From July 2008 to August 2010, plaintiff Maria Anacta-Tiu, a dentist in her 40s that practices in California, treated with general dentist Nancy Nehawandian for implants and a full mouth reconstruction. She wanted the reconstruction work done partially for cosmetic reasons and partially for vertical restoration due to her grinding her teeth. Anacta-Tiu, originally from the Philippines, had previously undergone some bad dentistry, and wanted her four upper front teeth removed and replaced with dental implants. She also wanted crowns to be placed on the implants. The plan involved having the implants placed, having crowns placed on those implants, and then having the remaining teeth prepared and crowned. Anacta-Tiu was ultimately unhappy with the outcome of the dental work and she claimed facial muscle pain. Anacta-Tiu sued Nehawandian. She alleged that Nehawandian negligently treated her and that this negligence constituted dental malpractice. Anacta-Tiu claimed that the bone holding the dental implants dissolved and that her dental implants failed. She also claimed that Nehawandian over prepared the teeth by cutting down too much of the tooth structure so that they would have to be extracted. In addition, she claimed that Nehawandian should not have done any of the dental work and should have referred her to a team of specialists. The plaintiff’s experts were critical of Nehawandian being a student of the Las Vegas Institute for Advanced Dental Studies, which uses neuromuscular dentistry, instead of the traditional approach of centric relation. The experts opined that Nehawandian’s approach resulted in Anacta-Tiu’s chronic facial muscle pain, which would not have occurred if Nehawandian had used the traditional centric relation. The defense’s experts opined that Nehawandian performed the reconstruction well and that implant failures can happen, regardless of a good reconstruction. The experts also opined that even if the bone that the implants were placed on dissolved, that did not mean the reconstruction was done negligently., Anacta-Tiu claimed she began to suffer muscle pain in her face when Nehawandian placed either the temporary or permanent crowns. She claimed that since she was unhappy with the outcome of the placement of implants and the reconstruction, and was suffering from facial pain, she started treating with her treating prosthodontist once she left Nehawandian’s care and had the crowns placed by Nehawandian removed. Anacta-Tiu claimed that this ultimately resolved her facial pain. Thus, Anacta-Tiu claimed $160,000 in future dental expenses, $20,000 to $40,000 in future loss of income for taking time off work for the future procedures, and $250,000 in pain and suffering.