This study evaluated the clinical performance of ceramic inlays and onlays made with two systems: sintered (Duceram, Dentsply-Degussa)--D and pressable (IPS Empress, Ivoclar-Vivadent)--IPS after two years. Eighty-six restorations, 44 IPS and 42 D, were cemented into the mouths of 35 patients. Twenty-seven premolars and 59 molars received Class II preparations totaling 33 onlays and 53 inlays. All restorations were cemented with dual-cured resin cement (Variolink II, Ivoclar-Vivadent) and Syntac Classic adhesive under rubber dam. The evaluations were conducted by two independent investigators at the baseline and after one and two years using the modified USPHS criteria. Additionally, radiographs and slides were made. After two years, 100% of the restorations were assessed and all the restorations were considered clinically excellent or acceptable. Among the analyzed criteria, the following received Bravo ratings: marginal discoloration--IPS (31.82%), D (23.81%); marginal integrity--IPS (18.18%), D (11.9%), color match-IPS (4.55%), D (9.52%) and surface texture-IPS (2.27%); D (14.29%). No "Charlie" or "Delta" scores were attributed to the restorations. The results were subjected to the Fisher and McNemar Statistical Tests. No significant differences were noticed between the two ceramic materials. Among the analyzed criteria, only marginal discoloration presented an increased percentage of "Bravo" scores that increased with time for both ceramic materials. Compared with the baseline data, the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). No difference was found between inlay and onlay restorations or between restorations placed in premolars or molars. In conclusion, these two types of ceramic materials demonstrated excellent clinical performance after two years.