The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the direct and indirect composite restorations which had been placed for 1 year.

The composite restorations which had been placed between 1999. Mar and 1999, Dec was evaluated after 1 year. For direct restorations, Spectrum (Dentsply, USA) and Z100 (3M, USA) were used in the anterior teeth and Surefil (Dentsply, USA) were used. For class V restorations of anterior and posterior teeth, Spectrum was used. For indirect restorations, Targis/Vectris system (Vivadent/Ivoclar, Liechtenstein) was used. 2 examiners evaluated marginal quality, proximal contact, discoloration, presence of 2^nd caries, loss of filling and hypersensitivity of restorations. The restorations was clinically evaluated by modified methods based on USPHS.

60 teeth were evaluated. 59 were clinically acceptable and 1 restoration which was placed in class v cavity in the posterior tooth was fallen out. In most cases, the restorations were clinically acceptable. For restorations which had been directly placed in the class II cavities, loose proximal contact was indicated as the main complaints.

Most of Anterior and posterior restorations which bad been directly or indirectly placed for 1 year were clinically acceptable. For posterior teeth, loose proximal contact was indicated as the main problem in the directly placed Class II restorations. Long term clinical study is needed.