Inconclusive results were reported about the cleaning and disinfection accomplished by the two irrigation methods .
There is insufficient evidence to cl aim general superiority of any one of these methods .
The aim of this study was to systematic ally review and critically analyse the published data on the treatment outcome ( primary outcome ) and on the  cleaning and disinfection of root canals  ( secondary outcomes ) achieved by negative pressure irrigation as compared to syringe irrigation .
Ex vivo antimicrobial efficacy of the EndoVac system plus photodynamic therapy associated with calcium hydroxide against intracanal Enterococcus faecalis.
AIM To evaluate the ex vivo efficacy of the EndoVac system and photodynamic treatment ( PDT ) as adjuncts to chemomechanical debridement associated with calcium hydroxide ( CaOH2 ) in reducing the levels of intracanal Enterococcus faecalis . METHODOLOGY One hundred and twenty-five sterile premolar teeth were conventionally accessed , prepared and then contaminated with E. faecalis ( ATCC 29212 ) for 30 days . Teeth were r and omly divided into 4 groups : Control ( chemomechanical debridement with conventional irrigation ) ; Endovac ( chemomechanical debridement with EndoVac system ) ; PDT ( chemomechanical debridement with conventional irrigation and PDT ) and Endovac+PDT ( chemomechanical debridement with EndoVac and PDT ) . The irrigants used in all groups were 5.25 % sodium hypochlorite and 17 % EDTA . After treatment , an intracanal dressing ( CaOH2 ) was applied in all canals for 7 days . Sample s were obtained before ( T1 ) and after the therapeutic procedures ( T2 ) and , after intracanal medication ( T3 ) , plated onto BHI media and incubated ( 37 ° C , 48 h ) to determine the colony-forming units ( CFU mL(-1 ) ) . RESULTS The overall mean cell counts ( CFU mL(-1 ) ) of E. faecalis were high at the initial contamination ( T1 ) . A significant reduction ( P < 0.05 ) of E. faecalis mean counts was observed in all groups from baseline ( T1 ) to both post-therapy samplings ( T2 and T3 ) ; no differences amongst the groups were detected . No significant change in bacterial counts from T2 to T3 was detected . CONCLUSION The adjunctive use of the EndoVac system and the photodynamic treatment , in combination or not , was as effective as the conventional chemomechanical debridement associated with CaOH2 on reducing the counts of intracanal E. faecalis
Inconclusive results were reported about the cleaning and disinfection accomplished by the two irrigation methods .
There is insufficient evidence to cl aim general superiority of any one of these methods .
The aim of this study was to systematic ally review and critically analyse the published data on the treatment outcome ( primary outcome ) and on the  cleaning and disinfection of root canals  ( secondary outcomes ) achieved by negative pressure irrigation as compared to syringe irrigation .