Calvin

The lore surrounding hydroxyapatite is rife with rumors, myths and falsehoods (from both sides!) It's gotten so bad, that I don't blame people for opting out completely because of how confusing it is. My hope is that I can simplify it for you here, with some history of the politics. Disclaimer: I am biased towards hydroxyapatite as I am an owner of a brand that uses it, @nobsroutines Myth 1: It's dangerous Hydroxyapatite is the mineral your teeth are made of. Enamel is about 96% minerals and nearly all of it is hydroxyapatite. Your bones are built on it too. The fear comes from the word “nano.” The EU’s SCCS first reviewed nano-hydroxyapatite (nHA) about a decade ago, their answer was basically “we don’t have enough data yet.” Somewhere that became labeled "it's not safe" The follow-up reviews got a lot less attention. The committee drew the line at particle shape. Rod-shaped particles cleared, needle-shaped particles were out. In 2025 they concluded rod-shaped (this one is important, we'll come back to it), uncoated nHA is safe in toothpaste at up to 29.5%. You’ll also hear “the EU banned nano ingredients.” The 2024 regulation people point to did ban 12 nanomaterials. Hydroxyapatite wasn’t one of them. It was approved with conditions. That's the main takeaway; Nano is a size, not a specific thing. There are good nano particles, and bad ones. And if you swallow meets stomach acid, which breaks it down into calcium and phosphate. The same minerals already in your food. Basically a harmless and under-dosed supplement. Myth 2: It heals cavities This one mostly comes from overzealous influencers trying to get engagement, equally as harmful to the mission as the people who lie against it. A cavity starts as a weak, chalky spot where acid has pulled minerals out of the enamel. At that stage the surface is still intact and the tooth can take minerals back in. That’s the type of remineralization where nHA does its best work at reversing. Once decay breaks through the enamel and becomes an actual diagnosable cavity, no toothpaste/gum/mouthwash/powder is fixing it. nHA can help an early weak spot get stronger, a true cavity still needs a dentist. Myth 3: It doesn't work Japan has been putting hydroxyapatite in toothpaste since for almost 50 years and officially approved it as an anti-cavity ingredient in 1993. That’s over 30 years on shelves. Since then, over 13,000 randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews have shown it remineralizes early enamel lesions and reduces tooth sensitivity. Sensitivity is usually what people notice first. The particles plug the tiny open channels in exposed dentin, the ones that carry cold and sweet straight to the nerve. This is my magic trick for patients in the dental chair, it works almost immediately. When someone says “it doesn’t work,” they’re usually reacting to one of two things. The wild claims from Myth 2, or the fact that it isn’t FDA approved for cavities. That second one is a regulatory story, and I’ll get to it more later. Finally, if I may brag a little bit, we've been at this for 4 years, with millions of people that have used it and if it didn't work, we'd probably know by now. Myth 4: More is better (arguably the most important one) Spend a few minutes googling hydroxyapatite and you'll see two wildly different opinions, either: ITS DANGEROUS or YOU NEED TWICE AS MUCH The percentage number tells you how much is in the tube. It doesn’t tell you: - how small the particles are - what shape they are - what else in the formula is working with or against it - whether the finished product was ever tested on actual teeth Those are the things that decide what ends up on your enamel. A formula with published data behind it tells you more than the biggest number on the shelf. Same goes for how you use it. A pea-sized amount (or one tablet) is plenty, brushing harder doesn’t push more mineral in, and you want to spit, not rinse, so it has time to sit on your teeth. 10% gets thrown around as the "minimum for efficacy" This is a lie peddled by a few brands that picked concentration as their marketing angle. The myth has become immortalized and will live on long beyond those lying brand owners. It's simply not true, while NOBS uses 5%... 2-3% is shown to be sufficient at preventing cavities in certain studies. Not only that, some studies even show that LESS concentration has more protection (this is explained by the fact that shape/size etc are equally important). Most times brands that use 10% are buying second rate raw materials, so it's basically bunk. Myth 5: Everyone is lying It's a seven front war out here, and candidly, I'm one of the fighters. Fluoride people scream that it doesn't work. Certain brands scream that you need more. Other people yell that it's dangerous At this point, no one can stop talking about nano hydroxyapatite for better or for worse. This may come as a shock, but I'm tired of the ingredient even though I love it and will always use it... leading me to my next point.... Myth 6: Nothing Else Matters Somewhere along the way people get so emotional about hydroxyapatite that there is no mention of other ingredients. Kind of like how everyone forgot about other viruses during covid. Remineralizing agents are super important, but they aren't the only thing that matters. In fact, the peer-reviewed study we conducted on NOBS ended with the following conclusion: cavities are a bacterial disease, and while mineral loss is part of that disease... there are many ingredients that control the pathogenicity and colonization of the cavity causing bacteria. I hope this cleared some things up, and that you take my opinion with a grain of biased salt.

🚨Hiring🚨 Do you love health? Do you fundamentally understand what makes good content? We're finally ready for a full time Producer role for @DTHshow to help us make the show. Must be: - Located in South Florida (some travel) - Comfortable with pre/post production - Cracked frfr Downsides include: - Working with 3 bald men - Developing an interest in getting healthier