Objective: To compare the clinical performance of packable composite restorations and universal composite restorations as posterior restorations according to the USPHS criteria every 6 months over a 1-year period. Methods: Twenty pairs of test and control restorations were placed in 17 patients. The test group was used packable composite resin (P-60, 3M) and the control group was used universal composite resin (Clearfil AP-X, Kuraray). Clinical evaluations and assessments of replica models were carried out at baseline,six months and one year. Results: Apart from one test restoration that failed due to secondary caries, all of the restorations reviewed at six months and one year were intact with no unacceptable scores for any of the evaluation criteria. There was no significant difference between the two materials with respect to any of the criteria evaluated (color match,
P=0.317; marginal integrity,
P=0.317; anatomic form,
P=0.317; surface texture,
P=0.317; secondary caries,
P=0.317; posteroperative sensitivity,
P=0.317). Conclusions: The one-year clinical performance of the two materials was satisfactory and not significantly difference for any of the parameters evaluated.