Service life of discolored and abraded resin composite restorations could be prolonged by repair or relayering actions. Composite-composite adhesion can be achieved successfully using some surface conditioning methods, but the most effective adhesion protocol for relayering is not known when the composite restorations are surrounded with dentin. This study evaluated the effect of three adhesion strategies on the bond strength of resin composite to the composite-dentin complex. Intact maxillary central incisors (N=72, n=8 per subgroup) were collected and the coronal parts of the teeth were embedded in autopolymerized poly(methyl tfr54methacrylate) surrounded by a polyvinyl chloride cylinder. Cylindrical cavities (diameter: 2.6 mm; depth: 2 mm) were opened in the middle of the labial surfaces of the teeth using a standard diamond bur, and the specimens were randomly divided into three groups. Two types of resin composite, namely microhybrid (Quadrant Anterior Shine; AS) and nanohybrid (Grandio; G), were photo-polymerized incrementally in the cavities according to each manufacturer's recommendations. The composite-enamel surfaces were ground finished to 1200-grit silicone carbide paper until the dentin was exposed. The surfaces of the substrate composites and the surrounding dentin were conditioned according to one of the following adhesion protocols: protocol 1: acid-etching (dentin) + silica coating (composite) + silanization (composite) + primer (dentin) + bonding agent (dentin + composite); protocol 2: silica coating (composite) + acid-etching (dentin) + silanization (composite) + primer (dentin) + bonding agent (dentin + composite); and protocol 3: acid-etching (dentin) + primer (dentin) + silanization (composite) + bonding agent (dentin + composite). Applied primer and bonding agents were the corresponding materials of the composite manufacturer. Silica coating (CoJet sand, 30 gm) was achieved using a chairside air-abrasion device (distance: 10 mm; duration: four seconds in circular motion). After conditioning protocols, the repair resin was adhered to the substrate surfaces using transparent polyethylene molds (diameter: 3.6 mm) incrementally and photo-polymerized. The substrate-adherend combinations were as follows: AS-AS, G-G, AS-G. Shear force was applied to the adhesive interface in a Universal Testing Machine (crosshead speed: 1 mm/min). The types of failures were further evaluated and categorized as follows: 1) cohesive in the composite substrate and 2) adhesive at the interface. Bond strength values (MPa) were statistically analyzed using two-way analysis of variance and least significant difference post hoc tests (alpha=0.05). Significant effects of the adhesion strategy (p=0.006) and the composite type (p=0.000) were found. Interaction terms were not significant (p=0.292). Regardless of the substrate-adherend combination, protocol 1 (17-22 MPa) showed significantly higher results than did protocols 2 (15-17 MPa) and 3 (11-17 MPa) (p=0.028, p=0.002, respectively). The highest results were obtained from the GG combination after all three protocols (17-22 MPa). The incidence of cohesive failures was more common when the substrate and the adherend were the same composite type (ASAS: 87.5%, 87.5%, 75%; G-G: 100%, 75%, 50% for protocols 1, 2, and 3, respectively). When substrate and adherend were used interchangeably, adhesive failures were more frequent (25%, 50%, and 100% for protocol 1, 2, and 3, respectively). When the substrate and the adherend are of the same type, greater repair strength could be expected.