Purpose: To evaluate the influence of the placement technique and type of composite resin on the restoration of proximal contact in class II resin composite restorations in comparison to amalgam restoration. Materials and methods: 100 standardized mesiooclusual (MO) cavities were prepared in 100 artificial mandibular first molars used in the study grouped into four groups according to type of restorations; (co): amalgam restorations (10 specimens),( C1): flowable composite (nanohybrid Z350) (30 specimens),( C2): conventional / regular composite (nanohybrid Z250) (30 specimens), (C3): packable composite (microhybrid P60) (30 specimens).The composite restoration groups were further divided into three groups 10 specimens each according to placement techniques as follows:(P1): Tofflemire matrix system. (P2): sectional matrix system with special rings.(P3): transparent matrix system. Tensometer was used to measure the contact tightness and the length of the contact arc. Results Data was analyzed using two way ANOVA. Results showed that using transparent matrix with conventional composite was the only group that showed higher statically significant results to the control group. Conclusion: Amalgam is still superior to composite resin in restoring proximal contact, Packable (condensable) composite offers neither advantage nor other composite in restoring contact, Matrix system performance varied according to composite type used.