E M Rhim

Catholic University of Korea, Sŏul, Seoul, South Korea

Are you E M Rhim?

Claim your profile

Publications (3)2.57 Total impact

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of the present study was to compare the effect of dry and aqueous conditions on the surface morphology and surface hardness of five materials 24 h after being used as fillings without initial setting time in dry condition. The five materials were ProRoot mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), super EBA, intermediate restorative materials (IRM), zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE), and amalgam. To evaluate microhardness, the five materials were submitted to the Vickers microhardness (VHN) test. We used a scanning electron microscope (Steroscan 440, Leica Cambridge, England) to observe the microstructural morphology of the five different materials. The VHN of MTA soaked in water showed five times lower than that of MTA soaked in dry condition. On the other hand, super EBA was less influenced by the medium of storage compared with the other materials. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) images showed the similar results with microhardness tests. The surface of MTA soaked in water appeared to be unstable compared with that of dry condition while super EBA showed similarly smooth surface in both conditions (aqueous and dry). In conclusion, the physical property of MTA is reduced after storage in water; however, super EBA is less influenced by aqueous condition. SCANNING 00: 1-8, 2012. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    Scanning 05/2012; · 1.29 Impact Factor
  • Source
    11/2011; , ISBN: 978-953-307-418-4
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to compare the surface morphology and surface hardness of five materials 24 h after filling, in conditions of 100% humidity, and fetal bovine serum. The five materials were ProRoot Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA), Super-EBA, Intermediate Restorative Materials (IRM), Zinc Oxide Eugenol (ZOE), and Amalgam. The microhardness of these materials was evaluated by Vickers microhardness test, and their morphologies were compared by using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). To evaluate the microhardness, the mixed five materials were measured with Vickers microhardness test. Differences between the experimental groups were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Duncan's multiple comparison tests. All analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). For the microstructural morphological evaluation, the cross cut and root-end cavity prepared surfaces followed by retrograde filling with five different materials were observed under a Scanning Electron Microscope (Steroscan 440; Leica, Cambridge, England) at ×500. To summarize, Super EBA was less influenced by storage medium than the other materials, especially MTA. However, further long-term studies considering other factors, such as biocompatibility (i.e. cellular toxicity) and retention, are needed to be collaborated with these findings in the clinical context.
    Scanning 11/2011; 34(4):207-14. · 1.29 Impact Factor