A smooth-surface provisional restoration is necessary to reduce biofilm adhesion, periodontal inflammation, caries formation, discoloration, and wear. This study evaluated the surface topography and roughness of a bis-acryl resin (Luxatemp), a semi-permanent composite resin (Luxacrown), a CAD/CAM composite block (Luxacam), and a polymethyl methacrylate block (Telio CAD) when polished with different protocols. A total of thirty-six specimens were fabricated, and finished with 320-grit silicon carbide abrasive papers to simulate clinical finishing. Nine specimens for each material were divided into unpolished (control), 2-step, and 3-step polishing groups. Two-step polishing consisted of a gray polisher and a goat hair chamois brush. Three-step method included the addition of a felt cloth wheel buff and composite polishing paste (Brasseler USA). Surface roughness was determined at 3 data points per polished surface using a noncontact 3D optical profiler (Zygo NewView 7300). In addition, surface topography was visualized under SEM and profiler images were obtained. Data was analyzed with 2-way ANOVA (P Statistically significant differences were noted between control and 2-step group (P=0.025), and between control and 3-step group (P=0). There was no statistically significant difference between 2- and 3-step groups (P=0.414) when control group data was included. Mean Ra values were highest in the control and lowest in 3-step group. Materials exhibited statistically significant influence in the control but not in 2-step and 3-step groups. Direct comparison of 2-step and 3- step groups revealed statistically lower roughness values for the latter, except for Telio CAD, which showed a smoother surface with the 2-step protocol (P=0.018). The Ra values were clinically acceptable (