Objectives: The aim of the present study was to compare the micromorphological data of class I and II restorations placed with the self etch adhesive AdheSE and the well established adhesive Excite in combination with Tetric Ceram HB after 2 years. Methods: A total of 8 class I and 32 class II restorations were placed in 20 patients. All materials were used according to the manufacture's instructions following a common clinical protocol. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, 6 month, 1 year and 2 years using the USPHS compatible CPM index (ranging from grade 0 to 3). The micromorphological criteria for marginal integrity (MI), excess of material (EM), marginal fracture (MF), negative marginal ledge (NML), and marginal leakage (ML) were examined using gold-sputtered replicas and coded according to the M-criteria of the CPM index. Results: Regarding marginal integrity in the AdheSE group 5 restorations were judged as code 1, 10 as code 2 and 5 as code 3. In the case of Excite 3 restoration were judged as code 1, 12 as code 2 and 5 as code 3. In both groups SEM-evaluation of the marginal integrity showed no perfect restoration. The results for the other criteria are summarized in the table:

	MI				EM				MF				NML				ML
Grade	0	1	2	3	0	1	2	3	0	1	2	3	0	1	2	3	0	1	2	3
AdheSe	0	5	10	5	20	0	0	0	9	11	0	0	1	5	7	7	9	11	0	0
Excite	0	3	12	5	20	0	0	0	10	10	0	0	0	7	10	3	14	6	0	0

Conclusions: Despite the compromised SEM results for marginal integrity and negative marginal ledge all restorations retained optimal functional characteristics after 2 years. Statistical differences between both groups could not be detected. The study was supported by Ivoclar-Vivadent.