Low-viscosity composite resins may produce better sealed margins than stiffer compositions (KempScholte and Davidson, 1988: Crim, 1989). Plowable composites have been recommended for use in Class V cavities but it is also controversial because of its high rates of shrinkage. On the other hand, in the study comparing elastic moduli and leakage, the microfill had the least leakage (Rundle et at. 1997) Furthermore, in the 1996 survey of the Reality Editorial Team, microfills were the clear choice for abfraction lesions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the microleakage of 6 compostite resins (2 hybrids, 2 microfills, and 2 flowable composites) with and without load cycling. Notch-shaped Class V cavities were prepared on buccal surface of 180 extracted human upper premolars on cementum margin. The teeth were randomly divided into non-load cycling group (group 1) and load cycling group (group 2) of 90 teeth each. The experimental teeth of each group were randomly divided into 6 subgroups of 15 samples. All preparations were etched, and Single bond was applied. Preparations were restored with the following materials (n=15) : hybrid composite resin [Z250(3M Dental Products Inc. St. Paul, USA), Denfil(Vericom, Ahnyang, Korea)], microfill [Heliomolar RO(Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein), Micronew(Bisco Inc. Schaumburg, IL, USA)], and flowable composite［AeliteFlo(Bisco Inc. Schaumburg, IL, USA), Revolution(Kerr Corp. Orange, CA, USA)]. Teeth of group 2 were subjected to occlusal load (100N for 50,000 cycles) using chewing simulator(MTS 858 Mini Bionix II system, MTS Systems Corp. Minn. USA). All samples were coated with nail polish 1mm short of the restoration, placed in 2％ methylene blue for 24 hours, and sectioned with a diamond wheel. Enamel and dentin/cementum margins were analyzed for microleakage on a sclale of 0 (no leakage) to 3 (3/3 of wall). Results were statistically analyzed by Kruscal-Wallis One way analysis, Mann-Whitney U-test, and Student-Newmann-Keuls method. (p = 0.05) Results : 1. There was significantly less microleage in enamel margins than dentinal margins of all groups (p＜0.05) 2. There was no significant between six composite resin in enamel margin of group 1. 3. In dentin margin of group 1, flowable composite had more microleakage than others but not of significant differences. 4. there was no significant difference between six composite resin in enamel margin of group 2. 5. In dentin margin of group 2, the microleakage were R＞A =H=M＞D＞Z. But there was no significant differences. 6. In enamel margins, load cycling did not affect the marginal microleakage in significant degree. 7. In enamel margins, load cycling did affect the marginal microleakage only in Revolution. (p＜0.05).