Method . 26 maxillary molar second pour preparations were collected from general practices. The samples were scanned and the buccolingual and mesiodistal cross sectioned images were captured. The image was imported into a custom program utilizing the coordinate geometry method where the geometric parameters were measured and calculated.
Result .The mean TOC angles for the 26 molars far exceeded the recommended values (x̄=30.40 (s=9.34) > 12 degrees). The mean margin widths were below the minimum recommended values (x̄ =0.60 < 1.00 mm), and the mean margin angles were within the recommended values (x̄ =146.15 < 147 degrees).
Conclusion . The CGM provides a comprehensive evaluation of clinical molar preparations. The preparations provided in general practice have parameters that do not meet the minimum requirements according to the recommended values. The values using the CGM can be used in future tests to see how the shortcomings of preparations affect the performance and longevity of a crown.