To observe the wear performance of Giomer and universal composite for posterior restorations by 3D laser scan method, in order to guide the material selection in clinic.In this study, 48 patients (108 teeth) were selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. All the patients in need of a minimum of 2 Class Ⅰ and/or Class Ⅱ restorations were invited to join the study. The teeth were restored with Giomer (Beautifil Ⅱ, BF) and universal composite (Filtek Z350, Z350) randomly. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 6-, 18-, 48-month using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria for clinical performance. The in vivo images and gypsum replicas were taken at each recall. A 3D-laser scanner and Geomagic Studio 12 were used to analyze the wear depth quantitatively. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS 20.0.After 4 years, 89.6% patients were recalled. The survival rate of both materials was 95.8% (Kaplan-Meier survival analysis). Seven restorations of the two materials failed due to loss of restoration, bulk fracture, secondary caries and pulp necrosis. The wear patterns of restorations were divided into 2 classes. Pattern Ⅰ: occlusal contact areas showed the deepest and fastest wear depth; pattern Ⅱ: the wear depth was slow and uniform. Both materials showed a rapid wear in the first 6 months. Then the wear rate was decreased. The occlusal wear depth after 4 years were (58±22) μm and (54±16) μm for BF group and Z350 group respectively, which were in accordance with the American Dental Association (ADA) guidelines (wear depth for 3 years 0.05) were observed between the two groups. Regarding the restorations with wear pattern Ⅰ, the wear depth of BF group was higher than Z350 group at 6- and 48-month (P 0.05).Within the limitation of the study, after 4 years, the survival rate and wear resistance of Giomer met ADA guidelines for tooth-colored restorative materials for posterior teeth. When the two materials were applied in occlusal contact areas, wear resistance of Giomer was slightly lower than universal composite resin. No significant difference was found when they were applied in none of the occlusal contact areas.