Aim: The introduction of resin-based composite technology in restorative dentistry was one of the most significant investments in dentistry in the last century. Wear resistance continues to be a particularly important issue in the renovation of large occlusal areas in posterior teeth. The purpose of this study was to compare the wear of direct and indirect resin composites designed for in vitro posterior use. Methods: Therefore, a total of 40 samples were prepared with three direct nanohybrid composites (Tetric Evo Ceram, Filtek Supreme XT, Aelite Estetik) and two indirect composites (Estenia, Tescera ATL) in a randomized complete block design (n=8). The samples were subjected to abrasive wear performed under a normal load of 50–60 N with a frequency of 1.2 Hz on a wear simulator (Selcuk) in the presence of artificial saliva, after which superhard replicas of stone molds were produced analyze the laboratory attrition rate. Wear was quantified by optical 3-D scanning every 30.000 to 60.000 cycles. Results: Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey's multiple range post hoc test (α = 0.05). The results showed that the type of composite resin significantly affects the measured wear. Direct nanohybrid composite resin material (Aelite Esthetic) showed significantly less abrasive wear than indirect microhybrid composite resin (Tescera ATL) and direct nanofilled composite resin (Filtek superior). There was no significant difference in the average wear rate of Aelite Estetik, Estenia and Tetric Evo Ceram. Conculusıon: In summary, indirect resin composites may not have superior wear behavior compared to direct nanohybrid composites. However, the laboratory resistance of all composite resin types was found to be adequate in this study compared to the ADA approval program regulations.