It is useful to record failures and unsuccessful trials; as they serve to deter others from unnecessary risk. We therefore record the following as not having succeeded in our hands:
| R. Mellis et | |
| Tinct. Myrrhæ, aa | ℥i m. |
The same, with the addition of powdered bark.
| R. Aluminis, | ℈ij |
| Tinct. Myrrhæ, et | |
| Mellis, aa | ℥ij m. |
| R. Pulv. Cinchonæ, | ℥i |
| Myrrhæ et Pulv. Carbonis. a | ℥ss m. et adde |
| Succ. Limonum, | q. s. ad massam |
| faciendam, quâ illineantur gingivæ. | |
Caustic potassa; and nitrate of silver.
Pyroligneous acid, both pure and variously diluted with water. This had but a very limited effect, even in destroying the fœtor; and I am by no means sure that it was of any use in arresting the disease.
Muriatic acid, though praised by such high authorities, did not seem productive of any distinct useful effects. Nitric acid, variously diluted, and sulphuric acid, which was tried in one case, diluted with an equal quantity of water, were entirely useless.
Of constitutional treatment, the disease seemed to admit very little. In the early stage, the means employed, were the same mentioned above as means of prevention. It was by no means evident that any of these were useful in retarding the progress of the complaint. Towards the decline of the worst cases, aromatic sirup of rhubarb, with magnesia, were employed, to remove the putrid matters swallowed; and to relieve the diarrhœa which generally took place, by the astringent operation of the first mentioned medicine. It is extremely doubtful whether these means were productive of any benefit.
While the above was in press, I have met with the article, "Gangrene de la bouche des enfans," in the Dictionnaire de Medicine; written by M. Marjolin. The author in the Dictionnaire des Sciences Medicales, has given nothing material but references to some of the writers mentioned above; with one or two which were not within my reach. M. Marjolin has evidently identified the disease. He cites Fabricius Hildanus, though we have not found a distinct account of it in that writer's works. He remarks that it is identical with the necrosis infantilis of Sauvages. He also refers to Saviard, Van Sweiten, whom he justly mentions with the highest praise, Underwood, Berthe, Capdeville, M. Baron, and the inaugural thesis of M. Isnard. As we have no means of referring to the two last, we must judge of them by M. Marjolin's statements. He observes the dissimilarity of Berthe's case. From the thesis of M. Isnard, he gives us an account of the disease which corresponds very nearly, indeed, with that of Van Sweiten, and with the appearances observed at the Children's Asylum.