Calcium hydroxide (CH) dressing residues can compromise endodontic sealing. This study aimed to evaluate the amount of remaining CH in root canals after mechanical removal by four groups of irrigation techniques including needle irrigation only, ProTaper file, EndoActivator, and ultrasonic file. Fifteen extracted single-rooted teeth were collected and used for all four groups. The samples were firstly prepared by ProTaper rotary instruments, and then sectioned longitudinally through the long axis of the root canals, followed by final reassembling by wires. CH was kept in the canals for 7 days setting. The removal procedure began with 5 mL of 2.5% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) followed by 1 mL of 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid and a final irrigation with 5 mL of 2.5% NaOCl solution for all groups. No additional agitation of the irrigant was performed in group 1, while agitation for 20 s between irrigants was done with F2 ProTaper rotary file in group 2, EndoActivator with tip size 25/.04 in group 3 and by an ultrasonic file 25/.02 in group 4. The total activation time was 60 s. The roots were then disassembled and captured by digital camera. The ratio of CH coated surface area to the surface area of the whole canal as well as each third of the canal was calculated. The data were statistically analyzed by one-way ANOVA using post hoc Tukey test. Results showed that none of the four techniques could remove all CH. No significant difference was found between EndoActivator and ultrasonic techniques. However, they both removed significantly more CH than ProTaper and needle irrigation (P=0.0001). In conclusion, the sonic and ultrasonic agitation techniques were more effective in removing intracanal medicaments than the ProTaper rotary file and needle irrigation in all thirds of the canal. This study aimed to evaluate the amount of remaining CH in root canals after mechanical removal by four groups of irrigation techniques including needle irrigation, ProTaper file, EndoActivator, and ultrasonic file. Fifteen extracted single-rooted teeth were collected and used for all four groups. The samples were pre- prepared by ProTaper rotary instruments, and then sectioned longitudinally through the long axis of the root canals, followed by final reassembling by wires. CH was kept in the canals for 7 days setting. The removal procedure began with 5 mL of 2.5% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) followed by 1 mL of 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid and a final irrigation with 5 mL of 2.5% NaOCl solution for all groups. No additional agitation of the irrigant was performed in group 1, while agitation for 20 seconds between irrigants was done with F2 ProTaper rotary file in group 2, EndoActivator with tip size 25 /.04 in group 3 and by an ultrasonic file 25 / .02 in group 4. The total activation time was 60 s. The roots were then disassembled and captured by digital camera. The ratio of CH coated surface area to the surface area of the whole canal as well as each third of the canal was calculated. The data was drawn by one-way ANOVA using post hoc Tukey test. Results showed that none of the four techniques could remove all CH. No significant difference found found between EndoActivator However, they both removed significantly more than ProTaper and needle irrigation (P = 0.0001). In conclusion, the sonic and ultrasonic agitation techniques were more effective in removing intracanal medicaments than the ProTaper rotary file and needle irrigation in all thirds of the canal.