Citation Nr: 18157290 Decision Date: 12/12/18 Archive Date: 12/12/18 DOCKET NO. 14-42 097 DATE: December 12, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to 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 loss of teeth secondary to service-connected residuals of a left jaw fracture, 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, 1131, 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 August 1954 to July 1957. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) notes that the Veteran requested a video conference hearing before the Board in his November 2014 VA Form 9. After two requests to reschedule, the Veteran’s representative reported that the Veteran was unable to attend and no longer wished to appear at a hearing. As such, the request for a hearing has been withdrawn. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(e). The Veteran’s claim for a dental disability for compensation purposes includes a claim for VA outpatient treatment. See Mays v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 302 (1993). The May 2014 Statement of the Case indicates the claim for treatment was being referred to a VA Medical Center. If the referral has not yet been made, referral for a determination as to eligibility for treatment should be made. 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 loss of teeth due to gum disease caused by treatment for an in-service jaw fracture. The Board notes that service connection is already in effect for residuals of fracture of the left jaw and the Veteran did not disagree with the June 2013 rating decision’s continuation of the noncompensable evaluation. The Board concludes that the preponderance of the evidence weighs against a finding that the Veteran has any additional dental disability that may be service connected for compensation purposes. In that regard, the evidence does not support a finding that any missing teeth or bone and tissue loss constitutes loss of substance of body of the maxilla or the mandible as required for compensation for missing teeth. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.150, Diagnostic Code 9913. A September 2010 VA memorandum noted that the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) were unavailable. Nevertheless, there is no competent evidence of record that the Veteran has additional dental disability. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.381 (treatable carious teeth, replaceable missing teeth, dental or alveolar abscesses, and periodontal disease are not disabilities for VA compensation purposes). Rather, an April 2013 VA examination found no other dental disability other than the service-connected left mandibular fracture. The examiner found no anatomical loss or bony injury of mandible or maxilla nor any loss of teeth due to loss of substance of body of maxilla or mandible that was not due to loss of alveolar process because of periodontal disease. The examiner explained that it was unlikely that wires and loops placed in 1955 would cause periodontal disease as it had a bacterial etiology and noted that the Veteran reported his teeth were extracted about 15 years prior due to gum disease. 38 C.F.R. § 3.381. Further, the examiner reviewed panographic imaging reports and explained that while the Veteran was edentulous, there were no cysts or tumors and the inferior border and ramus of the mandible was continuous without deviation. The Board acknowledges that February 2015 and April 2015 VA treatment records found all remaining teeth were removed secondary to problems with the service-connected jaw fracture. Although that VA treatment provider indicated the teeth were extracted due to problems extending from the Veteran’s service-connected jaw fracture, the preponderance of the evidence remains against a finding that any current dental problems result in bone and tissue loss constituting loss of substance of body of the maxilla or mandible due to trauma as contemplated in 38 C.F.R. § 4.150. There is no other evidence in conflict with the above. The Board notes that while loss of the alveolar process may be described as bone loss, it is not bone loss of the substance of the body of the maxilla or mandible as required for service connection for lost teeth for VA compensation purposes. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.381, 4.150, Diagnostic Code 9913. The Board finds the April 2013 examination to be the most probative evidence of record regarding whether the Veteran has a compensable dental disability. See Guerrieri v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 467, 470-71 (1993). (Continued on the next page) The Board is sympathetic to the concerns that have been voiced; 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