Purpose: The aim of this study was to quantify and compare the clinical performance of cast conical double crown-retained removable partial dentures (C-RPDs) and electroplated double crown-retained removable partial dentures (EP-RPDs). Materials and Methods: A total of 60 RPDs were placed in 54 patients. Participants were randomly assigned to two study groups (C-RPD and EP-RPD). Altogether, 217 abutment teeth were provided with double crowns. Patients were reexamined after 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. The main endpoints were the survival times of RPDs and abutment teeth; secondary endpoints included failure of the facing, loss of cementation of primary crowns, and postprosthetic endodontic treatment. Chi-square tests were used to evaluate group differences regarding characteristics of patients and RPDs. Survival differences were investigated using the log-rank test and Cox regression; secondary endpoints were assessed using logistic regression. Results: After 36 months, survival was 100% for C-RPDs and 93.3% for EP-RPDs. Cumulative survival for abutment teeth was 97.3% (C-RPDs) and 96.2% (EP-RPDs). Survival differences between the two study groups did not reach statistical significance. The survival of abutments depended on tooth vitality and position; for example, the hazard of tooth loss was 676% higher for nonvital teeth. No differences were found between study groups regarding facing failure, decementation of primary crowns, or postprosthetic endodontic treatment. Conclusions: Vitality and position are important to the survival of teeth supporting partial dentures. Longer follow-up and larger patient collectives are needed to evaluate possible differences between cast conical and electroplated telescopic double crown-retained partial dentures.