The purpose of the study was a comparative clinical evaluation of direct cervical restorations of teeth made from different materials. Materials and methods. In 49 patients aged from 22 to 37 years, direct restoration of 97 teeth with cervical carious lesions was carried out. Group 1 included 19 people (39.6% of the number of examined) with 35 restorations (36.1% of the number of restorations) from photocomposite, group 2 – 14 people (29.2%), in whom 34 restorations were performed (35.1%) with glass ionomer cement, in 15 patients (31.3%) of group 3 28 restorations (28.9%) were performed with chemically hardening composite. The examination was carried out the next day, after 6 and 12 months according to clinical and aesthetic criteria. Results and discussion. The next day, in patients of group 1, 2 restored teeth (5.7% of their number in patients of the group) had increased sensitivity. After 6 months, 1 restoration (2.9%) was missing in patients of group 1, 2 restorations (5.7%) had marginal fit violations, 1 (2.9%) – had marginal coloration, and 1 restored tooth (2.9%) was diagnosed with hypersensitivity. In patients of group 2, in 5 restorations (14.7%) defects of marginal fit and marginal coloration were detected. In persons of group 3, in 3 restorations (10.7%) the marginal fit was violated, in 4 (14.7%) – coloration. In the period of 12 months, in persons of group 1, 1 restoration (3.2% of their number at this time) was again absent, secondary caries was detected, defects in the marginal fit of the photocomposite were recorded in 3 restorations (8.6%), marginal coloration – in 4 (11.4%). In patients of group 2, in 6 restorations (22.2% of the number in this period), the marginal fit of the glass ionomer was violated, in 8 (29.6%) – marginal coloration. In patients of group 3, defects in the marginal fit of the chemical composite were identified in 7 restorations (29.2% of the number in this period), marginal coloration – in 6 (25%), secondary caries was found along with 1 restoration (4.2%). The undisputed dominance of the photocomposite material in the aesthetic evaluation of the state of restorations was proven, in particular, according to criteria that included color matching and surface roughness, only single deviations were found in photocomposite restorations, and in restorations from glass ionomer cement and chemically hardening composite, they were found several times more. Conclusion. When using photocomposite material to restore teeth with cervical carious lesions, the possibility of the abfraction effect with subsequent loss of restorations and the increased risk of postoperative sensitivity in the restored teeth should be taken into account