This in vitro comparative study aimed to compare the influence of two levels of deep margin elevation (2 and 3 mm) with either bulk-fill flowable composite or short fiber-reinforced flowable composite on the fracture resistance of maxillary first premolars restored with ceramic onlays.Fifty sound-extracted maxillary first premolar teeth were selected to prepare mesio-occluso-distal cavities with standardized dimensions. The cervical margins were extended 2 mm below the cemento-enamel junction on both mesial and distal sides. These teeth were randomly divided into five groups: Group I: no box elevation (control group). Group II: 2 mm marginal elevation with bulk-fill flowable composite. Group III: 2 mm marginal elevation with short fiber-reinforced flowable composite. Group IV: 3 mm marginal elevation with bulk-fill flowable composite. Group V: 3 mm marginal elevation with short fiber-reinforced flowable composite. After cementation, all teeth were subjected to a fracture resistance test using the universal testing machine, and the mode of failure was analyzed using a digital microscope at 20x magnification.The result showed a non-significant difference in the fracture resistance between 2 and 3 mm marginal elevation (p>0.05) with respect to each restorative material used for deep margin elevation. However, the fracture resistance of teeth elevated with short fiber-reinforced flowable composite was significantly higher than those elevated with bulk-fill flowable composite at both levels 2 and 3 mm, p=0.041 and 0.038 respectively.The fracture resistance of premolars restored with a ceramic onlay was not influenced by the levels of deep margin elevation (2 or 3 mm). However, marginal elevation with short fiber-reinforced flowable composites provided higher fracture resistance than those elevated with bulk-fill flowable composites, and those without marginal elevation.