Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the shear bond strength of a novel repair system, Nova Compo SF with Ceramic Repair, Ivoclar, to computer‑aided design/computer‑assisted manufacturing (CAD/CAM) restorative materials (IPS e.max CAD and Empress CAD). Materials and Methods: The specimens of each CAD/CAM restorative material were randomly divided into two subgroups of nine specimens, using one of two repair systems. All specimens were etched with hydrofluoric acid and rinsed under a water spray for 10 s, then air‑dried for 10 s. Next, repair systems were applied according to the manufacturer’s instructions. All specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 h and then additionally aged for 5000 thermal cycles. A shear bond strength test was performed using a universal testing machine. Each fracture type was examined under a stereomicroscope at ×12.5 magnification. A two‑way ANOVA test was used to detect significant differences between the CAD/CAM restorative materials and the composite repair systems. Subgroup analyses were performed using Tukey’s honest significant difference. Results: No statistically significant differences were observed between the repair systems (P = 0.9). The bond strength values from Empress CAD were statistically higher than those from e.max CAD (P ˂ 0.05).Conclusions: Within limitations, SuperFlow may be an alternative to the ceramic repair materials we routinely used in the clinic. Empress CAD can be preferable to e.max CAD in terms of esthetically suitable clinical indications.Keywords: Bond strength, computer‑aided design/computer‑assisted manufacturing, porcelain, repair syste
