After having spoken of the sensibility of the teeth (Chapter III), of the various kinds of dental pains (Chapter IV), of the different causes, external and internal, which produce them (Chapters V to VII), of the signs which make known their special nature in each case (Chapters VIII to X), and of the prognosis (Chapter XI), the author occupies himself very minutely, throughout the rest of the book, with all that concerns means of cure, dedicating to this subject sixty-seven chapters and a long appendix. If, after the publication of Strobelberger’s book, all previous works treating of dental affections had been entirely lost, it would be of inestimable value for the history of dentistry, the author having gathered together in an almost complete manner—citing faithfully the respective authors—all that had been written about dental diseases before him. On the other hand, the book contains almost nothing original; therefore, rather than analyze minutely its contents—which would involve a long repetition of things already noted—we limit ourselves merely to a few observations. Strobelberger, like Heurnius, is of opinion that for the cure of dental pains it is necessary to have recourse to doctors rather than to _dentispices_, or tooth drawers (Chapter XII); however, he does not consider the calling of the latter absolutely useless; indeed, he expressly advises (page 174) that they should be applied to for the instrumental extraction of the teeth, it not being possible for such operations to be carried out well and without danger except by those who, through great practice, have acquired the necessary skill in the use of the relative instruments. He refers to the words of Hollerius, already quoted, as to the falseness of the opinion that fumigations made with the seeds of hyoscyamus cause the worms to fall out of the teeth. Notwithstanding, he does not in the least doubt the existence of the worms themselves; and he, like Heurnius, recommends killing them with oil of vitriol or with a decoction made from a frog cooked in water and vinegar (Chapter XXXIII). From this, one clearly perceives that the doubts expressed by Hollerius about the existence of dental worms had not in the least shaken the popular belief in them. Nor, indeed, could it be otherwise when one considers that Hollerius, as we duly noted in another place, had not the courage either decidedly to deny the existence of dental worms, or to formulate in a clear and explicit manner the doubts which had arisen in his mind on this subject. We are, therefore, unable to recognize the merit which Linderer[334] and Geist-Jacobi[335] have attributed to this author, viz., that of having effectually affirmed the non-existence of dental worms.