Who can own a dental practice

Dental-practice ownership is a state-by-state question, not one national “dentists only” rule. Many states restrict ownership to eligible dentists or dentist-owned professional entities, while others permit lay ownership, license or register a lay owner, allow a capped minority interest, recognize specified institutions, or create temporary estate authority.

​

The default rule

In a restrictive state, an owner of shares or membership interests in a dental professional entity commonly must:

1. Hold a current, active dental license
2. Hold it in that state, because an out-of-state license usually does not qualify
3. Be a natural person, not an entity, in most states

Those are common restrictions, not universal ones. In some states a dental support organization (DSO) cannot hold any practice equity; in others a lay entity can own the practice openly, subject to the chosen entity statute and any registration, licensure, clinical-control, or reporting conditions. Many restrictive dental acts go further than limiting shares and define proprietorship itself as the practice of dentistry, making unauthorized ownership unlicensed practice.¹ The doctrine is covered at The corporate practice of dentistry; this page maps the different ownership routes. Physicians generally do not qualify. An MD is a non-dentist under the dental practice act even though both professions are licensed. Dental hygienists usually do not qualify either because hygiene is separately licensed and most dental entity statutes apply only to dentists. The exceptions below are statutory and state-specific.

​

The ownership models

​

Lay ownership without an owner license

The 51-jurisdiction source map identifies states where current dental text permits or does not expressly bar a lay-owned practice. The group includes clear statutory permissions in states such as Kentucky and Wisconsin, a no-ownership-restriction reading in Iowa, Maine, and Utah, and more cautious silence-based readings in Rhode Island and South Carolina. These classifications do not mean every ordinary corporation or LLC is automatically a valid professional entity. Entity form, clinical authority, facility filings, trade names, payer enrollment, and professional conduct remain separate questions.

​

Allied-licensee minority stakes

A few states let specified other licensees hold a minority of a dental entity:

• California permits licensed physicians, dental assistants, registered dental assistants (including extended functions), and registered dental hygienists (including extended functions) to hold, in aggregate, up to 49% of a dental corporation’s shares. The number of those shareholders may not exceed the number of dentist shareholders.²
• Maine permits a denturist or independent practice dental hygienist to be a shareholder of an incorporated dental practice, so long as their combined interest never equals or exceeds the dentists’.³

These allowances let a practice give equity to a long-tenured hygienist or a physician collaborator. They do not create an investor path: the stake is capped, the holders must be licensed, and control stays with the dentists.

​

A lay-ownership percentage cap

North Dakota has a criminal ownership ceiling: it is a class A misdemeanor for a non-dentist to own more than 49% of a dental office, practice, or business.⁴ That ceiling does not by itself authorize a lay person to own 49% of every professional-entity form. Reconcile chapter 43-28 with the chosen entity statute before treating a minority interest as available. Even there, a capped minority stake may offer little control or access to practice economics. Groups operating in North Dakota therefore may still use a DSO structure alongside a minority position.

​

States that license the lay owner

Two states use a registration or licensure model for lay practice ownership, but they regulate different legal subjects:

• Arizona: a “business entity” of any ownership may offer dental services if it registers with the Board of Dental Examiners, discloses its officers, directors, responsible dentist per office, and records custodian, and renews triennially. The entity may not interfere with the licensee’s clinical judgment, and a person holding a surrendered or revoked dental license anywhere may not hold a majority interest.⁵
• New Mexico: a person or entity that is not majority-owned by a New Mexico-licensed dentist must obtain a non-dentist owner license from the board before employing or contracting with dentists or hygienists. Operating as a non-dentist owner without one is a misdemeanor. Exempt categories include government agencies, dental schools, FQHCs, New Mexico-licensed dental hygienists, and entities majority-owned by one.⁶

Registration is not deregulation. Arizona registers the dental business entity; New Mexico licenses the qualifying non-dentist owner. Both retain clinical-control rules, and each has its own disclosures, change notices, renewals, exemptions, and penalties.

​

Hygienist carve-outs

Hygiene-specific ownership rights exist in a few states, and they attach to hygiene practices, not general dental practices:

• Colorado: only a licensed dentist may be the proprietor of a dental practice, but a licensed dentist or licensed dental hygienist may be the proprietor of a dental hygiene practice.⁷
• Nevada: a dental hygienist holding a public health special endorsement may own or operate a public health dental hygiene program.⁸
• New Mexico: as above, a hygienist (or hygienist-majority entity) may function as a non-dentist owner without the separate license.⁶
• Minnesota is less clear. Its Professional Firms Act lists “dentistry and dental hygiene” as a single professional-services category, which may permit a licensed hygienist to hold equity in a dental firm. The Board of Dentistry’s position is unsettled, so verify it with counsel before relying on that reading.⁹

Hygiene-practice exceptions can affect both ownership planning and access to preventive care. In states that authorize them, standalone hygiene practices provide a separate path from a dentist-owned general practice.

​

Death and estate windows: temporary lay ownership

Many restrictive states address a dentist-owner’s death through a statute or professional-entity rule, though some do not. An estate, personal representative, spouse, or heir may receive temporary authority or a period to transfer or redeem the interest, often without authority over professional decisions. The trigger, eligible holder, deadline, and consequence vary: A spouse or estate may have only a limited period to hold and sell the interest, so succession planning belongs in the agreement stack from the beginning. See Plan for succession. The death of a friendly dentist may also start a statutory clock for the PC. The stock transfer restriction agreement must work within the applicable window.

​

Ownership permission is not control permission

Where lay ownership is permitted, including in Arizona, New Mexico, and a minority position in North Dakota, the corporate-practice doctrine’s control rules still apply. Arizona bars a registered entity from interfering with clinical judgment. New Mexico licenses certain non-dentist owners while preserving clinical authority for licensees. California’s SB 351 restricts certain controls by private equity groups and hedge funds regardless of the entity through which they hold an interest.¹⁶ Some states now also make the DSO’s ownership relevant to the analysis.

​

Officers and directors

Several states restrict who may serve as a director or officer of a dental professional entity in addition to restricting who may own shares. Alabama’s board rule, for instance, bars non-dentist officers and directors from participating in any decision constituting the practice of dentistry, and North Carolina voids voting trusts and proxies to non-licensees.¹⁷ Where such rules apply:

• Your DSO’s CEO cannot be the PC’s president
• Your DSO’s CFO cannot be the PC’s treasurer
• The PC’s board cannot include non-licensee investors or executives

This forecloses a governance pattern founders often propose: “the dentist owns it, but we sit on the board.” In those states, you cannot.

​

Why support-company ownership is usually more flexible

The support company is usually an ordinary business entity and can often be owned by non-dentist founders, funds, holding companies, employees, and other investors. That flexibility depends on the company staying within its lawful support role and on any owner-specific state restriction. In the common two-entity architecture, most investor ownership sits in the DSO and professional licensure sits in the practice entity. But California’s investor-specific rules, Arizona’s business-entity regime, New Mexico’s non-dentist-owner license, and DSO or manager filings in other states show why even that sentence needs a state-law check. See DSO vs. MSO and What DSOs can and can’t do.

​

Exclusion and eligibility

Beyond licensure, analyze federal-program exclusion and federal debarment as separate eligibility questions. An excluded owner does not automatically make the entity excluded in every circumstance. Consequences depend on the ownership or control interest, the person’s officer or managing-employee role, the items or services the person furnishes, and the applicable program rules; OIG identifies potential exclusion, payment-prohibition, and civil-monetary-penalty risks in specified circumstances.¹⁸ Screen owners, employees, and contractors at onboarding and thereafter at the cadence required by applicable payer, program, and state rules and the group’s risk policy. OIG updates the LEIE monthly and describes monthly screening as a risk-reducing best practice; analyze SAM.gov debarment and state exclusion lists under their own rules. Document the source, date, identity match, and resolution of any result. See Vet and select a friendly dentist.

​

Practical questions to answer

For every dental professional entity you form:

• Who may own it: dentists only, or does a statutory exception apply?
• Must owners be licensed in this state?
• May an entity hold shares, or natural persons only?
• Is minority allied-licensee or lay ownership permitted, and would it actually help?
• Must directors and officers be dentists?
• What is the death/estate window, and does the agreement stack work within it?
• Does the state register the DSO (Texas or Kansas), a dental business manager (Nevada), the dental business entity (Arizona), or the non-dentist owner (New Mexico)?
• Is the proposed owner clear on OIG LEIE and SAM.gov?

Answer these from your jurisdiction’s page on the 51-jurisdiction table, then obtain state-specific legal review for the conclusions that affect the structure.

​

Sources

1. E.g., Tex. Occ. Code § 251.003(a)(4); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-29(b)(11); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 332.071(10). Pinpoints for every jurisdiction are on the 51-jurisdiction table.
2. Cal. Corp. Code § 13401.5. Statute.
3. 13 M.R.S. § 732(4) (denturist/IPDH minority shareholding); § 732(5), as amended by P.L. 2025, c. 121 (48-month continuation by a guardian or personal representative). Maine PSC Act (PDF).
4. N.D. Cent. Code § 43-28-25(3), chapter 43-28; compare N.D. Cent. Code ch. 10-31, including § 10-31-04, Professional Organizations Act.
5. A.R.S. § 32-1213 (registration, subsecs. (A)–(D); clinical-judgment protection, (L)(2); revoked-licensee majority bar, (N)). Statute.
6. N.M.S.A. 1978, §§ 61-5A-3 (definition), 61-5A-5(H)–(I) (license requirement and exemptions, including hygienist-majority entities and one-year surviving-spouse window), 61-5A-5.1 (non-dentist owner licensure), 61-5A-18(C) (misdemeanor). § 61-5A-5; § 61-5A-5.1.
7. C.R.S. § 12-220-303(1)(a)–(b). Statute.
8. NRS 631.3453 (public health dental hygiene programs), referencing the endorsement under NRS 631.287. Statute.
9. Minn. Stat. §§ 319B.02, subd. 19; 319B.07, subd. 1. § 319B.07. The Board’s position is unverified; treat it as a question for counsel.
10. N.Y. Bus. Corp. Law § 1510. Statute.
11. Ala. Code § 34-9-9(b). Statute.
12. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 1625.3, 1625.4. § 1625.3.
13. N.J.S.A. 14A:17-13(c). Text in the N.J. Board of Dentistry compilation (PDF).
14. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-122(c). Statute.
15. NRS 631.385. Statute.
16. Cal. S.B. 351 (2025), adding Health & Safety Code §§ 1190–1191, effective January 1, 2026 (express application to dental practices). Bill text; Benesch, California enacts SB 351.
17. Ala. Admin. Code r. 270-X-4-.01. Rule; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 55B-6(a). Statute.
18. HHS OIG, Updated Special Advisory Bulletin on the Effect of Exclusion (ownership, control, services, payment prohibition, and screening guidance).