The purpose of this study was to compare the cleaning efficacy of passive ultrasonic activation with that of passive sonic activation after hand instrumentation. Sixty curved molar canals were hand-instrumented to size 35 and divided into three groups. Group 1 received no further treatment. Group 2 received 3 min of passive sonic activation. Group 3 received 3 min of passive ultrasonic activation. The roots were split and photomicrographs (x20) were made of the apical 6 mm of canal. A transparent grid was placed over projected images, and the total number of squares covering the apical 6 mm of canal space and the number of squares containing debris were counted. A debris score was calculated for each specimen by dividing the number of squares with debris by the total number of squares. The mean debris scores were 31.6% for hand instrumentation only, 15.1% for the sonic group, and 16.7% for the ultrasonic group. The debris scores for the sonic and ultrasonic activation groups were significantly lower than that for the hand instrumentation only group (p < 0.01); however, there was no significant difference between the sonic and ultrasonic activation groups. Passive sonics after hand instrumentation produces a cleaner canal than hand instrumentation alone and is comparable with that of passive ultrasonics.