This study aimed to evaluate single crown restorations generated by CEREC biogeneric function, designed by experienced dental technician, and designed by dental student using a dental CAD software. Occlusal morphological parameters were evaluated by superimposing and analyzing the digital datasets, while fracture resistance was assessed via load-to-fracture tests of milled restorations. Digital datasets of models were obtained and 3D-printed, teeth #45 were prepared, and models were scanned again (n=12). For each model, three crown designs were accomplished by the CEREC biogeneric function (group BI), by an experienced technician using CAD software (Zfx Manager 2.0)(group TD), and by two dental students after 3-hour standard training using the same CAD software (group AD). The original tooth morphology and crown designs were superimposed (Geomagic Control 14.0), and occlusal morphological parameters, including average positive and negative profile discrepancy, standard deviations (SD), estimated root mean square (RMSestimate), volume discrepancy, volume/area profile discrepancy, and cusp angle, were analyzed. Fracture resistance was determined using compressive load-to-fracture test (Instron E3000, crosshead speed 0.5 mm/min) on monolithic lithium disilicate (IPS e.max CAD) whereas the crowns were milled, sintered, and adhesively luted to 3D-printed dies. The failure mode of the specimens was recorded and examined using polarized light microscopy, while representative samples were examined using SEM. Repeated measurements of ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis test, Pearsons correlation coefficient, paired t-test, and chi-square exact test were used in statistical analysis (? = 0.05). Significant differences were detected among three groups in occlusal morphological analysis. Groups BI and AD have significantly higher average positive profile discrepancies than group TD (p<0.05). Group BI were significantly higher than TD in SD, RMSestimate, and average absolute profile discrepancy (p<0.05). Cusp angle values were significantly different in all groups except group BI and TD. No significant difference was found in fracture loads, while group BI has a significantly higher percentage of restorable substrate damage (p<0.05). Discrepancies in occlusal morphology exist between biogeneric and human CAD-designed crowns, as the latter showed higher similarities to the original teeth. Both biogeneric and human-designed crowns can achieve clinically acceptable fracture resistance. To compare different restoration designs, multiple measuring parameters to assess both morphological and functional aspects would be essential and recommended.