Objective: clinical evaluation of direct thermoviscus composite (Viscalor bulk) and indirect CAD/CAM composite (Grandio blocks). Materials and Methods: Forty molars and premolars were used and distributed randomly in 20 patients with age range (20-45). (n=20) according to restorative material used. Each composite resin restorative technique was applied according to manufacturer's instructions. All restorations were evaluated clinically at base line (after 24 h), 6, 12 and 18 months according to the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) for retention, marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity, color match, anatomic form and interproximal contact. Results: there is no significant difference for both groups in all criteria and periods of evaluation. Conclusions: viscalor bulk and indirect CAD-CAM composite restoration have good clinical performance. Clinical significance: viscalor bulk preferred to use than indirect CAD-CAM composite restoration in small class II cavities as there is no significant relation between them to avoid difficulties of indirect CAD-CAM composite restoration.