Background: Perceived shade change of ceramic restorations can be disappointing to both operator and patient; therefore evaluation of how the underlying cement can impact the final perceived shade is required. Aim: Compare effect of bioactive cement versus resin cement on the perceived shade of final ceramic restoration with and without presence of substrate. Methodology: Forty plate shaped samples of lithium disilicate ceramic were prepared (E-max CAD (HT A1/C14 – 1.3 mm thick). Composite substructure of shade A3.5 and 2mm thickness were prepared (n=20). E-max Samples were divided to four groups named (B, R, BC, and RC) (n=10). Groups (B, R) received cement only; (B) for bioactive cement (ACTIVA), (R) for resin cement (Rely X unicem) respectively, both cements were selected of the same shade (A2) as a universal shade. Groups (BC, and RC) were cemented to composite substructure. Shade of E-max Ceramic Specimens was evaluated using spectrophotometer to obtain L*, a*, b* values after etching only, after etching and cement application only, then after cementing to substrate respectively. The generated data was statistically analyzed. The significance level was set at P ≤ 0.05. Results: there was no significant difference between Activa and Rely X without substrate, while with substrate; Activa showed statistically significantly higher mean ΔE than Rely X. Conclusion: The type of luting agent had a great influence on the perceived shade of the lithium disilicate ceramic.