RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the microtensile bond strength of four dental computer-aided design/computer-aided manufactured (CAD/CAM) ceramics after application of four different surface treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four dental CAD/CAM ceramics were tested: feldspathic ceramic (VITABLOCKS-Mark II), polymer-infiltrated ceramic network (VITA ENAMIC), zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (VITA SUPRINITY), and yttria-stabilized zirconia (VITA YZ T). Four surface treatments were applied: no treatment, 5% hydrofluoric acid-etching, airborne particle abrasion, and tribochemical silica coating. The ceramic blocks were repaired with nanohybrid composite (Tetric N-Collection). Sixteen test groups of 12 specimens were prepared. After thermocycling, microtensile bond testing was performed. The microtensile strengths values were statistically analyzed using two-way analysis of variance and Tukey's post-hoc test. RESULTS: Repaired feldspathic and resin polymer-infiltrated ceramic network ceramics demonstrated superior microtensile bond strengths compared to zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate and yttria-stabilized zirconia. Etched feldspathic and polymer-infiltrated ceramic network ceramics had higher bond strength than the untreated groups. Surface treatments did not affect the bond strength of zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate and yttria-stabilized zirconia with the exception of etching, which reduced the bond strength of yttria-stabilized zirconia. CONCLUSION: Feldspathic ceramic and polymer-infiltrated ceramic network were repaired with dental composite after surface etching with hydrofluoric acid. Repair of zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate and yttria-stabilized zirconia did not demonstrate promising results. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Repair of feldspathic ceramic and polymer-infiltrated ceramic network restorations may be a cost-effective means to promote the longevity of dental restorations. However, zirconia and zirconia-reinforced lithium disilicate restorations do not offer such an option.