Citation Nr: 18147469 Decision Date: 11/06/18 Archive Date: 11/05/18 DOCKET NO. 16-28 970 DATE: November 6, 2018 ORDER Service connection for a dental disability for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) compensation purposes is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence weighs against a finding that the Veteran’s dental disorder, described as a replaceable front tooth, is a disability for VA compensation purposes. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a dental disorder for compensation purposes have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.381, 4.150. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from March 1969 to April 1971. In February 2017, the Veteran testified at a Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) hearing before the undersigned. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. The Board also notes that a claim for a dental disability for compensation purposes includes a claim for VA outpatient treatment. See Mays v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 302 (1993). Review of the record indicates that the Veteran has been authorized outpatient dental treatment under Class IIA in response to his claim and is receiving treatment at a local VA Medical Center. Therefore, no further action is required. See 38 C.F.R. § 17.161(c). Neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any issues with the duty to notify or duty to assist. The Veteran initiated a claim for a dental condition that he described as a broken tooth due to trauma that was extracted and treated with a dental bridge. The Veteran testified that tooth #8 was broken from being hit in the mouth with the butt of a rifle. He stated that a service dentist removed the remaining pieces of the tooth and replaced it with a metal plate; he also indicated that the bone later regressed at the site of the missing tooth and his bridge appliance limited his ability to eat. The Board concludes that the preponderance of the evidence weighs against a finding that the Veteran has a dental disability that may be service connected for compensation purposes. The evidence does not support a finding of any missing teeth or bone and tissue loss which constitutes loss of substance of body of the maxilla or the mandible due to trauma or disease such as osteomyelitis. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.150 (noting that current legal authority only allows compensation for certain types of dental and oral conditions, such as impairment of the mandible, loss of a portion of the ramus, and loss of a portion of the maxilla.). Service treatment records (STRs) note treatment for carious teeth, tooth extractions and missing teeth. April 1969 STRs note tooth #8 was extracted and a maxillary prosthesis denture was prepared to replace the tooth in April 1969 and May 1970. Subsequent VA treatment records note the Veteran wanted a permanent replacement for tooth #8; a July 2016 VA treatment record indicates a normal inter-oral and extra-oral examination with radiographic findings consistent with charted entries of missing teeth and a notation that occlusal findings included a normal mandibular relationship. In addition, February 2017 VA treatment records diagnosed partial loss of teeth due to caries and indicated that bone grafting was required for an implant at tooth #30. The Board notes that treatable carious teeth, replaceable missing teeth, dental or alveolar abscesses, and periodontal disease are not disabilities for VA compensation purposes. 38 U.S.C. § 1712; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.381, 4.150, Diagnostic Code 9913. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s testimony that his VA treatment record document some type of bone loss; however, the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that any such bone and tissue loss constitutes loss of substance of body of the maxilla or mandible due to trauma as contemplated in 38 C.F.R. § 4.150. Rather, the VA treatment records indicate that any bone loss noted was alveolar in nature, i.e., the spongy bone portion of the mandible or maxilla that anchors the teeth. Therefore, the Board concludes that the most probative evidence of record consistently supports a finding that the Veteran did not incur any loss of substance of the body of the maxilla or mandible due to trauma, to include any associated missing teeth or (alveolar) bone and tissue loss. (Continued on the next page) The Board is sympathetic to the concerns that have been voiced, to include the Veteran’s contentions that the dental appliance affects his ability to eat and that the pain caused by the service trauma should be compensable; however, as the Veteran seeks service connection for a dental disorder that may not be considered for compensation purposes, the claim for service connection for compensation purposes must be denied. Nathan Kroes Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Odya-Weis, Counsel