Objectives; To compare the efficacy of canal brush (coltene/Whaldent GmbH+co, Germany) versus no agitation in removing smear layer and debris from root canals instruments with Protaper Next and Wave one, evaluated by SEM. Materials & methods; A total of 40 extracted single rooted teeth were selected and randomly divided in to 4 groups (n=10 per group) as follows. Group 1; Protaper Next file (Dentsply, Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) Group 2; Protaper Next file + Finished with Q mix Rotaray canal brush agitation. (Whaledent,Gmbh and co,KG,Langenau) Group 3; Wave one instrumentation. Group 4; Wave one instrumentation + Finished with Q mix Rotatory canal brush agitation. In group 1 and 2, Protaper next file were used in the manufacturer recommended sequence up to size x4 (40/06), In group 3 & 4, Wave one file were used to size 40/06),in Group 3 & 4, Wave one file were used to size 40/08 (Wave one large) according to the Manufacture instructions during the instrumentation in all groups,irrigation was performed using 5.25% Naocl. After completion of canal preparation Q mix was used as the final irrigant for 60 seconds. All the were proceed for SEM, and the removal of the smear layer was examined in the Apical, middle, and coronal thirds. Analysis of SEM images were performed by 2 independent evaluators in a blinded manner and using a 4 -point scoring system. Results; Lower debris & smear layer scores were seen in canal thirds instrumented with Protaper Next and Wave one (p