Alturaiki, et al.2 (2015) compared the CH removal capacity of EndoVac, sonic, ultrasonic activated irrigation techniques with conventional irrigation. Researchers reported that no statistically significant difference was found between sonic and ultrasonic irrigation in the coronal and middle third regions, but found that sonic irrigation was more efficient in the apical region. Our results do not coincide with the results of these authors. The differences between this outcome and our results may reflect different variables in the study design, such as (i) the sonic device used and (ii) the MAF size. Researchers used EndoActivator (Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK), NaOCl and EDTA in combination and prepared root canals up to #45 MAF. In this study, root canals were prepared up to #40 MAF and only 2.5% NaOCl was activated via Vibringe system. However, Bolles, et al.7 (2013) stated that no significant differences were found between EndoActivator and Vibringe systems on the sealer penetration into dentinal tubules. Further investigations are needed to clarify the effectiveness of these devices in removing medicaments.