the present study was conducted with the aim of evaluating the clinical performance of incremental and bulk-filling techniques in Class I and II restorations in posterior. Method: all international databases, PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, ISI, Web of Knowledge and Embase were examined, searching between 2015 to March 2023 based on keywords related to the objectives of the study. The current study was conducted based on the PRISMA 2020 checklist, and Google Scholar search engine was also used to find related articles. The 95% confidence interval risk differences was calculated using the fixed effect model. Stata/MP v.17 software was used to conduct the meta-analysis. Result: After reviewing the abstracts of 403 articles, 154 articles were selected for full text review, of which 13 articles were included in the meta-analysis. Risk differences of retention/fracture between bulk- fill group and Incremental group up to one month after surgery was 0.00 (RD, 0.00 95% CI -0.01, 0.02; p>0.05). there was no significant difference between bulk- fill group and control group in terms of retention/fracture after 24 to 36 months (RD, 0.03 95% CI -0.11, 0.16; p=0.70). Risk differences of marginal adaptation between bulk- fill group and Incremental group was 0.02 (RD, 0.00 95% CI -0.00, 0.04; p>0.05). Conclusion: The present meta-analysis showed that both incremental and bulk-fill methods are similar in terms of the clinical performance of Class I and II restorations in posterior teeth, and bulk-fill can be used as an alternative method