Objectives: This study determined the reliability of ceramic surface protection against the effect of a manufacturer’s proposed bleaching protocol on the surface roughness and color stability. Materials and Methods: A total of 40 ceramic discs were constructed (12mm diameter x 2mm thickness) according to manufacturer’s instructions; 20 discs of each material: hydrothermal low fusing ceramic “Ducera LFC” and leucite pressable ceramic “Dentsply prothetics”, each 20 discs of each group were further subdivided into two subgroups (n=10) according to whether they receive a protection with the adhesive light cured resin “Opaldam” or not receiving a protection at all before bleaching .Each subgroup was subjected to An aggressively proposed bleaching protocol as follows:Two hours application of Carbamide peroxide formula “Opalescence Boost 38%” representing the first In-office bleaching session followed by 8 hours application of Hydrogen peroxide formula “ Opalescence PF 20%” representing the at-home bleaching session and repeated six times where each two applications of the at-home formula were interrupted by a ten- hours application of “FLor-Opal 1.1%” neutral sodium fluoride , after each application, the samples were washed and cleaned under running water, after the last application , all samples were cleaned with wet cotton gauze and then dried.All the discs were measured before bleaching application to determine the baseline for surface roughness using the stereomicroscope and baseline for color, using the spectrophotometer, then after the end of bleaching treatment, all the samples were measured again to determine the changes occurred in the previous values. collected data were statistically analyzed using the Independent-T-test for the comparison between the means of 2 groups and the one-way ANOVA test for the comparison between more than two tests regarding the significance level. Results: The results showed that there was a statistically significant increase in surface roughness (Ra), color change (ΔE) and lightness “whiteness” (ΔL) among all the unprotected samples. However; these values were not statically significant among the protected subgroups, there was a positive significant correlation between roughness and whiteness when using person’s correlation.The highest statistically significant increase in surface roughness(Ra), color change (ΔE) whiteness and lightness (ΔL) showed with the unprotected leucite pressable ceramic“dentsply prothetics”followed by the unprotected low fusing ceramic “Ducera LFC” and finally the protected subgroups showed almost no significant changes in either optical properties or surface topography. Conclutions: The procedure of ceramic surface protection was reliable in protection and sealing of ceramic surface during the bleaching procedure. The effect of bleaching agent on ceramic surface is a material dependent that varies according to the substrate composition. Bleaching affected the optical property and surface topography of the leucite pressible and Ducera Low fusing Ceramics. Color changes in ceramic materials following bleaching was markedly affected by the surface roughness and the composition of these ceramic materials.