Statement of problem: Long-term clinical data are lacking on the comparison of the survival of adhesively luted pressed e.max lithium disilicate glass ceramic complete and partial coverage restorations in posterior dentitions and the effect that different technical and clinical variables have on their survival. Purpose: The purpose of this clinical study was to examine and compare the 16.9-year survival of posterior pressed e.max lithium disilicate glass ceramic complete and partial coverage restorations and associated clinical parameters on the outcome. Material and methods: Patients requiring either single-unit posterior defect-specific partial coverage or complete coverage restorations were recruited in a clinical private practice. The participants were offered the options of direct restorations, partial coverage cast gold, or glass ceramic (lithium disilicate) restorations. Those requiring complete coverage restorations were given the options of complete cast gold, metal-ceramic, or glass ceramic restorations. Only participants who chose glass ceramic partial and complete coverage restorations were included in the study. The overall survival of the glass ceramic restorations was assessed by the clinical factors determined at recall. The effect of various clinical parameters (type of restoration, dental arch, tooth position in the dental arch, age and sex of participant, and ceramic thickness) was evaluated by using Kaplan-Meier survival curves to account for attrition bias and other reasons for failure. The statistical significance of differences between parameters was determined using the log rank test (α=.05). Results: A total of 738 participants requiring 2392 lithium disilicate restorations in posterior teeth were evaluated. The mean age of the participants at the time of restoration placement was 62 (range: 20-99 years, 302 men and 436 women). Of 2392 units, 1782 were complete and 610 were partial coverage restorations. A total of 22 failures (bulk fracture or large chip) requiring replacement were recorded with the average time to failure 3.5 (0.02-7.9) years. The total time at risk computed for these units was 13227.9 years, providing an estimated failure risk of 0.17% per year. The 16.9-year estimated cumulative survival was 96.49%. The estimated cumulative survival of posterior complete (n=1782) and posterior partial coverage restorations (n=610) was 96.75% at 10.5 years and 95.27% at 16.9 years (P<.05). Of the 22, 16 failures were recorded for the complete coverage restorations. The total time at risk for these restorations was 10144.5 years, providing an estimated risk of 0.16 per year. The other 6 failures recorded occurred for the partial coverage restorations. The total time at risk for these restorations was 3083.5 years, providing an estimated risk of 0.19% per year. No statistically significant difference was found in the survival of posterior complete and partial coverage restorations among men and women, different age groups, or posterior tooth position in the dental arch (P>.05). The thickness of the restoration also had no influence on the survival of glass ceramic posterior restorations (P>.05). Conclusions: Pressed e.max lithium disilicate complete and partial coverage restorations showed high survival rates in posterior teeth over a 16.9-year period, with an overall failure rate of 0.17% per year. Risk of failure at any age was low for both men and women. No statistically significant difference was found in the survival of complete and partial coverage restorations, and none of the confounding variables, including the thickness of the restoration, appeared to have a significant effect on survival.