Objective: To analyze the marginal roughness and marginal fitness of chairside computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) laminate veneers with different materials and thicknesses, and to provide a reference for the clinical application of laminate veneers. Methods: The butt-to-butt type laminate veneers were prepared on resin typodonts, the preparations were scanned, and the laminate veneers were manufactured by chairside CAD/CAM equipment. The laminate veneers were divided into four groups (n=9) according to the materials (glass-matrix ceramics and resin-matrix ceramics) and thickness (0.3 mm and 0.5 mm) of the veneers, with a total of 36. The marginal topo-graphies of each laminate veneer were digitally recorded by stereomicroscope, and the marginal rough-nesses of the laminate veneers were determined by ImageJ software. The marginal fitness of the laminate veneers was measured by a fit checker and digital scanning and measuring method. At the same time, the mechanical properties of glass-matrix ceramic and resin-matrix ceramic bars (n=20) were tested by a universal testing device. Results: The marginal roughness of 0.3 mm and 0.5 mm glass-matrix ceramic laminate veneers was (24.48±5.55) μm and (19.06±5.75) μm, respectively, with a statistically significant difference (P<0.001). The marginal roughness of 0.3 mm and 0.5 mm resin-matrix ceramic laminate veneers was (6.13±1.27) μm and (6.84±2.19) μm, respectively, without a statistically significant difference (P>0.05). The marginal roughness of the glass-matrix ceramic laminate veneers was higher than that of the resin-matrix ceramic laminate veneers with a statistically significant difference (P<0.001). The marginal fitness of 0.3 mm and 0.5 mm glass-matrix ceramic laminate veneers were (66.30±26.71) μm and (85.48±30.44) μm, respectively. The marginal fitness of 0.3 mm and 0.5 mm resin-matrix ceramic laminate veneers were (56.42±19.27) μm and (58.36±8.33) μm, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference among the 4 groups (P>0.05). For glass-matrix ceramics, the flexural strength was (327.40±54.25) MPa, the flexural modulus was (44.40±4.39) GPa, and the modulus of resilience was (1.24±0.37) MPa. For resin-matrix ceramics, the flexural strength was (173.71±16.61) MPa, the flexural modulus was (11.88±0.51) GPa, and the modulus of resilience was (1.29±0.27) MPa. The flexural strength and modulus of glass-matrix ceramics were significantly higher than those of resin-matrix ceramics (P<0.001), but there was no statistically significant difference in the modulus of resilience between the two materials (P>0.05). Conclusion: The marginal roughness of CAD/CAM glass-matrix ceramic laminate veneers is greater than that of resin-matrix ceramic laminate veneers, but there was no statistically significant difference in marginal fitness among them. Increasing the thickness can reduce the marginal roughness of glass-matrix ceramic laminate veneers, but has no effect on the marginal roughness of resin-matrix ceramic laminate veneers.