Purpose: To evaluate the microshear bond strength (µSBS) of composite cement bonded to two machined glass ceramics and its durability, comparing conventional surface conditioning (hydrofluoric acid + silane) to a one-step primer (Monobond Etch & Prime). Materials and Methods: Machined slices of lithium disilicate ceramic (LDC) (IPS e.max CAD) and feldspathic ceramic (FC) (VITA Mark II) glass ceramics were divided into two groups (n = 10) according to two factors: 1. surface treatment: HF+S (ca 5% hydrofluoric acid [IPS Ceramic Etching GEL] + silane coupling agent [SIL; Monobond Plus]) or MEP (single-component ceramic conditioner; Monobond Etch & Prime); 2. storage condition: baseline (without aging; tested 24 h after cementing) or aged (70 days of water storage + 12,000 thermal cycles). Composite cement (Multilink Automix, Ivoclar Vivadent) was applied to starch matrices on the treated ceramic surfaces and photoactivated. A µSBS test was performed (0.5 mm/min) and the failure pattern was determined. Contact angle and micromorphological analyses were also performed. Data were analyzed with Student's t-test (α = 5%). Results: For both ceramic materials, HF+S resulted in higher mean µSBS (MPa) at baseline (LDC: HF+S 21.2 ± 2.2 > MEP 10.4 ± 2.4; FC: HF+S 19.6 ± 4.3 > MEP 13.5 ± 5.4) and after aging (LDC: HF+S 14.64 ± 2.31 > MEP 9 ± 3.4; FC HF+S: 14.73 ± 3.33 > MEP 11.1 ± 3.3). HF+S resulted in a statistically significant decrease in mean µSBS after aging (p = 0.0001), while MEP yielded no significant reduction. The main failure type was adhesive between composite cement and ceramic. HF+S resuted in the lowest contact angle. Conclusions: Hydrofluoric acid + silane resulted in higher mean µSBS than Monobond Etch & Prime for both ceramics; however, Monobond Etch & Prime had stable bonding after aging. Schlagwörter: bond strength, conditioning, contact angle, hydrofluoric acid etching, surface treatment, thermocycling, vitreous ceramics