Accordingly, pursuant to GCR 1963, 118.3 and 865.1(1), (7), we order that plaintiff's complaint be amended to include the latter two theories regarding teeth Nos. 10 and 12 in the allegations of dental malpractice. See, e.g., Davis v Koppers Co, Inc, 335 Mich. 9, 13-18; 55 N.W.2d 152 (1952); Toledo Pipe Organ Co v Paradise Theatre Co, 318 Mich. 342, 347-348; 28 N.W.2d 224 (1947); Smith v Baumgarten, 313 Mich. 683, 685; 21 N.W.2d 921 (1946). "based upon these facts taken more favorably to the plaintiff, * * * the excessive grinding is a matter which is subject to the necessity of an expert, or the necessity of expert testimony in a medical malpractice case.