(From The Dental and Oral Science Magazine.) 
A paper read before the New York Odontological Society, Oct. 15, 1878. 
New Principles in Dental Pathology. 
A Review of the So-Called New Departure. 
BY W. C. BARRKTT, M. iA, BUFFALO, N. Y. 
At a meeting of this Society held aboutla year ago, a paper having for 
its title “Plastic Fillings, and the Basal Principles of the New Departure," 
was read. That essay has attracted attention in some quarters, but much 
the greater portion of the profession have chosen to ignore it altogether. 
I cannot commend this course; for, if there be any new and great princi- 
ple involved in this doctrine, the matter is worthy of our most careful 
consideration; and if it be a compound of errors, others have a right to 
an expression of our opinion to that effect. 
He who discards old-established usage, and proposes a complete rever- 
sal of methods long in vogue—who places himself in direct opposition 
to well-established and accepted authorities—ought previously to care- 
fully consider the ground he proposes to occupy, and be sure of his 
premises before stating conclusions. Luther, Kepler, Harvey, Newton, 
proposed, in their times, “ new departures”; but they were themselves 
authorities in the positions they overthrew, and thoroughly conversant 
with and expert in such principles. It is a grave matter, this attacking 
a world. It may be an indication of the most determined courage, or 
it may be but an exhibition of the veriest foolhardiness. The assailant 
may be a true reformer, or he may be only a mistaken enthusiast. It is 
therefore our duty to critically examine new doctrines; to shun that un- 
due credulity which disseminates error, as well as to avoid that pride of 
opinion which would close our minds to new ideas, simply because of 
their novelty. In this spirit let us examine the subject of the new doc- 
trines. 
I object to the proposed “New Departure,” and cannot give it my 
support, because I believe it to be a mere vagary of the mind—a fallacy 
which does not even rise to the dignity of a sophism. 
To establish my right to thus sit in judgment upon this proposed new 2 
method of practice, I declare that I have studied the matter and pa- 
tiently considered it; that I have instituted a system of experiments 
which I have observantly conducted during a period of more than four 
years; and that, the more closely I examine the matter, and the better I 
become acquainted with its basal principles, the more firmly is my faith 
in long-settled practice established. 
To Dr. S. B. Palmer is due the full measure of credit for first present- 
ing to the profession any theory concerning that which has since been 
modestly denominated the “ New Departure.” He is, you are aware, a 
student, according to the light given him. He is not a mere speculative 
theorist, searching for corroboration of a previously conceived hypothe- 
sis. On June 25th, 1874, Dr. Palmer read before the New York State 
Dental Society a paper entitled “ Chemical and Galvanic Action upon 
the Teeth”; wherein was first (topmy knowledge) broached the theory of 
galvano-electrical disintegration of the teeth. The paper was warmly 
received, and Dr. Palmer was urged to continue his investigations. At 
the meeting of the same Society, June, 1875, he read his paper entitled 
“Success or Failure in Dental Operations Chemically Considered;” and 
in July, 1876, another, called “Choice of Materials in Filling Teeth." 
These were his principal papers upon this subject. All were read before 
a Society in which I was vitally interested, and hence they especially chal- 
lenged my attention. I immediately, after the hearing ofhis first paper, 
commenced a series of experiments to practically test the truth of his as- 
sertions, and have ever since been engaged in closely watching that 
which would be likely to prove instructive. 
And now let me give my reasons for believing the “ New Departure ” 
a fallacy: 
First.—It is, to my apprehension, an entire misconstruction of scientific 
law. 
Briefly stated, the theory rests upon these hypotheses: That, in the 
presence of an acid, any two diverse substances form the elements of a 
battery; that one of these is at the positive pole, or assumes a positive 
relation to the other, and is therefore disintegrated; that different sub- 
stances have widely differing electrical relations; and that upon these rela- 
tions depends the amount of the disintegration, and which of the ele- 
ments is acted upon and disintegrated. 
Now, nothing can be stated against these hypotheses, as such. It is the 
interpretation given to them in which lies the mischief. The new-depar- 
turites confound cause wit,h effect. The tooth, the filling, and the oral 
fluids, form the elements of a battery. But the electric current is wholly 
dependent upon the chemical action of the fluids which generate it; 
instance the zinc and copper cell. In the presence of the acid the zinc 
is positive, and is corroded by—what? By the electric currentP Not at 
all; but by the chemical action of the acid which generates the current. 3 
Yet the new doctrines call upon us to believe that electricity, per se, is the 
destroying force. 
It is an axiom among electricians, that there is no electric current 
without some preceding molecular change; that an electric current is but 
the effect of some producing cause. Yet here we see it elevated to a 
primal importance, and designated as the cause of the cause—a thing 
which has produced itself! To my apprehension, the galvano-electric 
current in the mouth is but the effect of tooth-decomposition through 
chemical changes in the mouth. 
Second.—An v electric current which maybe detected in the oral cavity 
is possibly due to other causes than the presence of the elements of a vol- 
taic battery. There are constant thermal changes which are quite com- 
petent to deflect a delicate galvanometer. Before we alter our practice 
entirely, we desire to know that any possible current is traced to its 
proper cause. 
Third.—An electric current may excite chemical action sufficient to 
decompose a compound, or even volatilize a simple substance; but a 
comparatively powerful current is required to do this. Most conductors 
are competent to carry away, without injury to themselves, all the elec- 
tricity they are likely to receive. It is absurd to suppose it possible for 
any current to exist in the mouth, capable of decomposing tooth-tissue. 
Fourth.—If a gold filling in a tooth is capable of developing a current 
sufficient to excite the disorganization of bone, what must be the effect 
of a partial gold plate in the mouth ? It might readily be supposed 
(according to the new doctrines) to be as bad as a charge of dynamite. 
Fifth.—If the presence of metals (which, according to this new gospel, 
assume a negative relation to the tooth) be the principal or only cause 
for decay of the teeth, then unfilled teeth ought never to decay, and there 
should be no necessity for filling teeth primarily, since one of the ele- 
ments of the battery is then wanting, and, by consequence, there can 
then be no tooth-disintegration. But, since this is not, in reality, the 
case, why may we not say that the same conditions which produce decay 
before filling, do so afterward ? 
Sixth.—In the consideration of any of the phenomena of Nature, we 
never need search for a recondite cause so long as ample reasons lie near 
the surface, or in full view. A very sufficient excuse for the disintegra- 
tion of teeth after filling may be found in imperfect manipulation, and 
direct chemical action, without appealing to electrolysis. 
Seventh.—In any case, an electric current is but one of the factors in the 
sum of tooth-decay, whereas, by the terms of this new doctrine, it is 
elevated to the importance of being the only cause worth taking into 
account (see Articles Hand III of the “New Departure’). 
Eighth.— I consider this new theory fraught with evil to the dental pro- 
fession, because young dentists are, in effect, taught by it that the 4 
years of patient, steady, persistent effort to reach a higher plane of excel- 
lence are thrown away, and that the unskilled recruit is fully the equal of 
the old veteran; that experience goes for nothing, and that firmly estab- 
lished principles may be swept away by a single blast from a discordant 
trumpet. If there be no necessity for thorough excavation, as has been 
urged by the apostles of this new-fangled theory—if a leaky filling is better 
than a tight one (see Article VI, New Departure)—and if the easily 
manipulated plastic fillings are superior to thoroughly impacted gold 
ones—then the time, practice and patient study necessary to learn the 
proper manipulation of gold foil are worse than thrown away, and those 
who have spent so many years in accumulating practical knowledge, are 
the inferiors of the boys just commencing their career. Then, at the out- 
set of my practice, when my ability did not extend beyond the inserting 
of amalgam into improperly excavated, wet cavities, I was a better- 
operator than I now am, after fifteen or twenty years of constant 
deterioration in the line of gold practice ! 
Ninth.—The return to plastic fillings is the adoption of a practice which 
has been proven to be inferior. American dentistry is known and 
honored among all civilized peoples, and American dentists are con- 
ceded to be without foreign peers. Yet European dentistry differs from 
ours only in the materials used, and the consequent manipulative ability. 
Gold has been the mainstay of the American dentist, and the possibilities 
of this material have stimulated him to the highest attainments in manip- 
ulative skill. The European dentist has used, mainly, plastic fillings, 
and his progression in dentistry has barely kept place with the possi- 
bilities of his material. The abandonment of gold means the forsaking 
of the metal which has made the American dentist what he is, and the 
adoption of that material which has made the European dentist his in- 
ferior. 
Tenth.—The proposed “New Departure” in dentistry rests upon a 
hypothesis toward the proving of which not one element of satisfactory 
evidence has been advanced. When Darwin, Tyndall, or other scientists, 
propose any new doctrine, it is the result of a long and exhaustive series 
of experiments, either performed in the presence of unprejudiced spec- 
tators, or the most minute details of which are carefully set down. Upon 
what extended series of experiments does this new theory rest ? Dr. 
Palmer, in his paper entitled, “Chemical and Galvanic Action upon 
the Teeth,” gives a brief account of a very few. He says : “ We take 
teeth and pound them in a clean wedgewood mortar, somewhat fine, and 
connect the pieces with the gold, using dilute sulphuric acid, and we 
find tooth-bone an electrolyte, or positive : the gold will remain a nega- 
tive. Between the tooth and the gold the action of the needle will be 
slight; between tin and gold, very great. * * * The next test is 
between tooth-bone and tin foil.” Now, it seems to me that such ex- 5 
periments as these amount simply to nothing, in determining the points 
in question. In the first place, the conditions are not at all those found 
in the oral cavity. We do not question his very indefinite and inexact 
declaration, that “ the greater the difference between two elements, the 
stronger the current;” but in what way does this prove that chemical dis- 
organization of tooth-tissue is due to a galvanic current which this same 
chemical action develops? 'booth-bone, treated with sulphuric acid, 
may develop a current in the production of the resultant sulphate of 
lime; but we should not call this salt, so produced, the result of an elec- 
trical condition. If we are to abandon our present practice for a new 
theory, we desire to know exactly what experiments and proofs substan- 
tiate the hypothesis. We demand that trial tests be performed, either in 
our presence, or substantiated by such minuteness of detail as shall 
give others an opportunity to verify or disprove them. We want to know 
just what were the conditions of the tests. If it is stated that the galvan- 
ometer needle was deflected, we wish to know what galvanometer, and 
how it was used ; for these instruments are not only very differently con- 
structed and manipulated, but those of a kind vary greatly in results 
from each other. We ask what unit of resistance was used in the calcu- 
lations; how the current was measured or shown; if measured, the number 
of ohms ; if shown, whether it was by the galvanometer, the electrometer, 
by chemical action, by thermal effects, by induction, or “by guess.” In 
short, we ask for facts, not speculations. Scientific men are not in the 
habit of accepting the crude ratiocinations of possibly interested men, in 
matters where carefully conducted experiments may practically solve the 
question. 
If an active acid is used, letting go its hydrogen it unites with a base 
to form a salt, at the same time, and by this action, generating an elec- 
tric condition. Hence, it is absurd to charge, as the cause of this action, 
one of its accompanying phenomena—the result of a chemical action 
which would generate a current without the presence of any metal. 
Again, if the elements be subjected to thermal changes, as in the oral 
cavity, a current may be developed without the aid even of an acid ; for 
instance, warm a piece of platinum, place it in simple contact with gold, 
and a current is at once developed. Or, put a piece of zinc wire in 
proper contact with that of a Thompson galvanometer, then hvist the 
wire, and your instrument will indicate the presence of an electric cur- 
rent. In fact, electrical conditions are produced by all molecular 
change, but such currents will not decompose tooth-tissue. 
In view of these facts, I dispute the conclusions advanced by the new 
doctrine. I say that the so-called “New Departure” contravenes the 
fundamental principles of physics. It contradicts all science and all 
scientific men. It is utterly unworthy of even our respect, until it be 
established by experiments in the mouth, conclusive, and often repeated, 6 
under all possible circumstances. Generalizations will not be sufficient, 
when it is sought by them to establish scientific truth. 
But what are the conceded facts concerning this whole matter ? In 
the February number of the Dental and Oral Science Magazine, page 
7, the propounder of this theory says : 
“We have carefully, and, we believe, scientifically, investigated every 
line of experiment which has professed to show the current which, we 
believe, is eliminated by contact of metal with tooth-bone. This we 
have done with the best instruments and apparatus which our country 
can produce; and we find that such current has never been shown, much 
less measured. F'.ven that curiously ingenious line of experimentation 
upon this subject, which was presented at the Centennial Meeting of the 
American Dental Association, and which gave to our profession that 
scale of relativity known as the ‘ Harvard Tension Series,’ in w'hich 
gutta-percha was placed at zero and gold at 200, and which gave those 
who had faith in gold such a ‘ black eye ’ (as it w'as expressed), we 
pronounce utterly worthless, and without any scientific basis.” And 
again, the same author says : “ Now you see, gentlemen, that, notwith- 
standing the fact that we are unable, as yet, to demonstrate the existence 0/ 
a current, yet, nevertheless, the reasonableness and consistency of our theory 
is such, that we may say that gold, being a good conductor, and b&ng 
itself unattacked, when placed in contact with tooth-bone must, on 
general principles, cause excessive electro-chemical action, which action 
must eventuate in the disintegration of tooth-structure—and therefore gold 
is the worst material to use, when a tooth is of such structure and in 
such condition as that it needs something which will help preserve it.” 
Here we have it ! It is not demonstrated, but it is suspected ! What 
reasoning is this to present to a body of scientific men who are searching 
for the truth ? 
And here I make my eleventh point against the “reasonableness” 
and “ consistency ” of this great discovery. 
Eleventh.—The propounding of this “ New Departure ” presupposes a 
theory, which is the curse of study. Any one who is committed to such 
a thing, is honestly liable to the charge of laboring to establish a 
foregone conclusion—of working to prop an opinion formulated 
before all the evidence is in—of pronouncing the shield all one color 
before looking at both its sides. Study should be to reach truth, not to 
sustain an expressed opinion. True scientific men, searchers after truth, 
do not start out with a theory and then endeavor to find seeming facts 
to substantiate it. They first accumulate their proven points, and from 
them deduce laws. All the scientific world has learned to shun the man 
with a theory. It has passed into an axiom to “ beware of hypotheses.” 
According to the confession of one of the propounders of this new doc- 
trine, the whole matter rests upon deductions elaborated from an uncer- 7 
tain brain, rather than from an indisputable laboratory, and consequently 
is, until established by practical tests, unworthy our serious attention. 
Heretofore I have been considering, more particularly, Dr. Palmer’s 
electro-chemical theory. I now desire to say a few words concerning 
plastic fillings. On this point I find this modern “ house that Jack 
built” divided against itself, and all the principles laid down for the 
guidance of its constructors, deliberately ignored or determinedly con- 
tradicted by their authors. 
Dr. Palmer says that the multiplication of elements in a compound 
intensifies electrical conditions, and therein corroborates the voice of 
science; yet the “New Departure ” urges the use of complex compounds 
in place of simple substances, for the avowed purpose of avoiding that 
which, in another place, it declares intensifies the disturbed condition. 
Is this a part of the “ consistency ” and “ reasonableness ” of the new 
theory ? All hydro-carbon gums, as gutta-percha, readily undergo the 
molecular changes which generate electrical conditions. Gutta-percha 
will slowly disintegrate, even in air. You all know how the surfaces of 
such fillings decompose and become spongy in some mouths. Theo- 
retically (and the disciples of the “ New Departure ” cannot object to 
this manner of viewing the subject), the more simple the substance, the 
less is it affected by chemical or galvanic influences. The union of gold 
and tin is much more liable to develop a current than either alone. 
According to all scientific testimony, compounds are liable to evolve 
complex electrical currents which simple substances avoid. Of all the 
metals, gold is the least oxidizable, and the most stable, and hence, from 
the stand-point of evidence adduced by the “ New Departure ” itself, it is 
the very best material with which to fill teeth. 
On prima facie grounds (the favorite method of argument with the 
students of the “ New Departure ”) compounds are, then, unfit to put in 
the mouth at all. None such are entirely stable, and the more complex 
their elements, the greater the probable electrical changes. German sil- 
ver (nickel and copper) always tastes badly, because in the presence of 
the fluids of the mouth electrical changes are induced. The molecular 
changes attending the crystallization of amalgam, especially when ac- 
companied by thermal disturbances, as in the mouth (it is reasonable 
and consistent to suppose), must develop a galvanic current; and accord- 
ingly there is almost universally a bad taste succeeding the introduction 
of amalgam fillings. 
But on this subject I cannot do better than quote Dr. Palmer—he 
who has furnished, ready-made, the basal theory of the “New'Depar- 
ture ” (for the author of the paper read before you a year ago announced 
himself as simply the mouth-piece of Dr. Palmer). In the paper 
wherein Dr. Palmer first made known the result of his studies (read be- 
fore the New York State Dental Society in 1874, and already quoted 8 
from), he says (Transactions of the New York State Dental Society for 
1874, page 155): 
“A porous tooth containing an amalgam plug has in it the elements 
of a minute, yet intense, battery, capable of decomposing not only the 
plug, but the tooth around it; this is in accordance with a law of chem- 
ical affinity. * * * * Chemical affinity cannot be cheated of its 
action, and the greater number of elements there are in a battery, the 
greater number of currents and counter-currents there will be; and gal- 
vanic action takes place on all surfaces of the mass, and within as far as 
moisture extends. We look in vain for amalgam plugs to be bright on 
the surfaces in contact with dentine. The action is between the com- 
pound and the mercury; while, in tin, only the outer surface is acted 
upon; that is, tin or gold represents one element each; and before any 
galvanic action can take place between such plugs and dentine into 
which they are inserted, there must be a space for a fluid to excite ac- 
tion.* With amalgam, the moisture in the tooth-bone is sufficient to 
communicate the current which exists in the plug to the tooth, and thus 
enlarge the cavity, or diminish the plug, or both.f * * * * The 
fact is, the addition of metals to a compound only complicates galvanic 
action.” 
Thus, then, we find that the author of the electro-chemical theory can 
be successfully quoted against himself; and he asserts that amalgam 
compounds only intensify that electrical condition which, we are told, 
is the main source of tooth-decay. 
And now, in conclusion, I can only say that I have examined this 
matter as carefully as possible, and without any preconceived theories to 
establish. I have corresponded much with Dr. Palmer, and have en- 
deavored to arrive at the truth. I desire to be courteous to those gentle- 
men with whom I am compelled to differ; but my courtesy does not go 
so far as to force me to accept their conclusions without a careful pre- 
liminary examination. For the results which they ascribe to galvanism, 
I am certain we need not go far to discover another cause, one much 
more in accordance with scientific law, and observed and recorded facts. 
* That is to say, that any gold or tin plug which can excite electrical action preju- 
dicial to a tooth, must have l>een so badly inserted as to allow space for penetration of 
moisture between it and the tooth; and hence, that a gold or tin plug, properly in- 
serted, must be the best for the tooth, since no galvanic action can occur between it and 
the dentine.—W. C. B. 
f Compare this statement with Article IX of the “ New Departure ”, “ Amalgam, 
per se, is an excellent filling material.”—W. C. B.