Page 154 - My FlipBook

54 PATHOLOGY OF THE HABD TISSUES OF THE TEETH.
This explanation is strongly emphasized by the fact that
erosions occur in cases in which the mucous membranes never
touch the teeth, as in the somewhat rare cases of erosion of
proximal surfaces, and in one case coming under my observa-
tion in a girl sixteen years old, in which the bicuspids were deeply
eroded in dish-shaped forms, where the tissues of the cheek had
been destroyed before the teeth came through the gums, so that
no mucous membrane could have touched them.
The FIFTH SUPPOSITION has certain jjoints of similarity with
the fourth in that the same raised points of the mucous mem-
brane are described as fitting into the eroded areas. But instead
of the erosion being caused by an acid, the supposition is that
this tissue acts as an absorbing organ, and that the result is
really an absorption similar to that by which the roots of the
teeth are cut away. Several writers speak of having seen the
usual lacuns of absorbed areas in roots of teeth and in areas
of bone undergoing absorption, in these eroded areas. This
supposition necessarily carries with it the idea that certain
actively functioning cells become fixed against the tooth tissue
and keep that position long enough or steadily enough to effect
this result. The same objection to this theory applies as to the
previous one, namely, that cases of erosion occur in positions
in which no mucous membrane, or other tissue, is in contact with
the areas being eroded. Also the supposition that the normal
mucous membrane, or the mucous membranes in any probable
pathological condition, would throw out or give rise to absorptive
cells of such character as to act upon the teeth, seems imtenable
without further data than we yet have.
The SIXTH supposition is that it is caused by an acid that
is developed in association with the gouty diathesis. This is a
more recent supposition. Perhaps the most notable article upon
this supposition is that by Dr. Darby, of Philadelphia (Dental
Cosmos, Volume 34, 1892, page 629). Dr. E. C. Kirk, of the same
city, has expressed somewhat similar views. This supposition
has rapidly attained pretty wide credence. On this point my
own observation, so far as it goes, would be negative. Very
little gout has come under my observation (it would seem that
the people of the Mississippi Valley are too restless a set of
individuals to have time for gout) and the few well-marked cases
that I have had opportunity to study have shown no erosion.
It seems, however, that the tendency in recent years to attribute
all kinds of ills not otherwise explainable, to the gouty or rheu-
matic dyscrasia, has been carried rather too far. Yet we must