The effectiveness of 2 types of ceramic repaired using resin composite and a universal adhesive were compared to a conventional adhesive. Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic ingots (IPS Empress^® Esthetic; “EE”; Ivoclar Vivadent, Germany) and lithium-disilicate glass ceramic ingots (IPS e.max^® Press; “EM”; Ivoclar Vivadent, Germany) were fabricated into 8x8x4 mm ceramic blocks with a total number of 288. The ceramic surfaces were wet-polished with silicon carbide paper and then treated with 9.5 % hydrofluoric acid (Ultradent^® Porcelain Etch; Ultradent, USA). Resin composite (FiltekTM Z350 XT, shade A4; 3M ESPE, USA) was built-up with 2 adhesive systems, one half (“U”) using universal dental adhesive (Single BondTM Universal; 3M ESPE, USA) and the other (“C”) using total etch dental adhesive (AdperTM ScotchbondTM Multipurpose Plus; 3M ESPE, USA) combined with ceramic primer (RelyxTM Ceramic Primer; 3M ESPE, USA). The specimens were stored in water at 37°C for 24 hours and then subjected to thermocycling for 10,000 cycles prior to a microtensile bond strength (μTBS) test. The specimens were then divided into a group of 36, for 8 groups, according to type of ceramic, adhesive system, and storage condition. Modes of failure were analyzed using a stereomicroscope (ML 9300; MEIJI, Japan). Three-way ANOVA and a Bonferroni post-hoc test were used to analyze the data (n = 36, α = 0.05). There was no significant difference between the aged and non-aged groups (p = 0.207). However, a Bonferroni post-hoc test revealed significant differences among all tested groups. The highest μTBS was recorded by the “EMC” group (36.310±13.12), while the lowest was found in the “EEU” group (22.020±7.94). The μTBS between the resin composite and ceramic repaired using a conventional adhesive system was higher compared with a universal adhesive system, especially in the lithium-disilicate type.