Aim: The present study was conducted to evaluate and compare the microleakage in class V cavities restored with self-adhering and conventional composite with various surface treatments. Materials & method: Class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surface of 81 extracted teeth and randomly distributed into 2 groups, Group A was restored with self-adhering flowable composite (SAC)and Group B was restored with conventional composite (CC). Both Groups were further subdivided into subgroups respectively. Group Al (n=9) = Acid Etching + SAC, Group A2(n=9) = Acid Etching + 8th Generation Bonding agent + SAC, Group A3(n=9) = Air Abrasion +SAC, Group A4 (n=9) = Air Abrasion + 8th Generation Bonding agent +SAC, GroupA5 (n=9) = SAC, Group A6 (n=9) =SAC + 8th Generation Bonding agent Group BI = 8 Generation Bonding agent + CC, Group B2 = Acid Etching + 8th Generation Bonding agent + CC, Group B3(n=9) = Air Abrasion + 8th Generation Bonding agent + CC Following immersion in methylene blue dye, the samples were sectioned in bucco-lingual direction. The microleakage scores at the occlusal and cervical margins of the cavities were determined using scanning electron moicroscopy to ascertain, which group presented minimum microleakage and hence superior bonding properties. Results: Conventional composite (Group B2) provides better marginal adaptation at occlusal level when compared to selfadhesive composite and at gingival level Group B3 (conventional composite) was superior to self-adhesive composite. Conclusion: Conventional composite continues to provide better marginal adaptation when compared to self-adhesive composite. Etch and bond procedures as a pre-restoration surface treatment proves to be superior, for both conventional composite as well as self-adhesive composite.