Objective While the radiopacity of restorative material affects the radiographic diagnosis of the teeth, there is no data about the radiopacity of current restorative computer‐aided design (CAD)/computer‐aided manufacturing (CAM) materials. Therefore, the present study compared the radiopacity values of current restorative CAD/CAM blocks to facilitate the material choice within such a wide variety of materials. Materials and Methods Specimens were prepared from 13 different restorative CAD/CAM blocks to compare with enamel and dentin. The specimens placed on the occlusal phosphor plate were imaged with aluminum step wedge and tooth section. The radiopacity values were calculated using the Image J program. The radiopacity values of the specimens were converted to mmAl values with the Curve Expert 1.4 program. Results The difference between the radiopacity values of dentin and e.max CAD was not significant, however, they exhibited a significant difference from the other 14 groups (P < .05). Enamel and Obsidien, Suprinity, and Celtra Duo had greater radiopacity values with significant differences from the other 12 materials whereas the difference within these groups was not significant (P > .05). Conclusions The evaluated restorative CAD/CAM materials have significantly different radiopacity values. Among these permanent restoration blocks, the highest radiopacity value was observed in Celtra Duo, the lowest in Block HC. Clinical Significance Cerasmart, Lava Ultimate, Obsidian, Vita Suprinity, Celtra Duo Blocks have adequate radiopacity for inlay, onlay and crown restorations, however, the use of Vita Enamic, Vita Mark II, GC LRF blocks and the others which have lower radiopacity value than dentin for the same kind of restorations depend on the radiopacity of the luting cement for the purpose of recurrent caries detection.