Background : The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the direct and indirect composite restorations which had been placed for 1 year Methods : 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. Results : 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 accept-able. For restorations which had been directly placed in the class II cavities, loose proximal contact was indicated as the main complaints. Conclusions : 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.