Methodology: Disks (10 mm in diameter and 2.2 mm thick) were fabricated for the following groups (n=7) for each group: polished Celtra Duo CAD, glazed Celtra Duo CAD and IPS e.max CAD (control group). The surface roughness (Ra) of the specimens were measured with optical profilometer and scanning electron microscope (SEM). Additionally, the translucency (TP) of the specimens were measured with spectrophotometer. The influence of material type and surface finishing protocol on surface roughness and translucency were analyzed using a multivariate analysis, 1-way ANOVA, and the Tukey’s post-hoc test (P<.05).

Results: the effect of finishing protocol (p =0.8204) and ceramic type (p= 0.4448) on surface roughness was non-significant among the tested groups. Whereas, the effect of ceramic type on translucency was significant (p= 0.0023), where Celtra Duo CAD ceramics demonstrated significantly higher translucency when compared to IPS e.max CAD ceramics. However, the effect of finishing protocol on translucency of Celtra duo groups was non-significant.

Conclusion: Celtra Duo CAD is more translucent than IPS e.max CAD regardless of the finishing protocol. The surface roughness of Celtra Duo CAD and IPS e.max CAD are comparable.