This study compared the efficacy of using conventional low-power density QTH (LQTH) units, high-power density QTH (HQTH) units, argon (Ar) laser and Plasma arc curing (PAC) units for curing dual-cured resin cements and restorative resin composites under a pre-cured resin composite overlay. The microhardness of the two types of restorative resins (Z100 and Tetric Ceram) and a dual-cured resin cement (Variolink II) were measured after they were light cured for 60 seconds in a 2 mm Teflon mold. The recorded microhardness was determined to be the optimum microhard-ness (OM). Either one of the two types of restorative resins (Z100, Tetric Ceram) or the dual cured resin cement (Variolink II) were placed under a 1.5-mm thick and 8 mm diameter pre-cured Targis (Vivadent/Ivoclar AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein) overlay. The specimens that were prepared for each material were divided into four groups depending upon the curing units used (HQTH, PAC, Laser or LQTH) and were further subdi-vided into subgroups according to light curing time. The curing times used were 30, 60, 90 and 120 seconds for HQTH; 12, 24, 36 and 48 seconds for the PAC unit; 15, 30, 45 and 60 for the Laser and 60, 120 or 180 seconds for the LQTH unit. Fifteen specimens were assigned to each sub- group. The microhardness of the upper and and lower composite surfaces under the Targis overlay were measured using an Optidur Vickers hardness-measuring instrument (Göttfert Feinwerktechnik GmbH, Buchen, Germany). In each material, for each group, a three-way ANOVA with Tukey was used at the 0.05 level of significance to compare the microhardnesses of the upper and lower composite surfaces and the previously measured OM of the material. From the OM of each material, 80% OM was calculated and the time required for the microhardness of the upper and lower surface of the specimen to reach 100% and 80% of OM was determined. In Z100 and Tetric Ceram, when the composites were light cured for 120 seconds using the HQTH lamp, microhardnesses of the upper and lower surfaces reached OM. When they were cured with the PAC unit, only 48 seconds was needed for the upper and lower surfaces to reach OM. When they were cured using the laser, the lower surface did not reach OM in any of the groups. When the specimens were cured using the LQTH lamp, 180 seconds of curing was needed for Z100 to reach OM, whereas Tetric Ceram did not reach OM. In Z100, 60, 12, 30 and 60 seconds were needed in HQTH, PAC, Laser and LQTH, respectively, for the specimens to reach 80% OM. Tetric Ceram was needed 60,24,45 and 180 seconds to reach 80% OM. In the Variolink II specimen, microhardness of the upper and lower surfaces did not reach OM even though they were light cured with the HQTH lamp for 120 seconds. When they were cured with the PAC unit, 48 seconds was insufficient for them to reach OM. When they were cured with laser for 45 and 60 seconds, microhardness reached OM on the upper surface but not on the lower surface. However, when they were cured using the LQTH lamp, microhardness did not reach OM on the upper and lower surfaces even though the curing time was extended to three minutes. In Variolink II, 120, 36, 45 and >180 seconds were needed in HQTH, PAC, Laser and LQTH, respectively, for the specimens to reach 80% OM. In conclusion, the PAC system is the most effective curing system to cure the restorative composite and dual cured resin cement under the 1.5 mm Targis overlay, followed by the laser, HQTH and LQTH units. In addition, the restorative composites cured more efficiently than the dual-cured resin cements.