When mucoperiosteal flaps are positioned and sutured to desirable position, the wound contains several interface between tissues which differ fundamentally in composition & biological reaction. Thus the C-T surface of the flap will, on one hand, oppose another vascularized surface, and on the other, the avascular dental material for example, when root resoptions, fractured root, endodontic perforation, deep root carious lesions were filled with amalgam, glass ionomer, resin etc. Recently, a number of case report described the successful treatment of a subgingival root lesion with restorative material & free gingival graft, open flap surgery, but more objective research was needed . Most of study on restorative materials were concerned for cytotoxicity not for actual healing event on that materials and its influencing factors such as biocompatibility, surface wettability, surface topography . The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of amalgam, resin modified glass ionomer, composite resin per se, and their surface roughness on the growth of human gingival fibroblast. The cells were obtained and placed on culture flask and incubated for 3 days with the prepared test materials. Then count the attached cell number with hemocytometer,(n=12) and 2 samples were examined with SEM about attachment cell morphology . Another 4 samples were evaluated on their surface roughness with Talysurf and average surface roughness value(Ra) were obtained. Statistical difference in attached cell number, roughness value were analyzed using ANOVA. The number of attached cell was as follows, for root dentin specimen 16.7${\pm}$4.41, resin modified glass ionomer 14.0${\pm}$4.15, resin 8.13${\pm}$3.63, amalgam 0.72${\pm}$3.33(${\times}10^3$). Between root dentin and resin-modified glass ionomer, no significant difference was observed, but resin, amalgam showed a significant less cell numbers than for root dentin, resin modified glass ionomer cement. SEM examination expressed many cell surface attachment apparatus in root dentin and resin modified glass ionomer specimens. For resin specimen, cell attachment was observed but exposed less appratus. The average surface roughness value are following results. Dentin specimen 0.6972${\pm}$ 0.104, resin modified glass ionomer 0.0822${\pm}$0.009, resin 0.0875${\pm}$0.005, amalgam 4.2145${\pm}$0.985(${\mu}m$). Between root dentin, resin-modified glass ionomer, and resin, no significant difference was observed, but amalgam showed a significant more rough surface than other groups. When evlauated the interrelationship between cell attachment and surface roughness, therefore, there was weak reverse correlation.(pearson correlation : - 0.593) These results suggest that resin modified glass ionomer have the favorable healing potential when used for subgingival restoration. And for relationship between cell attachment and surface characteristics, further investigations were needed.