Which Is Marginally Adapted Best ? Amalgam, Composite Or Ceramic Inlay Restorations Sölen Karakaya*, Füsun Özer (University Of Selçuk, Faculty Of Dentistry, Konya, Türkiye) This study was designed to compare marginal adaptation of amalgam (Lumicon, Bayer), composite (EOS inlay heliomolar, Vivadent) and ceramic (Ceramco II, Johnson & Johnson) inlay restorations. Eleven specimens of each material were settled in standart laboratory produced brass mold MOD cavities according to manufacturer’s instructions. Following storation in water (37° C), marginal gap formations of specimens were measured under a stereomicroscope on 1st and 14th days. Mean gap values (mm) of 1st day ranged as amalgam 15.76, ceramic inlay 73.86 and composite inlay 83.86. 14th day measurements were amalgam 11.93, ceramic inlay 73.86 and composite inlay 63.58. Data were statistically analyzed by Analyzes of Variance and Least Significant test (LSD). Both 1st and 14th day results showed that the marginal gap measurements of composite and ceramic inlay restorations were not statistically different (p>0.05). But the marginal gap values of inlay group were significantly higher then the values of amalgam group (p<0.01). We conclude that amalgam is always marginaly adapt best, but using a luting cement for inlay restorations will reasonably compansate the gap.