At this time’s publication is extra technical than typical. In case you love information, you’ll take pleasure in this deep dive—it exposes one of many greatest myths in oral well being proper now.
For many who choose the plain-English model, right here’s a easy breakdown of what you’ll study:
- The “10% nano-hydroxyapatite” declare is a fable.
- A brand new peer-reviewed research in contrast Fygg’s 3.1% nano-Hydroxyapatite method in opposition to Boka, Risewell, Simply Substances, Dr. Jen, Crest Cavity Safety, and ClinPro 5000 (a prescription-strength 5000 ppm fluoride toothpaste).
- High quality of particles—not amount—makes the distinction.
- An excessive amount of nHA clumps, reduces enamel binding, and works much less successfully.
There’s a humorous factor that occurs on the planet of well being…
Somebody misreads the science, then turns that misinterpretation right into a advertising and marketing slogan, and earlier than you realize it, everybody’s treating it like gospel.
We’ve seen this film earlier than. Nina Teicholz’s The Huge Fats Shock is a working example: early misinterpretations of vitamin analysis—like blaming dietary fats for coronary heart illness—had been enshrined in official tips and amplified by advertising and marketing.
That many years‑lengthy detour into low‑fats recommendation fueled weight problems, diabetes, and coronary heart illness. An ideal instance of how unhealthy science interpretation killed lots of people.
On the earth of hydroxyapatite toothpastes, that slogan has change into: “It needs to be 10% nano-hydroxyapatite—or it doesn’t work.” And it’s flat out fallacious.
Instagram influencers parroted the ten% factor like gospel. One model constructed its complete id round that quantity. Some even implied that in case your toothpaste didn’t hit that quantity, it wasn’t doing something in any respect.
For a break up second, I second‑guessed our method at Fygg. I requested colleagues and critics to indicate me the research that supposedly proved the ten% declare. Again and again, the proof didn’t maintain up.
The deeper I appeared, and the extra I spoke to the biochemists and oral microbiome scientists, the extra insane the ten% declare seemed to be. As a result of when you’ve spent sufficient time within the science—actually checked out how the oral microbiome works, how mineral particles behave within the mouth—you realize: extra isn’t at all times higher.
Actually, an excessive amount of nano-hydroxyapatite (nHA) can truly work in opposition to you.
Right here’s why I’m writing about this as we speak—because of a brand-new, peer-reviewed, Fygg-funded research, we lastly have the info to indicate precisely why that call was the appropriate one.
Simply revealed within the Journal of Dentistry (2025), this in vitro research examined eight main remineralizing toothpastes—together with fluoride, nano-HAP, micro-HAP, and sure, a widely known “10% nano-HAP” model.
Direct from the research: “The superior efficacy of Fygg over Dr. Jen and Risewell is probably going attributable to its enhanced physicochemical properties, relatively than merely the focus of lively components. In distinction, relating to Boka, Fygg’s superior efficiency could primarily end result from the upper focus of nanoXIM in its formulation.”
And it did that utilizing simply 3.1% nano-hydroxyapatite.
Much more hanging: Fygg toothpaste carried out on par with prescription‑energy fluoride toothpaste—the gold customary for remineralization, usually $20-27 and solely out there with a physician’s prescription.
How can that be?
Why Extra Isn’t Higher
You possibly can’t simply maintain including extra and anticipate higher outcomes. Actually, an excessive amount of nHA can result in aggregation (it received’t dissolve so it begins clumping into huge chunks)—which decreases how properly it disperses throughout the enamel floor, reduces bioavailability, and as proved by the research, reduces capability to reverse cavities.
“Particle measurement and formulation design seem to play a pivotal function within the therapeutic consequence… The superior efficacy of Fygg was doubtless attributable to its optimized particle morphology and decrease focus of nanoXIM.” (Journal of Dentistry2025)
I recognize that quote and that is a part of our secret sauce, however there’s extra to the method than that—I can go into this in additional element in a future publication, if people have an interest. We had been searching for the appropriate focus of nano-Hydroxyapatite in saliva, for it to be saved in saliva earlier than it’s taken up by the tooth. Clumping or “clogging” the saliva doesn’t work properly—it’s like including an excessive amount of salt to water and a few of it doesn’t dissolve.
NanoXIM is a proprietary mix of nHA engineered at simply the appropriate measurement—smaller than 50nm, with a exact rod-shaped morphology—designed to imitate pure enamel.
Why the ten% Declare Is Improper
The ten% quantity is predicated on a 2009 and 2011 research from China when, again then, the scientific group had not but outlined the dimensions of “nano” and the uniformity and purity.
10% was the bottom threshold at which crude samples of nano-hydroxyapatite began to indicate a measurable impact. However expertise has moved on. Particle morphology, floor cost, supply medium—all of that issues greater than brute focus. A lot of manufacturers on the market are utilizing micro-sized particles, and the uptake of micro is solely inferior to nano.
Sadly in that crude pattern had been items of nano hydroxyapatite that don’t match the present SCCS tips for security. (that’s a special argument however what they’re doing is doping the method, making it much less secure, when 2 and three% works simply fantastic IF it’s pure and prime quality).
Fygg makes use of 20% NanoXIM paste, which comprises 15.5% nHA, leading to a 3.1% whole lively nHA—and that was confirmed to be simpler than the complete 10% in different pastes.
“HAP particles bigger than 1.3 μm have restricted adhesion to enamel, whereas these beneath this threshold exhibit sturdy floor binding… Typical micro-HAPs continuously comprise particles exceeding 5 µm, which present little to no efficient enamel adhesion.” (Journal of Dentistry2025)
Once I determined I needed to make a toothpaste, it was of utmost significance to me that if I used to be convincing dad and mom to go fluoride-free, the choice labored as properly—if not higher. That meant working with chemists, researchers, and oral microbiome consultants to seek out the precise ratio that may…
- Penetrate subsurface lesions for elevated depth of remineralization
- Keep away from aggregation (clumping of nHAp particles making them much less efficient and out there for remineralization)
- Respect the oral microbiome (the engine for remineralization)
And now, we lastly have a peer-reviewed research to substantiate what chemists and scientists have recognized all alongside!
It’s simple to consider that if one thing is nice, extra have to be higher. However there may be at all times a candy spot on the subject of metabolism and organic processes and techniques—issues like pH stability, oxygen saturation within the blood, and numerous different finely tuned features. An excessive amount of and too little may be lethal in these two techniques.
So, it’s not “what’s the correct amount for tooth” it’s “what’s the correct amount for saliva” in order that tooth can truly seize it when wanted!
I’m proud Fygg led with science. And I’m grateful to the researchers who proved what we knew all alongside.
Right here’s to science, more healthy mouths, and fewer clumps in your toothpaste.
Dr. B
P.S. Know somebody who’s parroting the ten% fable? Ahead this to them — they by no means must miss one other publication in the event that they join future emails right here.
