration, rested on the right side against the lingual surfaces of the first
and second bicuspids, and on the left against the same surface of the
second bicuspid, in which position we will endeavor to more fully explain
its action. Each revolution of the shaft, after its adjustment, elevated
the teeth to which it was attached upon their cusps, and gradually separated the superior central incisors, which for a considerable period were
more than a line asunder.
"My attention was directed to the incisors when they were only
slightly separated, by the remark of the patient, that they had become
quite loose. It is my impression that there was no complaint of pain in or
about the teeth; the mucous membrane, however, from the incisors for a
considerable distance along the line of the suture that separated the palatine arch, which separation may be termed the palatine suture, discovered
a heightened color. The incisors when considerably separated could be
easily pressed together, and would at once spring back when the pressure
was removed. They were separated for so long a period that we had no
expectation of reuniting them, yet when the apparatus was applied for
moving the bicuspids posteriorly, resting upon the latter, and extending
to the lateral incisor, the space was speedily closed; yet with no diminution of the general width which had been secured.
" The distance between the lingual surfaces of the first bicuspids across
the palatine arch, as shown by the plaster model obtained before treatment, is ten and a half lines. The model obtained after treatment fiom
the same surfaces of the same teeth across the arch is thirteen and a
half lines, showing a gain of three lines in width. It must be borne in
mind that there was no direct pressure exerted upon the first bicuspid of
the left side to move it in an outward direction. Pressure applied for
this purpose would have augmented the difficulty we were preparing to
correct, as it would have carried the cuspidatus farther from its fellows.
The gain in width between the second bicuspids, to which the application
was direct, was scarcely larger than between the first.
" These are the facts upon which we claim to have separated the superior maxillary bones of the patient under consideration. We do not