Objective. The aim of this study was to compare to fracture resistance test of inlay restorations prepared using direct inlay technique (Gradia® Direct Composite) and Indirect Restoration System® (Gradia Indirect Composite) and CAD/CAD system (Vita Enamic® Block). Study Design. 48 noncarious extracted maxillary second primary molars were randomly divided into 4 groups with 12 in each group. All the teeth were prepared based on inlay class II preparations except for the control group. Other groups were restored with Gradia Direct Composite, Gradia Indirect Composite, and Vita Enamic Block, respectively. All restorations were cemented self-adhesive dual cure resin (3M Espe, RelyX™ Unicem Aplicap). A fracture test was performed using a compressive load. Results were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and Duncan’s post hoc multiple comparison tests (α=0.05). Results. Vita Enamic Block and Gradia Indirect Composite showed significantly higher fracture resistance than Gradia Direct Composite (p<0.05). There was no significant difference fracture resistance between Vita Enamic Block and Gradia Indirect Composite (p>0.05). All restorations tested led to a significant reduction in fracture resistance (p<0.05). Conclusion. In inlay restorations, Indirect Restoration Systems and CAD/CAM systems were applied successfully together with the self-adhesive dual cure resin cements in primary molars.