Aim:To determine if there is a difference in detecting composite restorations by using traditional methods as compared to using an ultraviolet light source and if it would be reasonable to augment the traditional method with the use of an alternate light source. Materials and methods:Twenty-two participants were examined independently by one dentist with traditional visual and tactile dental examination methods (using an overhead light, a dental mirror, and a dental explorer) while simultaneously viewing a pantomograph of the patients and by another dentist utilizing an ultraviolet light source, an overhead light, and an intraoral mirror. The number and position of detected composite restorations for each method was calculated and compared. Comparisons between the two methods were performed using two-sample t-tests. All statistical tests were two-tailed with a significance level of 0.05. Results:Differences in the number of surfaces restored with composite restorations [11.0 (SD = ±6.2) and 9.6 (SD = ±6.4) for the manual and light exams respectively] and the number of composite restorations [8.1 (SD = ±3.5) and 7.1 (SD = ±3.8) for the manual and light exams respectively] between the manual and light examination methods were not statistically significant (p values = 0.45 and 0.39). Results from the study suggest that the level of agreement between the two examination methods was 81.1%, but that neither method is without the potential for inaccuracy regarding composite restoration detection. Conclusion and clinical significance:The study indicates that the use of an ultraviolet light source can be an adjunctive clinical tool for the practicing clinical dentist to add to the traditional visual, tactile, and radiographic examination methods, increasing the accuracy and reliability of diagnostic examinations.