Andria Chapman, DDS

Andria Chapman, DDS, is a dentist in Newport News, VA, with 17 years of experience. Public prescription records include medications commonly used for dental or oral infections and gum disease or oral infection care, including antimicrobial mouth rinses. Publicly available payment records include payments involving dental device or oral healthcare companies.

What is your opinion of Andria Chapman, DDS? Rate this provider below so other people can make informed decision.

English

Based on the training and education, Andria Chapman, DDS may treat patients with the following conditions. Please always check with Andria Chapman, DDS directly about which exact conditions she treats.

Amoxicillin

Chlorhexidine Gluconate

Clindamycin

(These can include payments from pharmaceutical companies, medical device companies, and other companies.)

Andria Chapman, DDS has received over $372 in payments from medical companies (22% more than the average Dentist in Newport News, VA)

Straumann USA LLC - $150.00 payment for Education on 08/22/2024

ZIMVIE INC. - $18.36 payment for Food and Beverage on 10/03/2023

PULPDENT CORPORATION - $85.47 payment for Food and Beverage on 09/28/2023

3M Company - $22.80 payment for Food and Beverage on 07/20/2022

ZIMVIE INC. - $62.64 payment for Food and Beverage on 02/17/2022

VOCO America Inc. - $10.59 payment for Food and Beverage on 06/16/2021

Tulsa Dental Products LLC - $22.86 payment for Food and Beverage on 02/21/2019

Dr. Andria Chapman's care is often described as calm, attentive, and unhurried, with an evident willingness to listen closely and answer questions in full. Visits leave an impression of careful, kindly attention, and one appointment that had been approached with dread came to feel noticeably easier, largely because she takes the time to explain each procedure and her team helps patients settle in. Patient education also stands out, especially for those new to the practice, where guidance on everyday tooth care has been called especially practical. Professionalism and courtesy run through the feedback, and a longtime patient who returned after a lapse in treatment recalled a warm welcome and a readiness to resume care, a detail that points to a sense of continuity. Hygienists and assistants are praised for being friendly and accommodating, and the check-in process and the thoroughness of cleanings are also viewed favorably. Criticism centers on the facilities rather than the clinical work. One allegation tied to a first visit describes a torn chair, worn furniture, a treatment room that was not clean, and trash that had not been emptied, along with an examination considered too brief, and the writer chose not to return. These concerns contrast sharply with the more favorable impressions of the clinical care itself, and it remains unclear how the office's facilities compare on other days.