## 4 Discussion  
The main objective of this study was to compare the accuracy and procedure time of the Fluorescence-aided Identification Technique (FIT) and the conventional illumination  
Figure 2: Relative frequencies of correctness of identification (COI) grade 1 (“correct”) for (**a**) CONV vs. FIT overall, (**b**) dentists vs. students for CONV and FIT, (**c**) female vs. male examiners for CONV and FIT, and (**d**) years of dental experience for FIT and CONV. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Examination**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**n**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Mean \(\pm\) Standard**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Median [s]**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Min [s]**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Max [s]**} \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{5-7}  & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{1} & CONV & 800 & 117 \(\pm\) 9 & 120 & 70 & 120 \\ \cline{2-7}  & FIT & \multicolumn{5}{c}{No assessment} & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{2} & CONV & 400 & 118 \(\pm\) 5 & 120 & 90 & 120 \\ \cline{2-7}  & FIT & 400 & 23 \(\pm\) 5 & 22 & 10 & 38 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{3} & CONV & \multicolumn{5}{c}{No assessment} & \\ \cline{2-7}  & FIT & 800 & 24 \(\pm\) 5 & 24 & 10 & 38 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Procedure time required for the identification of composite remnants by CONV vs. FIT. method (CONV) of detecting composite remnants after trauma splint removal when performed by dentists and students. CEREC surface scanning of the teeth before and after splint removal was used as the gold standard for remnant identification. Additional data on the impact of examiner experience and gender on the accuracy and procedure time, as well as the inter-rater-reliability and retest-reliability of the two methods were also collected. The detection of composite remnants after trauma splint removal by a dentist other than the operator who removed the splint initially is a clinically relevant situation that has not been investigated yet. The detection of composite remnants after trauma splint removal was more accurate and faster with FIT compared to conventional illumination. This is in line with the results of previous studies where FIT was superior to the conventional method of composite remnant identification with regard to accuracy and procedure time [10; 13; 15; 16; 17; 18]. Contrary to expectations, the dental students in this study performed the FIT method faster than the dentists. Although the difference in procedure time was statistically significant, it most probably is not clinically relevant. Furthermore, the inter-rater-reliability results showed good consensus between the examiners. Conversely, the retest reliability was low. Moreover, examiner experience did not have an impact on the results. The gender of the examiner is known to influence color shade matching quality [33] but did not have an impact on the results of the study. A bovine incisor model was used in the present study due to difficulties in acquiring enough suitable human front teeth. Most extracted human anterior teeth are inappropriate for this type of study because of the presence of coronal restorations or carious defects. The use of bovine teeth enabled a standardized study protocol. However, the use of non-human teeth differs significantly from the clinical situation, which may have influenced the results. All teeth were extracted on the same day and cleaned and stored in the same manner. The template used to evaluate the results of composite remnants charting was generated by superimposing the intraoral scans with the OraCheck software. Intraoral scanners have a deviation tolerance of 20 \(\upmu\)m for single teeth, 35 \(\upmu\)m for quadrants, and 50 to 80 \(\upmu\)m for full-arch scans [34; 35; 36]. To achieve precise superimposition, we used teeth 13 and 23 as unchanging reference points and kept the accuracy setting for superimpositions very high in light of the very small changes observed in this study (level \"0.00 mm \(<\) distance \(\leq\) 0.1 mm\" over 95%) [5].