The all-ceramic restorations are nowadays widely accepted in the anterior and posterior region. However, their marginal accuracy is of paramount clinical significance. Although surface roughness of axial walls could contribute to precision of an all-ceramic restoration, it is unclear how the roughness of tooth preparation affects marginal fit of the restoration in clinical practice. Purpose: This research was designed to investigate the effect of cutting tools and two types of luting cement on the marginal adaptation of all ceramic restorations.Materials and Methods: Thirty six standardized tooth preparations for all-ceramic (IPS e-max press) non-anatomical crowns were completed using a modified milling machine on extracted human teeth with diamond, tungsten carbide finishing, and cross-cut carbide rotary instruments of similar shape (N=12). Morphological changes obtained were investigated with a surface texture analyzer. Two teeth from each group was analyzed by scanning electron microscope (SEM) and profilometer. And the other ten were further subdivided into two subgroups according to the type of cement (N=5 each): Variolink®II dual-curing resin cement and VivaglassÒ glass ionomer cement. Marginal fit was measured with a sterio-microscope in a plane parallel to the tooth surface before and after cementation between four pairs of index indentations placed at equal distances around the circumference of each specimen. Data were analyzed with Two-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s post-hoc test was used for pair-wise comparison between the means when ANOVA test significant.Results: Analysis of measurements disclosed a statistically not significant difference for burs used to tooth preparations (p = 0.012); however, luting cement measurements were significantly different (p < 0.001). Also, the interaction effect was not significantly different (p = 0.048). For glass ionomer cement, the highest marginal discrepancy value (58 μm) was for tooth preparations refined with carbide burs, and the lowest discrepancy value (45 μm) was for tooth preparations refined with finishing burs. For adhesive resin cement, the highest marginal discrepancy value (40 μm) was for tooth preparations refined with diamond burs, and the lowest discrepancy value (26 μm) was for tooth preparations refined with finishing burs.Conclusions: The rotary instrument used for tooth preparations had a definite influence on the axial wall surface characteristics of complete crown preparations. Completing tooth preparations with finishing burs seems to improve the seating of complete crowns during the cementation procedure and cementing all-ceramic crowns with resin cement produce optimal marginal adaptation.