Aim: The current study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of QMix and EDTA solutions in removing Ca(OH) 2 from root canals. Materials and Methods:Forty-eight mandibular premolar teeth were instrumented by ProTaper Universal instruments. All of the teeth were then fixed in modified Eppendorf vials using a silicone impression material. After the removal of the specimens from the Eppendorf vials the roots were split into two halves longitudinally and standard longitudinal grooves were then created on the dentinal walls at a level of 3 mm below the cementoenamel junction and 3 mm above from the apex of the roots. The Ca(OH) 2 was placed into the grooves and the specimens were then remounted into the silicone impression material. Six groups were formed: Needle-EDTA, Needle-QMix, Ultrasonic-EDTA, Ultrasonic-QMix, Sonic-EDTA and Sonic-QMix. The root halves were separated and digital images of artificially created grooves were obtained with a stereomicroscope at a 25x magnification. The Ca(OH) 2 left on the artificially created grooves were scored using a 4-graded scoring system and the data were statistically analyzed.Results: Needle QMix group removed more Ca(OH) 2 than with the EDTA group at the apical part of the root canal (P < 0.083). Conclusions:When the irrigation was performed by a conventional needle, the QMix solution had better efficiency than EDTA in removing Ca(OH) 2 from the apical part of the root canal. In clinical practice, the QMix solution can be used effectively for the removal of Ca (OH) 2.