Kimberly Kim

Kimberly Kim is a dentist in Sunnyvale, CA with 17 years of experience. Public prescription records include therapies commonly used in dental or oral infections, gum disease or oral infection care, dental pain or inflammation, including antimicrobial mouth rinses. Publicly available payment records span several professional activity categories, including charitable contributions and medical education involving dental device or oral healthcare companies.

What is your opinion of Kimberly Kim? Rate this provider below so other people can make informed decision.

English

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

Amoxicillin

Chlorhexidine Gluconate

Ibuprofen

Acetaminophen-Codeine (Generic Name: acetaminophen with codeine)

Amoxicillin-Clavulanate Potass (Generic Name: amoxicillin/potassium clav)

Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen (Generic Name: hydrocodone/acetaminophen)

Clindamycin

Azithromycin

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

Kimberly Kim has received over $696 in payments from medical companies (79% more than the average Dentist in Sunnyvale, CA)

Ultradent Products Inc - $12.73 payment for Food and Beverage on 11/06/2022

Nobel Biocare USA - $86.20 payment for Food and Beverage on 10/14/2022

Align Technology, Inc. - $95.10 payment for Gift on 02/04/2021

Align Technology, Inc. - $90.10 payment for Charitable Contribution on 04/30/2020

Straumann USA LLC - $12.50 payment for Education on 04/17/2020

Straumann USA LLC - $12.50 payment for Education on 04/15/2020

Straumann USA LLC - $25.00 payment for Education on 04/15/2020

Straumann USA LLC - $25.00 payment for Education on 04/14/2020

Straumann USA LLC - $25.00 payment for Education on 04/14/2020

Straumann USA LLC - $12.50 payment for Education on 04/13/2020

Dr. Kimberly Kim is portrayed in the available feedback in strongly negative terms, leaving an impression of deep dissatisfaction with both the practice and the experience of seeking care there. The commentary is brief and emphatic rather than detailed, so it conveys how intensely the frustration was felt more than what actually took place. One line alleges a distressing experience with the office, a charge that goes well beyond ordinary disappointment. Another casts the practice in the most sweeping terms, calling it the worst imaginable and repeating that judgment for emphasis. That phrasing suggests a grievance that has settled into a general verdict. Because the criticism never explains the particular care decisions or events behind it, it reads as a broad expression of poor experience rather than a documented account of clinical choices. Nothing in this feedback speaks to the doctor's clinical skill, communication, or manner, so no positive qualities can be drawn from it. More detailed accounts would be needed to understand what drove these reactions.