Top U.S. Cities by Dental Practice Profiles

The U.S. cities with the most dental practice profiles organized by Dental.me — 249,344 profiles across 56 states and territories. Counts are live from the Dental.me database.

Dental.me data view

Top city coverage map

The largest Dental.me city directories anchor the national graph and push authority into state, city, specialty, and practice pages.

100Tracked cities
New York NYLargest city
2,380Largest city profiles
249,344National profiles

Download the top-cities dataset (CSV)

  1. New York, NY — 2,380 profiles
  2. Houston, TX — 2,309 profiles
  3. Chicago, IL — 2,003 profiles
  4. Los Angeles, CA — 1,909 profiles
  5. Brooklyn, NY — 1,730 profiles
  6. San Antonio, TX — 1,348 profiles
  7. Las Vegas, NV — 1,206 profiles
  8. San Francisco, CA — 1,082 profiles
  9. San Diego, CA — 1,055 profiles
  10. Philadelphia, PA — 1,044 profiles
  11. Seattle, WA — 1,039 profiles
  12. San Jose, CA — 1,031 profiles
  13. Austin, TX — 1,010 profiles
  14. Dallas, TX — 993 profiles
  15. Phoenix, AZ — 959 profiles
  16. Miami, FL — 918 profiles
  17. Washington, DC — 911 profiles
  18. Atlanta, GA — 845 profiles
  19. Indianapolis, IN — 822 profiles
  20. Pittsburgh, PA — 803 profiles
  21. Sacramento, CA — 792 profiles
  22. Louisville, KY — 766 profiles
  23. Portland, OR — 758 profiles
  24. Boston, MA — 754 profiles
  25. Bronx, NY — 750 profiles
  26. Denver, CO — 742 profiles
  27. Oklahoma City, OK — 667 profiles
  28. Fort Worth, TX — 650 profiles
  29. Columbus, OH — 632 profiles
  30. Tucson, AZ — 620 profiles
  31. Albuquerque, NM — 616 profiles
  32. Baltimore, MD — 613 profiles
  33. Cincinnati, OH — 604 profiles
  34. St. Louis, MO — 598 profiles
  35. Honolulu, HI — 582 profiles
  36. Charlotte, NC — 582 profiles
  37. Colorado Springs, CO — 555 profiles
  38. Scottsdale, AZ — 540 profiles
  39. Nashville, TN — 533 profiles
  40. Fresno, CA — 532 profiles
  41. Omaha, NE — 528 profiles
  42. Memphis, TN — 518 profiles
  43. Raleigh, NC — 516 profiles
  44. El Paso, TX — 507 profiles
  45. Jacksonville, FL — 495 profiles
  46. Plano, TX — 474 profiles
  47. Irvine, CA — 467 profiles
  48. Virginia Beach, VA — 467 profiles
  49. Flushing, NY — 457 profiles
  50. Tampa, FL — 453 profiles
  51. Lexington, KY — 447 profiles
  52. Birmingham, AL — 447 profiles
  53. Minneapolis, MN — 437 profiles
  54. Kansas City, MO — 435 profiles
  55. Mesa, AZ — 435 profiles
  56. Salt Lake City, UT — 434 profiles
  57. San Juan, PR — 418 profiles
  58. Orlando, FL — 417 profiles
  59. Tulsa, OK — 416 profiles
  60. Beverly Hills, CA — 416 profiles
  61. Rochester, NY — 407 profiles
  62. Richmond, VA — 400 profiles
  63. Milwaukee, WI — 390 profiles
  64. Torrance, CA — 387 profiles
  65. Knoxville, TN — 383 profiles
  66. Baton Rouge, LA — 378 profiles
  67. Santa Ana, CA — 378 profiles
  68. Katy, TX — 374 profiles
  69. Anaheim, CA — 374 profiles
  70. Bakersfield, CA — 373 profiles
  71. Riverside, CA — 364 profiles
  72. Long Beach, CA — 363 profiles
  73. Cleveland, OH — 351 profiles
  74. Glendale, CA — 347 profiles
  75. New Orleans, LA — 333 profiles
  76. Rockville, MD — 330 profiles
  77. Grand Rapids, MI — 329 profiles
  78. Ann Arbor, MI — 327 profiles
  79. Reno, NV — 326 profiles
  80. Vancouver, WA — 324 profiles
  81. Columbia, SC — 324 profiles
  82. Oakland, CA — 322 profiles
  83. Aurora, CO — 319 profiles
  84. Arlington, TX — 319 profiles
  85. Bellevue, WA — 316 profiles
  86. Marietta, GA — 314 profiles
  87. Silver Spring, MD — 307 profiles
  88. Alexandria, VA — 306 profiles
  89. Orange, CA — 303 profiles
  90. Henderson, NV — 301 profiles
  91. Huntington Beach, CA — 294 profiles
  92. Fremont, CA — 291 profiles
  93. Fairfax, VA — 289 profiles
  94. Boise, ID — 289 profiles
  95. Glendale, AZ — 287 profiles
  96. Detroit, MI — 286 profiles
  97. Chandler, AZ — 286 profiles
  98. Durham, NC — 284 profiles
  99. Greenville, SC — 280 profiles
  100. Buffalo, NY — 280 profiles

Frequently asked questions

What does this ranking measure?

It ranks U.S. cities by the number of dental practice profiles Dental.me organizes, drawn from provider records, business-profile data, and enrichment data. It reflects directory coverage, not an endorsement.

How does Dental.me handle national city coverage?

Dental.me keeps canonical city directories organized across the national database. Search-visible city pages are prioritized when the page has enough practice coverage, internal links, schema, and structured data to support a strong patient experience.

How to use this dental market data

Dental.me market data is built for practical comparison, not empty vanity metrics. Each report connects statewide and city-level coverage back to real directory pages, practice profiles, specialty paths, ranking methodology, and profile-improvement workflows. Patients can use the data to understand where dental options are concentrated. Practice teams can use it to see how their market is represented. Search engines and AI answer systems can use the visible facts, schema, and internal links to understand how Dental.me organizes dental offices across the United States.

The directory keeps the backbone broad while the profile data becomes richer over time. A practice can begin with structured identity and location data, then gain stronger signals such as website, phone, rating, review count, hours, categories, Google/Maps identifiers, provider names, photos, owner-submitted details, correction history, and Dental.me review activity. That lets Dental.me show the full market while making enriched profiles easier to compare. Stronger data improves comparison quality; baseline profiles remain discoverable and can be improved by the office team or VA workflow.

For ranking, Dental.me separates organic comparison from paid visibility. Organic lists use Dental.me Score and related quality signals. Featured placements are clearly labeled and sit apart from the organic order. That structure protects patient trust while still giving dentists a premium visibility product. A practice can buy Featured placement, but it cannot buy a higher organic Dental.me Score.

For data quality, Dental.me treats source hierarchy seriously. Owner-confirmed data, VA-confirmed data, practice website evidence, business-profile enrichment, provider records, and correction submissions do not all carry the same weight. When sources disagree, Dental.me can keep the practice profile visible while routing the conflict into review. That is how a national directory can move quickly without deleting offices simply because one vendor did not return them.

For local SEO and AI citation, the most valuable pages are not isolated reports. The value comes from the graph: state hubs link to city pages, city pages link to practice profiles and supported specialty pages, specialty pages link back to parent cities and related specialties, and data studies link back to the methodology, ranking, advertising, correction, and dentist-claim pages. The result is a crawlable system where each page explains its role and passes authority to the pages patients actually use.

These reports describe Dental.me directory coverage. Counts can change as new enrichment runs finish, practice teams submit updates, VAs review conflicts, closed or moved offices are corrected, and Google/Maps or other business-profile data is cross-referenced. The public pages are designed to update with the database, so the same facts can support patients, dentists, internal QA, Search Console work, and future state-by-state expansion.

What the numbers should tell you

A high practice count tells you Dental.me has broad local coverage. A high website count tells you more offices have direct booking or research paths. A high rating and review count tells you patients can compare stronger public reputation signals. A high specialty count tells you the local graph has enough category context to support more detailed city and specialty pages. None of those numbers alone is the whole story; together they show whether a market is ready for stronger public indexing, deeper local guide content, more specialty pages, and dentist outreach.

For a patient, the best use of this data is to move from the market report into a city directory, then compare individual profiles. For a practice team, the best use is to find the profile, review the visible facts, and claim or correct anything that should be stronger. For Dental.me operations, the best use is prioritization: markets with many profiles but weak websites, missing hours, missing ratings, or unresolved duplicates become VA queues and enrichment targets.

How this supports state-by-state expansion

Every state can follow the same operating model: maintain the full provider-and-practice backbone, enrich business-profile fields where available, preserve raw vendor data, create candidate records for Google-only or business-only offices, keep unmatched backbone offices visible, rank stronger profiles higher, and activate sitemaps only for pages that meet Dental.me quality rules. This lets Dental.me scale quickly without pretending vendor data is perfect or discarding real offices simply because a single source missed them.

The long-term advantage is compounding structure. A state hub strengthens its city pages; city pages strengthen practice profiles; practice profiles strengthen nearby alternatives and specialty paths; guides and data studies strengthen the topical authority around those cities and specialties. That is how Dental.me moves from a raw directory into a durable dental search and citation asset.

Operational checklist behind the report

Each market report points to concrete work: keep the state and city URLs canonical, preserve the full practice backbone, enrich offices with business-profile data, attach provider names and specialties, keep unsupported claims out of schema, label Featured placements, keep organic ranking independent, create VA queues for conflicts, and use Search Console data to decide which city and specialty pages deserve the next content pass. That operating checklist turns a static report into a management page for the directory.

When a state expands, the same checklist should be repeated. First, verify that all cities resolve. Second, confirm that practice profiles render with safe baseline facts. Third, enrich offices with websites, ratings, reviews, hours, categories, maps, and photos when available. Fourth, build strong city pages using actual counts and internal links. Fifth, publish only supported specialty pages. Sixth, submit clean sitemaps for indexable URLs. Seventh, audit schema, internal links, and visible content after deployment.

Explore: Florida directory · Texas directory · How we rank · Verification methodology · Advertising policy · For dentists