Porcelain-fused-to-metal restorations (PFMs) have been successfully used in dental practice for decades. Metal substructure provides strength while veneering porcelain gives an esthetic appearance. The metal margin may show a dark line at the cervical area. In an esthetic zone, margin made of porcelain is rocommended. This study was to evaluate the compressive strengths of PFM crowns having metal margin (MM), porcelain margin (PM) and reduced-metal porcelain margin (RM) cemented with different cements. One hundred and twenty extracted of noncarious upper premolar teeth were prepared as a crown preparation, having 90ํ shoulder, 6ํ taper, 1.50 mm. axial reduction and 2.00 occlusal reduction. Duplication of each crown were made and used to fabricated crowns having three margin designs: Part 1, MM; Part 2, PM; and Part 3, RM. Ni-Cr alloy (Heranium NA) was used to fabricate substructure and followed with porcelain application (VITA VMK95) according to their manufacturers' recommendations. Crowns were then cemented on their respective teeth under a constant load of 25 N. using Group a) zinc phosphate cement (ZC, Hy-Bond, Shofu); Group b) polycarboxylate cement (PC, Durelon, ESPE); Group c) glass ionomer cement (GI, Fuji Plus, GC); Group d)resin cement (RC, Super-Bond C&B, Sun Medical). There were 10 crowns/group. Specimens were tested on a universal testing instrument in a compression mode (crosshead speed of 0.5 mm./min.). ANOVA and Tukey's statistical analyses (p<0.05) were performed on a data. Mean compressive strengths (X+-SD, N) are; Part 1 Group 1a) 2180.29+-388.98; Group 1b) 2024.45+-279.15; Group 1c) 2170.95+-451.97; Group 1d) 2305.38+-234.56; Part 2 Group 2a) 1508.22+-225.87; Group 2b) 1860.24+-246.52; Group 2c) 2360.37+-262.94; Group 2d) 2310.43+-440.58; Part 3 Group 3a) 1367.47+-345.29; Group 3b) 1275.15+-258.34; Group 3c) 1752.85+-248.14; Group 3d) 2120.17+-530.58. There was no significant difference among metal margin (MM) cemented with all tested cements. Porcelain margin (PM and RM) cemented with ZC either on PC showed less resistance to fracture (p<0.05). This study indicates that RC and GI and recommended for cementing PM but only RC is recommended for cementing RM