Notwithstanding the high authority of this illustrious dentist, Bücking does not consider this method of cure advisable, adducing, however, in support of his opinion, arguments of no great value, viz., that teeth after subluxation continue painful for a certain time, and that they always remain in an oblique position. The method in question, which has the effect of breaking the dental nerve, is, in our opinion, practically equivalent to a replantation, or is, in point of fact, a replantation, when the luxation of the tooth is complete. The arguments that Bücking brings forward against it are futile; the first objection, for the most part, does not subsist, and, in any case, the persistence of pain for a short time would be of small importance compared with the great advantage of preserving the tooth; as to the second, it is to be understood of itself that subluxation performed by means of the pelican (the instrument then used for the operation) would cause the tooth to assume an oblique position; but even supposing it did not straighten up of itself, there could not have been any difficulty for the good dentists of that period in forcing the tooth again into normal position and in maintaining it there. The weak side of the operation consisted rather in the fact of its being probably carried out without due consideration of the dangers resulting from the possible alterations of the dental pulp. At the time of which we are writing many believed that the enamel of the teeth could be regenerated altogether or in part, and that, therefore, it was of no great consequence that it should be worn away by the use of the file or of abrasive dentifrice powders. Thus, for example, the renowned surgeon Theden expressly recommended such powders, as the best adapted for cleaning the teeth and for freeing them from tartar.[517] VAN WY,[518] the Dutch surgeon, in 1784, related two cases of regeneration of the maxillary bones; other cases of the same kind were related some years later by Percy and Boulet.[519] CHOPART and DESAULT recommended, in cases of difficult dentition, the excision of the gum in correspondence with the teeth that are to come out, rather than simple incisions.[520] [Illustration: Antonio Campani.] [Illustration: FIG. 96 Pelican for extracting incisor, canine, and molar teeth (Campani, 1786).] ANTONIO CAMPANI, of Florence, published in 1786 a treatise on dentistry,[521] very elegantly printed, and illustrated with thirty-six plates very neatly carried out. This book, however, contains nothing of real importance for the development of dentistry. BENJAMIN BELL, the English surgeon, a contemporary of Hunter, also devoted much attention to diseases of the teeth, and, if it may be argued from the clear and precise manner in which he expresses his opinions on various questions relating to dental pathology and therapy, it would seem that he had much greater experience in this field than the celebrated Hunter. [Illustration: FIG. 97