The aim was to test the null hypotheses that there is no difference: (1) in carious lesion development at the restoration margin between class II composite resin restorations in primary molars produced through the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) with and without a chemomechanical caries removal gel and (2) in the survival rate of class II composite resin restorations between two treatment groups after 2 years. Three hundred twenty-seven children with 568 class II cavitated lesions were included in a parallel mouth study design. Four operators placed resin composite (Filtek Z 250) restorations bonded with a self-etch adhesive (Adper prompt L pop). Two independent examiners evaluated the restorations after 0.5, 1, and 2 years using the modified Ryge criteria. The Kaplan–Meier survival method was applied to estimate survival percentages. A high proportion of restorations were lost during the study period. Therefore, the first hypothesis could not be tested. No statistically significant difference was observed between the cumulative survival percentages of restorations produced by the two treatment approaches over the 2-year period (ART, 54.1 ± 3.4%; ART with Carisolv™, 46.0 ± 3.4%). This hypothesis was accepted. ART with chemomechanical gel might not provide an added benefit increasing the survival percentages of ART class II composite resin restorations in primary teeth.