© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Objectives: To measure microleakage around class V composite restorations after piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling and sonic toothbrushing. Methods: 3 mm × 2 mm × 1.5 mm boxes were prepared on buccal and lingual surfaces of extracted molars centered on the cementum-enamel junction. Half the preparations were beveled (0.5 mm). Preparations were restored with composite and polished. Restorations on one side of the teeth were either traced with an ultrasonic scaler (60 seconds, n = 16) or brushed in a sonic toothbrushing machine (2 hours, n = 16). After thermocycling (10,000 cycles/5–55°C), specimens were immersed in 5 wt% Fuchsine solution (24 hours). Samples were sectioned and evaluated for percentage of dye penetration. Data were analyzed with an exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test and exact Wilcoxon signed-rank test (alpha = 0.05). Results: Microleakage was observed at the cementum-composite interface but not the enamel-composite interface. There was not a statistically significant effect of the bevel for ultrasonic scaling or for sonic toothbrushing. Data obtained with and without a bevel were combined and a statistically significant difference in microleakage between the treatment and control sides of the tooth were found for ultrasonic scaling (32.5%±44.9%, n = 16; p = 0.016) but not sonic toothbrushing (2.5% ± 41.2%, n = 16; p = 1.0). Conclusions: Piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling increased microleakage at cementum-composite interface and there was no difference in microleakage with the use of a bevel. Clinical Significance: Piezoelectric sonic scaling around Class V composite restorations with margins in cementum should be avoided. Beveled margins will not reduce the incidence of microleakge resulting from ultrasonic scaling in Class V restorations. Placing the apical margin of the restoration in enamel should be attempted whenever possible to prevent future microleakage. (J Esthet Restor Dent 29:41–48, 2017).