The aim of the study was to compare the hardness, coefficient of friction, and wear experienced by four different ceramic samples: 3Y-TZP zirconium oxide ceramics—Zi—Ceramill Zi (Amman Girrbach), 5Y-PSZ transparent zirconium oxide ceramics—Zol—Ceramill Zolid (Amman Girrbach), Sak—feldspathic ceramics—Sakura Interaction (Elephant), and Glaze (Amman Girrbach). The Vickers hardness of the samples was measured. Friction tests ball-on-disc were performed between the discs of four ceramics and a zirconia ceramic ball, then a premolar tooth as a counter-sample. The mass loss and the friction coefficients of the ceramic samples were determined. The tooth counter-samples were 3D scanned, and enamel attrition depths and mass were measured. The following hardness values (HV1) were obtained: 1454 ± 46 HV1 for Zi, 1439 ± 62 HV1 for Zol, 491 ± 16 HV1 for Sak, 593 ± 16 HV1 for Glaze, and 372 ± 41 HV1 for enamel. The mass losses of the teeth in contact with ceramics were 0.1 mg for Zi, 0.1 mg for Zol, 5.5 mg for Sak, and 4 mg for Glaze. Conventional and transparent zirconium oxide ceramics are four times harder than enamel and three times harder than veneering ceramics. Zirconia ceramics exhibit lower wear and a more homogenous, smoother surface than the other ceramics. Tooth tissues are subject to greater attrition in contact with veneering ceramics than with polished zirconium oxide ceramics. Abstract The aim of the study was to compare the hardness, coefficient of friction, and wear experienced by four different ceramic samples: 3Y-TZP zirconium oxide ceramics—Zi—Ceramill Zi (Amman Girrbach), 5Y-PSZ transparent zirconium oxide ceramics—Zol—Ceramill Zolid (Amman Girrbach), Sak—feldspathic ceramics—Sakura Interaction (Elephant), and Glaze (Amman Girrbach). The Vickers hardness of the samples was measured. Friction tests ball-on-disc were performed between the discs of four ceramics and a zirconia ceramic ball, then a premolar tooth as a counter-sample. The mass loss and the friction coefficients of the ceramic samples were determined. The tooth counter-samples were 3D scanned, and enamel attrition depths and mass were measured. The following hardness values (HV1) were obtained: 1454 ± 46 HV1 for Zi, 1439 ± 62 HV1 for Zol, 491 ± 16 HV1 for Sak, 593 ± 16 HV1 for Glaze, and 372 ± 41 HV1 for enamel. The mass losses of the teeth in contact with ceramics were 0.1 mg for Zi, 0.1 mg for Zol, 5.5 mg for Sak, and 4 mg for Glaze. Conventional and transparent zirconium oxide ceramics are four times harder than enamel and three times harder than veneering ceramics. Zirconia ceramics exhibit lower wear and a more homogenous, smoother surface than the other ceramics. Tooth tissues are subject to greater attrition in contact with veneering ceramics than with polished zirconium oxide ceramics. Keywords: tribological properties; ceramic wear; enamel wear; coefficient of friction; 3Y-TZP; 5Y-TZP