JOHANN ADOLPH GÖRITZ, of Regensburg, in one of his writings published in 1725, disapproves the too frequent recurrence to extraction of the teeth, that is, carrying out the operation when it is not absolutely necessary. He is also averse to the application of artificial teeth. In support of his opinion he relates a case in which, a certain time after the application of an artificial tooth, the natural ones to which it had been fixed became loose, so that it was necessary to proceed to the fixing of all three, that is, the artificial tooth and the two neighboring ones, to the firm teeth beyond them; these, however, became loosened in their turn, and it was at last necessary to extract six teeth. The great space thus created was filled with a prosthetic piece made of hippopotamus tusk; but the author did not believe much good would come of this either. In fact, he is of opinion that the natural teeth should be preserved by every possible means, and that, on the other hand, even in the case of a few being lost, it is better not to resort to substitutes. In the worst case, should the dental void cause too great inconvenience by damaging the pronunciation, or for some other reason, it may be filled by an “imitation” in soft wood.[404] [Illustration: Pierre Fauchard.] If one takes into consideration the by no means slight inconvenience to which fixed artificial teeth gave rise, one cannot but admit the aversion to them, expressed by Göritz and others, to have been justified. ERNST FERDINAND GEBAUER, in 1726, made known a case in which, a tooth having been badly extracted by an incapable surgeon, the upper jaw was so seriously injured that a diffusive carious process ensued, which after many years’ suffering brought the patient to the grave.[405] JOHANN BERNHARDT FISCHER (1685 to 1772), a very famous doctor, born in Lübeck, who had the honor of becoming archiater of the Russian Empire, related, in 1726, a case of replantation, similar to those by Pomaret and Carmeline; but HEINRICH BASS (1690 to 1754), of Bremen, professor of anatomy and surgery in Halle, endeavored to demonstrate that in these cases the tooth did not really take root, but was rather maintained in position by the contracting of the surrounding gum. One perceives from this that there were still, at that time, discordant opinions on the subject of replantation, and that this operation was far from occupying, in dental surgery, the accredited position it has acquired today.