Right this moment’s publication is extra technical than regular. When you love knowledge, you’ll take pleasure in this deep dive—it exposes one of many greatest myths in oral well being proper now.
For many who want the plain-English model, right here’s a easy breakdown of what you’ll be taught:
- The “10% nano-hydroxyapatite” declare is a fantasy.
- A brand new peer-reviewed research in contrast Fygg’s 3.1% nano-Hydroxyapatite formulation in opposition to Boka, Risewell, Simply Components, 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 this planet of well being…
Somebody misreads the science, then turns that misinterpretation right into a advertising slogan, and earlier than you already know it, everybody’s treating it like gospel.
We’ve seen this film earlier than. Nina Teicholz’s The Large Fats Shock is a working example: early misinterpretations of vitamin analysis—like blaming dietary fats for coronary heart illness—had been enshrined in official pointers and amplified by advertising.
That many years‑lengthy detour into low‑fats recommendation fueled weight problems, diabetes, and coronary heart illness. An ideal instance of how dangerous science interpretation killed lots of people.
On the planet of hydroxyapatite toothpastes, that slogan has turn into: “It needs to be 10% nano-hydroxyapatite—or it doesn’t work.” And it’s flat out unsuitable.
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 formulation 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 regarded, and the extra I spoke to the biochemists and oral microbiome scientists, the extra insane the ten% declare gave the impression to be. As a result of if you happen to’ve spent sufficient time within the science—actually checked out how the oral microbiome works, how mineral particles behave within the mouth—you already know: extra isn’t at all times higher.
The truth is, an excessive amount of nano-hydroxyapatite (nHA) can truly work in opposition to you.
Right here’s why I’m writing about this at this time—due to a brand-new, peer-reviewed, Fygg-funded research, we lastly have the information to indicate precisely why that call was the best 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 well 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, moderately than merely the focus of lively components. In distinction, concerning Boka, Fygg’s superior efficiency might primarily end result from the upper focus of nanoXIM in its formulation.”
And it did that utilizing simply 3.1% nano-hydroxyapatite.
Much more placing: Fygg toothpaste carried out on par with prescription‑energy fluoride toothpaste—the gold normal for remineralization, typically $20-27 and solely accessible with a physician’s prescription.
How can that be?
Why Extra Isn’t Higher
You’ll be able to’t simply hold including extra and anticipate higher outcomes. The truth is, an excessive amount of nHA can result in aggregation (it gained’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 end result… The superior efficacy of Fygg was seemingly as a result of its optimized particle morphology and decrease focus of nanoXIM.” (Journal of Dentistry, 2025)
I recognize that quote and that is a part of our secret sauce, however there’s extra to the formulation than that—I can go into this in additional element in a future publication, if of us have an interest. We had been in search of the best 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 best measurement—smaller than 50nm, with a exact rod-shaped morphology—designed to imitate pure enamel.
Why the ten% Declare Is Incorrect
The ten% quantity relies on a 2009 and 2011 research from China when, again then, the scientific neighborhood had not but outlined the scale 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 not so good as nano.
Sadly in that crude pattern had been items of nano hydroxyapatite that don’t match the present SCCS pointers for security. (that’s a special argument however what they’re doing is doping the formulation, making it much less protected, when 2 and three% works simply superb IF it’s pure and top quality).
Fygg makes use of 20% NanoXIM paste, which accommodates 15.5% nHA, leading to a 3.1% whole lively nHA—and that was confirmed to be more practical than the total 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… Standard micro-HAPs continuously include particles exceeding 5 µm, which present little to no efficient enamel adhesion.” (Journal of Dentistry, 2025)
Once I determined I wished to make a toothpaste, it was of utmost significance to me that if I used to be convincing mother and father to go fluoride-free, the choice labored as properly—if not higher. That meant working with chemists, researchers, and oral microbiome consultants to search out the precise ratio that might…
- Penetrate subsurface lesions for elevated depth of remineralization
- Keep away from aggregation (clumping of nHAp particles making them much less efficient and accessible for remineralization)
- Respect the oral microbiome (the engine for remineralization)
And now, we lastly have a peer-reviewed research to verify what chemists and scientists have recognized all alongside!
It’s simple to consider that if one thing is sweet, extra should be higher. However there may be at all times a candy spot on the subject of metabolism and organic processes and methods—issues like pH stability, oxygen saturation within the blood, and numerous different finely tuned features. An excessive amount of and too little might be lethal in these two methods.
So, it’s not “what’s the correct amount for enamel” it’s “what’s the correct amount for saliva” in order that enamel 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% fantasy? Ahead this to them — they by no means must miss one other publication in the event that they join future emails right here.