United States
NAICS 621210 in California
The panel above shows cited figures for the industry NAICS 621210 defines, at California state level. This page is about doing state-scoped classification research properly: what changes when you filter 621210 data to one state, which traps get worse at state level, and how to work down from the state figure without breaking provenance.
Dental industry data — California
22,642
U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns, 2022 (establishments, state). Retrieved 2026-07-22. Source
38,965,193
U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2023 (population, state). Retrieved 2026-07-20. Source
58.1
Derived from U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns, 2022 (establishments, state). Retrieved 2026-07-22. and ACS population. Establishments, not dentists.
$200,450
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, 2023 (annual wage, state). Retrieved 2026-07-20. Source
142,161
U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns, 2022 (employees, state). Retrieved 2026-07-22. Source
Every figure counts establishments (business locations) or wage-and-salary workers — not individual dentists, and not licenses. Suppressed values reflect real source disclosure limits, never zero. See our methodology.
What 'NAICS 621210 in California' actually specifies
A state-scoped industry query is a three-part specification, and all three parts need stating: the industry boundary (the 2022 manual's definition of 621210, as shown on the definition page), the geography (state of California as the reporting unit — establishments classified to their physical location), and the dataset universe (employer establishments for CBP-based figures, UI-covered employment for QCEW-style figures, and so on). Change any part and the number changes meaning. Most sloppy state-level claims — 'California has X dental businesses' — are sloppy precisely because they specify only the state and leave the other two parts to the reader's imagination.
Industry data assigns an establishment to California because its physical address is in California. Licensure data assigns a dentist to California because a board issued a license — including to people who hold licenses in several states or don't currently practice. The two 'California dental' universes overlap heavily and match never. Pick the one your question needs and name it.
State-level figures: strong for publication, weak for decisions
States are where public industry data is most reliably published: big enough that suppression is rare, standard enough that every program reports them. That makes state figures excellent anchors — and tempting to over-interpret. California's statewide 621210 figures aggregate dental economies as different as dense high-income coastal metros and rural counties carrying federal shortage designations. The state number is real and citable; it is also an average across places that share little beyond a state government. Its proper uses are cross-state comparison, baseline-setting for county work, and trend direction — not conclusions about any particular market inside the state.
| Task | State figure's role | Hands off to |
|---|---|---|
| Cross-state industry comparison | The primary evidence — consistent units across consistently defined states | Nothing; this is the state figure's home game |
| Sizing a market entry or expansion | Baseline only — the line county figures are read against | County and sub-county data, then local fieldwork |
| Workforce or wage research | Context for the employed-dentist market statewide | Occupation data at metro level; licensure counts for the profession |
| Tracking industry trend | Directional series with stable universe | Program documentation before attributing any jump to the market |
Working down from the state without breaking provenance
- Fix the specification onceChoose dataset, unit, universe, and vintages at state level, write them down, and hold them constant on the way down. County figures compared against a state baseline mean something only if every part of the specification except geography stays fixed.
- Expect and record suppression as you descendCalifornia's large counties publish cleanly; smaller ones increasingly don't, and sub-county industry detail is sparser still. Log each withheld value with its reason — a map of where disclosure rules bind is itself a research product, and pretending the withheld cells are zeros would corrupt every ratio built on them.
- Keep derived figures' parents visibleDensity and per-capita figures at any level need both parents cited — the industry count and the population denominator — with matching geography definitions and stated vintages. This site's panels model the format: the derivation is named where the figure appears.
- Stop where the classification stops621210 data can carry a California analysis to establishment counts, employment, payroll, and wages by geography. It cannot carry you to patient demand, quality, payer mix, or the general-vs-specialty split. Note the handoff explicitly — the classification's job ends where those questions begin.
Commercial databases will happily sell a 'complete list of California NAICS 621210 businesses' with counts that disagree with the federal figures above. The disagreement is usually the universe (they include nonemployers, or stale records, or misassigned codes), not a scandal — but a purchased list's code field is an unverified claim per record, while the aggregate statistics are governed publications. Use each for what it is; don't let a list vendor's total silently replace a cited count.
Frequently asked questions
How many dental offices are there in California?
The cited establishment figure in the panel above is this site's answer, with its source, vintage, unit, and universe attached — and each of those qualifiers is load-bearing. It counts employer establishments classified 621210 at California addresses in the stated reference year. A different universe (adding nonemployers), unit (firms), or vintage produces a different, equally 'correct' number, which is why this page teaches the specification rather than promoting one number as the truth.
Why doesn't the state establishment count match the California dental board's licensee count?
They measure different things in different universes. The establishment count tallies business locations whose primary activity is dentistry; the board counts people holding licenses — including multi-state licensees, non-practicing licensees, and associates who own no establishment. Neither approximates the other, and the gap between them is structural, not an error in either source.
Can I get 621210 data for a specific California city or ZIP code?
Sometimes, with degraded reliability. Some Census programs publish sub-county industry data, but suppression intensifies as cells shrink, and small-area industry counts are more often withheld than reported for a code of this granularity. When the value you want is suppressed, aggregate up to a geography where publication resumes and say so — that is the analytically honest move, and it preserves your provenance chain.
Does the wage figure in the panel describe what dentists in California earn?
It describes what the occupational survey measures: mean wages of employed, wage-and-salary dentists in covered California workplaces. Practice owners — a large share of the profession — are largely outside that universe because their income is business profit, not surveyed wages. Read it as an employed-dentist labor-market signal for the state, useful for associate-market context and nothing broader.
Is California's 621210 data comparable with other states'?
Yes — that is the classification system's core achievement, and cross-state comparison is the state figure's best use. The same manual defines the industry and the same programs publish the measures in every state, so like-for-like comparisons hold when you match dataset, unit, universe, and vintage. Per-capita adjustment with same-vintage population denominators is essential, since raw counts mostly restate population size.
Related on NAICS 621210
How we handle this information
We keep material limitations visible, separate advertising from editorial judgment, and avoid inventing live scores or recommendations when the underlying evidence is not available.
Related in this network
Related properties may share common ownership. A cross-property link is not an endorsement — see our ownership disclosures.