Cast gold partial crowns (CGPC) are an accepted means of restoring posterior teeth with extended lesions. However, for esthetic reasons, CGPC are being increasingly substituted with partial ceramic crowns (PCC). The aim of the present prospective split-mouth study was to compare the clinical performance of PCC and CGPC. There were 29 patients (male 12, female 17) who participated in the investigation for a total of 58 restorations. In each patient, one CGPC (Degulor Q and one PCC (Vita MarkII/Cerec III) were placed. CGPC were inserted using conventional zinc-phosphate cement (Harvard); PCC were adhesively luted to the cavities (Variolink II/Excite). The restorations were clinically rated using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at baseline and I and 2 years after placement. The median patient age was 38 years (range 25-54). There were 29 of the CGPC and 14 PCC placed in molars, while 15 PCC were placed in premolars. All patients were available for the 1- and the 2-year recall. One PCC (1.7%) failed and had to be replaced after 2 years in situ. The rest of the restorations were functional without need of replacement. The evaluation using USPHS criteria revealed no statistically significant differences between CGPC and PCC with the exception of anatomic form: PCC showed occlusal chipping in two cases without need of replacement. From these data, it can be concluded that PCC may provide an esthetic and tissue-conservative alternative to CGPC. However, long-term studies comparing the clinical performance and longevity of cast gold and ceramic partial crowns for posterior teeth are desirable.