This study was to know the usefulness of argon laser for composite resin, to prove the polymerized effect of heat treatment of composite resin inlay and to get the curing method for optimal physical properties of composite resin inlay. In this study we used four light curing units and one heat curing unit: Visilux $II^{TM}$, a visible light gun: $SPECTRUM^{TM}$, an argon laser: Unilux AC$^{(R)}$ and Astorn XL$^{(R)}$, visible light curing unit: CRC-$100^{TM}$ for heat treatment. Compared to a control group, we divided the experemental groups into five as follows: Control group: Light curing(Visilux $II^{TM}$) Experimental group 1 : Light curing(Visilux $II^{TM}$) + Light curing(Unilux AC$^{(R)}$) Experimental group 2: Light curing(Visilux $II^{TM}$) + Light curing(Astron XL$^{(R)}$) + Heat treatment(CRC-$100^{TM}$) Experimental group 3 : Laser curing($SPECTRUM^{TM}$) Experimental group 4 : Laser curing($SPECTRUM^{TM}$) + Light curing(Unilux AC$^{(R)}$) Experimental group 5 : Laser curing($SPECTRUM^{TM}$) + Light curing(Astron XL$^{(R)}$) + Heat treatment (CRC-$100^{TM}$) According to the above classification, we made samples through the curing of Clearfil CR Inlay$^{(R)}$, which is a composite resin for inlay, in a separable cylindrical metal mold and polycarbonate plate. And then, we measured and compared the value of compressive strength, diametral tensile strength and the surface micro hardness of each sample. The results were as follows : 1. Among the experimental groups, group 5 showed the highest value of compressive strength, $157.50{pm}10.24$ kgf and control group showed the lowest value of compressive strength, $103.93{pm}21.93$ kgf. Control group showed significant difference with the experimental groups(p<0.001). Group 2 which was treated by the heat showed higher compressive strength than that of group 1 which was not, and there was significant difference between group 1 and group 2(p<0.001). Group 5 which was treated by heat showed higher compressive strength than group 4 which was not, and there was significant difference group 4 and group 5(p<0.001). 2. Among the experimental groups, group 5 showed the highest value of diametral tensile strength, $95.84{pm}1.97$ kgf and control group showed the lowest value of diametral tensile strength, $81.80{pm}2.17$ kgf. Control group which was cured by visible light showed higher diametral tensile strength than group 3 which was cured Argon Laser. Group 2 which was treated by heat showed higher compressive strength than that of group 1 which was not, and there was significant difference between group 1 and group 2(p<0.001). Group 5 which was treated by heat showed higher compressive strength than group 4 which was not, and there was a significant difference group 4 and group 5(p<0.001). 3. Among the experimental groups, group 5 showed the highest value of microhardness of top surface, $148.42{pm}9.57$ kgf and control group showed the lowest value of microhardness, $111.43{pm}7.63$ kgf. In the case of bottom surface, group 5 showed the highest value of $146.19{pm}7.62$ kgf, and control group showed the lowest, $104.03{pm}11.05$ kgf. Group 3 which was cured by Argon Laser showed higher diametral tensile strength than control group which was cured only with a visible light gun. Group 2 which was treated by heat showed higher compressive strength than that of group 1 which was not, and there was a significant difference between group 1 and group 2(p<0.001). Group 5 which was treated by heat showed higher compressive strength than group 4 which was not, and there was a significant difference group 4 and group 5(p<0.001). 4. According to the above results, we took a c..