The master table

13 toothpastes, 11 brands, one set of questions

All values from each brand's own product, FAQ or science pages, checked 25 September 2026. Prices are one-time list prices on the brand's own site in the currency shown. Karex and Apagard notes: see the brand sections below. Our CariFree toothpaste review covers both gels.

Brands we checked but could not include: Hello (no hydroxyapatite product in its 55-SKU catalog, checked 25 September 2026) . Twice, which this line used to list as having no live site, does sell from its own store: two of its four toothpastes contain hydroxyapatite (Happy Mint states 5 percent nano-hydroxyapatite, Charcoal Icy Mint states no percentage), checked 26 September 2026. Our Twice toothpaste review maps every tube.

Part 1

How we compared: the brand's own words

Every row in the table rests on the same rule: we only count what the brand itself publishes. On 25 September 2026 we read each brand's product page, FAQ, science or research page and, where one exists, its ingredient panel. Retailer listings, influencer posts and third-party roundups do not count, because they are often out of date and sometimes copy each other's errors.

What counts as "stated". A concentration is stated when the brand gives a percentage for the finished product on its own site, in words we can quote. A particle size is stated when the brand gives a number in nanometers for its own product, not a range lifted from the scientific literature. If a brand explains why it does not disclose a figure, we quote the explanation and mark the cell "no". If we looked and found nothing, the cell says "not stated".

What we did not do. We did not send any product to a lab, and we did not buy or test any of these toothpastes. We did not score taste, foam or packaging. We did not rank brands on quality, because a disclosure table cannot tell you which paste works best in your mouth. The "verdict" column describes what each brand discloses and one thing it does well; it is not a grade.

Why these brands. These are widely sold hydroxyapatite toothpaste brands in the US and Europe that we researched for our single-brand reviews this month, including two pastes from the same German manufacturer, Bioniq and Karex, plus CariFree, which sells both a fluoride and a fluoride-free gel. For RiseWell and CariFree we list two products each because the brand's own pages treat them differently: RiseWell states different percentages for its Original and PRO lines, and CariFree discloses the dose for one gel but not the other. Cocofloss also sells a hydroxyapatite paste, Cocoshine, which states 3 percent active nano-hydroxyapatite; our Cocofloss toothpaste review checks its label.

Prices. We list the one-time list price on the brand's own shop. Subscriptions are often cheaper; we mention them in the brand sections where the brand states the discount. Tube sizes differ, so a price per ounce is in the budget section below. Two brands need a note: Apagard's maker Sangi publishes consumer prices only for Japan, and Karex sells its adult paste on its own site only as a two-tube pack.

Part 2

Picks by need: which one fits you

If you want a stated nano-hydroxyapatite dose

Four brands print a nano-only percentage for a toothpaste. Lumineux puts 10% in the product name of its only hydroxyapatite paste and is fluoride-free. Dr. Jen states 10% in a structured ingredient panel, but its flagship also contains fluoride. NOBS states 5% on its flagship tablet page and FAQ. CariFree states 2% for its Fluoride Free Gel. RiseWell PRO states 5% nano on top of 10% micro. If a fluoride-free paste with a stated nano figure is the goal, Lumineux is the most direct answer; if you want a lower price per ounce with a nano dose you can read, compare it with NOBS and Fygg in the budget section.

If you prefer micro-hydroxyapatite

Bioniq states 20% micro-hydroxyapatite on both its US and German pages, the highest percentage any brand in the table publishes. RiseWell Original states 10% micro. Karex, from the same German company as Bioniq, describes its hydroxyapatite as microcrystalline but does not print a percentage on its current page. Micro is the form used in the largest human caries trials we could verify, which is one reason some buyers choose it.

If you want hydroxyapatite and fluoride together

Two products combine them. Dr. Jen Super Paste states 10% nano-hydroxyapatite and 0.22% sodium fluoride, about 1,000 ppm fluoride, and is registered under the FDA's over-the-counter anticavity rules. CariFree Gel 1100 contains nanoXIM nano-hydroxyapatite and 0.24% sodium fluoride, about 1,100 ppm, but does not state how much hydroxyapatite. If you want to know both numbers, Dr. Jen is the one that gives them.

For kids

This table covers adult flagship products; we did not check every brand's children's line in this pass. Two facts from our data are useful here. Karex says its Kinder and Junior pastes contain no nanoparticles. And the German pediatric dentistry consensus of 2021 recommends a 1,000 ppm fluoride toothpaste from 12 months, which is why the magazine Öko-Test graded Karex Kinder "ungenügend" while it carried an age recommendation of 1+, and "befriedigend" after Dr. Wolff moved it to 6+ years. A 2021 trial in children found a microcrystalline hydroxyapatite paste not inferior to a fluoride paste for early caries (more on that below). The right choice for a child depends on their caries risk, so this is one to decide with your child's dentist.

On a budget

Tube sizes range from 2.3 oz to 4.63 oz, so the sticker price only tells half the story. Dividing each one-time list price by the stated size, as the brands list it (some in weight ounces, some in fluid ounces):

Dr. Jen ($26.00 per tube, size not given on the page we used), NOBS ($15.00 for 62 tablets, 37 g), Apagard (¥1,683 for 105 g, Japan only) and Karex (€11.98 for 150 ml) are left out because their units do not compare directly.

On this math, Lumineux and Davids are the cheapest per ounce, and Lumineux also states its dose. Subscriptions lower several prices further: Boka lists $9.88, RiseWell Original $10.20 and Fygg $11.90 on subscribe and save.

For travel

NOBS makes tablets instead of paste: you chew one into a foam and brush. A 62-count jar is about a month's supply, and there is no liquid to declare at security. CariFree's Fluoride Free Gel comes in a 2.3 oz tube that the brand calls an "approved size for airline travel", and it states 2% nano-hydroxyapatite.

Part 3

Brand by brand: what each one states

Short profiles, in the order of the table. Each one links to our full review where we have one. Anything critical below is either the brand's own text or a public record, stated as found.

Boka Ela Mint

Boka states its particle size in more detail than almost anyone: nanorods 20 to 80 nm long, typically 50 to 60 nm, and 10 to 15 nm wide. It will not state the percentage. Its help center says: "For proprietary purposes, we're unable to share the exact % of nHA in our products." Ela Mint is fluoride-free and costs $11.62 for a 4 fl oz tube, or $9.88 on subscription. In 2025, BBB National Programs' National Advertising Division, and on appeal the National Advertising Review Board, found that Essor Group, which operates Boka, lacked product-specific evidence for Boka's remineralization, whitening and mouthwash-prebiotic claims and recommended they be dropped. Separately, a putative class action, Herrera v. Essor Group, Inc. (S.D.N.Y., No. 1:25-cv-04247), is on file; we retrieved only a scheduling order, so the claims in it are not confirmed and are allegations only. Full detail in our Boka toothpaste review.

Bioniq Classic

Bioniq states the highest percentage in the table: 20% hydroxyapatite, identical on its US and German pages, described as "micro-fine" in English and "mikrokristalline Struktur" in German. It does not state a particle size in nanometers. It is fluoride-free and SLS-free and costs $16.99 for a 100 mL tube in the US; in Germany it is sold only as a two-tube pack for €11.98. One detail worth knowing: the brand's own research page cites a study titled "Enamel and Dentin Remineralization by Nano-Hydroxyapatite Toothpastes" (Tschoppe et al., 2011, PMID 21504777), while its product pages describe the active as micro. The site does not reconcile the two. Bioniq is made by Dr. Kurt Wolff GmbH & Co. KG, the same company as Karex. More in our Bioniq toothpaste review.

Davids Hydroxi

Davids declares "hydroxyapatite (nano)" in its ingredient list and states the particle: "uncoated, rod-shaped particles of 50nm in size." It does not state the percentage. Its FAQ says: "While we do not give out the exact percentage of any ingredient in our proprietary Hydroxi™ formula, we do say that the amount we use is in line with the recommendations from the [SCCS]." The SCCS figure is a safety ceiling, not Davids' dose. At $10.95 for 4 oz, it is the lowest single-tube price in the table, and its whole current catalog is fluoride-free. A buying tip: Davids sells the same flavor names in a separate Premium line without hydroxyapatite, so check that the product name says Hydroxi. We found no study on Davids' own formula cited on its site. See our Davids toothpaste review.

RiseWell Original and PRO

RiseWell states its numbers plainly. The Original line uses "a 10% concentration of micro-hydroxyapatite" and costs $12.00 for 3.4 oz ($10.20 on subscription). PRO combines "5% NanoXIM CarePaste sourced from Fluidinova" with "10% micro hydroxyapatite", 15% in total, for $22.00; RiseWell calls it "the highest concentration of hydroxyapatite you can find on the market". On its own pages, Bioniq states 20% micro. Neither RiseWell line states a particle size. Both are fluoride-free. RiseWell is the plaintiff in a federal case, RiseWell LLC v. Happy Tooth Products, LLC (D. Utah, No. 2:25-cv-00359, filed May 2025); one of six original claims was dismissed in December 2025 and four remain active. In that case, RiseWell describes these same 10%, 5% and 15% figures as a guarded trade secret, although they appear in plain text on its own FAQ. Full detail in our RiseWell toothpaste review.

NOBS Toothpaste Tablets

NOBS makes chewable tablets and states "5% nano-hydroxyapatite with rod-shaped particles" on its flagship Classic Mint page and FAQ. The 5% is not repeated on five of its six other flavor pages, and there is no particle size in nanometers. It also discloses an RDA, a measure of abrasiveness, of 21.38, which is low; that figure is the brand's own report. The tablets are fluoride-free and cost $15.00 for a 62-count jar. The study NOBS cites for its "as effective as fluoride" claim tested the tablets on bovine tooth blocks in a lab, not in people, and was funded by the maker, BIOM LLC, which NOBS itself discloses. Read our NOBS toothpaste review for the rest.

Dr. Jen Super Paste with Fluoride

Dr. Jen is the brand to look at if you want nano-hydroxyapatite and fluoride in one tube, with both stated. Its ingredient panel reads "Nanohydroxyapatite (nHAp) 10%", and the drug facts give 0.22% sodium fluoride, about 1,000 ppm, under an FDA over-the-counter monograph registration. No particle size is given anywhere we looked. A tube costs $26.00; a fluoride-free 10% version of the same line costs $18.50. Two things to know: a separate wholesale site claims the paste "Replaces 5000 ppm fluoride", while the registered 0.22% works out to standard over-the-counter strength, and the brand does not explain the gap. And two other product pages, Perio and Ortho, show a fluoride active next to a "No Fluoride" badge, a template error that does not appear on the flagship. More in our Dr. Jen toothpaste review.

Fygg Mild Mint

Fygg states more than most: nanoXIM CarePaste from Fluidinova, "rod-shaped, with a median length of 27.6 nm and width of 15.4 nm", uncoated. Its FAQ gives the final concentration in the tube: "We add 20% of this 15.5% resulting in 3.1% per toothpaste tube." The catch is that its own pages describe the raw material two ways: the FAQ calls it 15.5%, the Science page calls it "a 20% pre-aqueous solution". We use Fygg's own 3.1% final figure. The toothpaste is fluoride-free and costs $14.00 for 4 oz, $11.90 on subscription. Fygg scored highest in a 2025 lab study that compared eight toothpastes, and it discloses on its own site that its parent company, Oral Microbiome Solutions LLC, funded that study. The study labels the product "Fygg (20% nanoXIM)"; that is the study's shorthand for the raw material, not a statement that the paste is 20% hydroxyapatite. See our Fygg toothpaste review.

Apagard Premio

Apagard comes from Sangi Co., Ltd. of Japan, one of the oldest names in hydroxyapatite toothpaste; Sangi's first such paste was Apadent in 1980, and Apagard followed in 1985. Premio lists "HYDROXYAPATITE (NANO)" and is fluoride-free. Sangi does not state the percentage, and says so directly: "The percentage of nano<mHAP> in Sangi's toothpastes is not disclosed, but has been approved as effective in protecting against caries by Japanese authorities." It gives ratios instead: Premio has 1.4 times as much as M-plus. A 2021 academic paper states 5% for Apagard M-plus; that figure is for M-plus, not Premio, and it comes from the paper, not Sangi. There is no current particle size, only a 2003 claim of reaching the "two-digit" nano level. Sangi publishes no consumer price outside Japan; in Japan, Premio is ¥1,683 for 105 g. Details in our Apagard toothpaste review.

Lumineux 10% Nano Hydroxyapatite

Lumineux puts the dose where you cannot miss it: 10% in the product name, repeated in the copy. It is the brand's only hydroxyapatite toothpaste; its older whitening toothpaste contains none, so check the name before you buy. It is fluoride-free and sold as a two-pack of 3.75 oz tubes for $19.99, with no subscription. No particle size is given, and the ingredient list says "Hydroxyapatite", with the word nano used in the marketing copy. The page calls the 10% "clinically supported"; the brand's own archive of more than 60 studies contains no hydroxyapatite title. Our Lumineux toothpaste review has the rest.

Karex Zahnpasta

Karex is a German paste from Dr. Kurt Wolff GmbH & Co. KG, the same company as Bioniq. It describes "die mikrokristalline Struktur des BioHAP", the microcrystalline structure of its hydroxyapatite, and it is fluoride-free throughout the range. It does not state a percentage or a particle size on its current page. A 2019 trial paper describes its test product, named Karex Zahnpasta, as containing 10% microcrystalline hydroxyapatite; that describes the formula used in the trial, not a figure the brand prints for today's tube. Karex has been tested in three randomized trials funded by Dr. Wolff, in children, adults and orthodontic patients, more human trial data than any other brand in this table. Its own shop sells the adult paste as a two-tube pack, €11.98 for 2 x 75 ml. Our German-language Karex review goes into the studies.

CariFree Gel 1100 and Fluoride Free Gel

CariFree is a brand built around dentist partnerships that sells two hydroxyapatite gels direct to consumers, and they are the clearest example of how disclosure can vary inside one company. Gel 1100 contains nanoXIM nano-hydroxyapatite and 0.24% sodium fluoride, about 1,100 ppm, and does not state the hydroxyapatite percentage: "While we don't disclose exact formula percentages, we believe quality matters more than concentration alone." The Fluoride Free Gel does state it: "2% nano-hydroxyapatite (nanoXIM by FLUIDINOVA)". Neither product page gives a particle size, but CariFree's FAQ says its gels use rod-shaped particles with "a length of <50nm and width of <10nm". Gel 1100 starts at $18.00 for 2.4 oz and the Fluoride Free Gel at $17.00 for 2.3 oz. CariFree also sells a prescription-strength PRO Gel 5000 through dentists only, which its own site describes as a "tooth gel with nano-hydroxyapatite", with no percentage stated. Our CariFree toothpaste review goes into both gels and the studies CariFree cites.

Part 4

Nano vs micro: does particle size matter?

"Nano" and "micro" describe the size of the hydroxyapatite particles. Nano particles are measured in nanometers, billionths of a meter; the brands in our table that state a size give figures from about 10 to 80 nm. Micro particles are larger, and none of the micro brands here states a size. Nine of the 13 products are nano, three are micro (Bioniq, RiseWell Original, Karex), and RiseWell PRO mixes both.

The argument for nano is surface area: smaller particles offer more surface and may settle into microscopic defects in enamel. The argument for micro is that it avoids the regulatory and safety questions that nanomaterials attract, and that the largest human caries trials we could verify used a microcrystalline paste. Both arguments are about plausibility, not about a trial that settled the question. We know of no randomized human trial that compared a nano and a micro version of the same toothpaste.

The closest thing to a head-to-head is a 2025 lab study that put nano and micro pastes from several brands through the same 14-day test on bovine enamel. Every paste improved the surface hardness of early lesions. Fygg scored significantly higher than Boka, Dr. Jen and RiseWell Original; the other products did not differ significantly from each other, micro or nano. The study was funded by Fygg's parent company, and it was a lab model, not people. So the most honest summary is: particle size is one variable, and on the evidence available it is not the one that decides which toothpaste to buy.

If the nano question is about safety rather than performance, our article is nano-hydroxyapatite safe? goes through the EU opinion and what it covers. And our explainer on nano vs non-nano hydroxyapatite covers the size question in more depth, including how it applies outside toothpaste.

Part 5

Concentration: why 10% vs 20% is not the whole story

A percentage is the easiest number to compare, which is why brands that state one put it on the front. It does not decide the outcome on its own, for three reasons.

First, the one study that compared named brands did not line up by percentage. Amaechi and colleagues tested eight toothpastes on 160 bovine enamel blocks with early caries lesions, in a 14-day cycle of acid challenges and toothpaste treatments (Journal of Dentistry 2025, PMID 40744295). The products included Fygg, labelled in the study as "20% nanoXIM", Dr. Jen (10% nano), RiseWell Regular (10% micro), RiseWell PRO (5% nanoXIM plus micro), Boka (concentration not disclosed), a 15% micro powder and two fluoride pastes. Every product significantly increased surface hardness. Fygg's result, 39.81% remineralization, was significantly higher than Boka (19.5%), Dr. Jen (21.68%) and RiseWell Regular (21.80%), and did not differ significantly from the rest. By Fygg's own FAQ, its paste is 3.1% hydroxyapatite in the tube, lower than the 10% pastes it outscored. The study was funded by Oral Microbiome Solutions, LLC, Fygg's parent, as the paper and Fygg both disclose. Amaechi and colleagues published a corrigendum in 2026 (PMID 41457006); we could not read what it corrects.

Second, the type and the rest of the formula matter. A 10% micro paste and a 10% nano paste contain the same weight of mineral in very different particle sizes. Binders, abrasives and pH also change how much of the mineral reaches the tooth. A percentage tells you nothing about any of that.

Third, a percentage is not a dose. It tells you the share of the paste, not how much reaches your teeth, which depends on how much you squeeze onto the brush and how long you brush. None of the brands in our table gives a milligram figure per brushing.

What does the human evidence say? The best-controlled trials we could verify all tested a microcrystalline hydroxyapatite paste from the same German maker as Karex and Bioniq, and all were designed as non-inferiority trials against fluoride. In 147 orthodontic patients over six months, caries progression with the hydroxyapatite paste was not significantly different from a 1,400 ppm fluoride paste (Schlagenhauf et al., 2019, PMID 30701704). In 207 children over a year, 72.7% of the hydroxyapatite group and 74.2% of the fluoride group showed an increase in early lesions, meeting the non-inferiority margin (Paszynska et al., 2021, PMID 33514787). In 189 adults over 18 months, 89.3% of the hydroxyapatite group and 87.4% of the 1,450 ppm fluoride group showed no increase in decayed, missing or filled surfaces in the per-protocol analysis (Paszynska et al., 2023, PMID 37533523). Our roundup of what hydroxyapatite toothpaste studies really show covers these and more.

The lab studies behind specific nano claims are smaller and not in people. A 2011 in vitro study cited by Bioniq found nano-hydroxyapatite pastes at 7% to 24% remineralized bovine dentine more than an amine fluoride paste, with comparable trends in enamel (Tschoppe et al., PMID 21504777). A 2021 in situ study, in which volunteers wore enamel blocks in their mouths, used a 5% nano paste, Apagard M-plus, and found it remineralized early lesions (Amaechi et al., PMID 34743963). The 2025 NOBS tablet study found 5% nano tablets comparable to a 1,100 ppm fluoride paste in a lab model (PMID 40422621). Useful signals, but no percentage threshold falls out of them.

So what should you do with the percentage? Treat it as a disclosure signal: a brand that states a number is telling you something you can check and hold it to. Then choose on format, fluoride, price and what your dentist says.

Part 6

Do you want fluoride too? Two ways to decide

Most hydroxyapatite toothpastes are sold as fluoride-free, and 11 of the 13 products in our table are. Two combine the two actives: Dr. Jen Super Paste (10% nano-hydroxyapatite, 0.22% sodium fluoride) and CariFree Gel 1100 (nano-hydroxyapatite, 0.24% sodium fluoride). If your dentist has recommended fluoride and you also want hydroxyapatite, those are the two to compare, and Dr. Jen is the one that states both amounts.

If you want to stay fluoride-free, the trials above show that one microcrystalline hydroxyapatite formula matched fluoride in the specific groups tested. That is real evidence, but it is narrower than fluoride's record, which spans decades and many formulas. Many dentists and dental associations recommend fluoride toothpaste. Our comparison of nano-hydroxyapatite vs fluoride sets out the differences in more detail, and our best fluoride-free toothpaste 2026 ranking covers fluoride-free pastes that are not built on hydroxyapatite as well.

One practical point: the decision is about your caries risk, not about which ingredient sounds better. A dentist who has seen your teeth can tell you whether fluoride-free is a reasonable choice for you, and our piece on why some dentists don't recommend hydroxyapatite explains the usual reasons behind their answer.

Part 7

Where a gum fits: between brushings

Every product in this table is a toothpaste: you brush with it for about two minutes, twice a day, and then spit. That brushing routine is the base, and nothing on this page suggests replacing it.

Minvelle is something else: a sugar-free chewing gum with nano-hydroxyapatite and xylitol, for the hours between brushings when there is no sink nearby. One piece a day, chewed for at least 20 minutes. Where most brands above give a percentage or nothing, we give a weight: 5.7 mg of nano-hydroxyapatite in each 1.9 g piece. There is no clinical trial on our finished gum, and we say so for the same reason we quoted every brand word for word above. What we do publish is the dose, the full ingredient list and a batch certificate on our transparency page. For how that compares with another nano-hydroxyapatite gum, see our Underbrush comparison.

Minvelle prints the dose on the box: 5.7 mg nano-hydroxyapatite per piece. See the gum.

In fairness

What each brand does well

A disclosure table makes gaps easy to see, so it is worth naming what each brand does well:

• Boka publishes one of the most detailed particle-size descriptions in the category.
• Bioniq states the highest percentage and uses the same figure on its US and German sites.
• Davids states its particle size and has the lowest single-tube price.
• RiseWell states exact percentages for both lines, including the split between micro and nano in PRO.
• NOBS states its dose and its abrasiveness, and discloses who funded its study.
• Dr. Jen states both actives, with the fluoride under a registered drug-facts panel.
• Fygg states a final percentage and a particle size, and discloses its study funding on its own site.
• Apagard answers the percentage question openly, and its maker has sold hydroxyapatite toothpaste since 1980.
• Lumineux puts its dose in the product name, where nobody can miss it.
• Karex has more randomized human trial data behind its formula family than any other brand here.
• CariFree offers both a fluoride and a fluoride-free gel, and states the dose of the fluoride-free one.

The verdict

The best hydroxyapatite toothpaste, in one paragraph

Choose on the number you care about. For a stated nano dose without fluoride, Lumineux (10%) is the most direct answer, with NOBS (5%, tablets) and Fygg (3.1%, plus a particle size) as alternatives. For micro-hydroxyapatite, Bioniq states the most (20%) and Karex has the most human trial data behind its formula family. For hydroxyapatite with fluoride, Dr. Jen states both amounts. For the lowest price per tube, Davids. Boka, Davids, Apagard, Karex and CariFree Gel 1100 do not state a percentage on their own pages, which does not mean their pastes are weaker, only that you cannot check. And no percentage in this table decides the outcome by itself: the one study that compared brands did not line up by the number on the tube. Whatever you pick, keep brushing twice a day and ask your dentist whether fluoride-free fits your teeth.

Down to Boka or RiseWell? Boka vs RiseWell compares the two on dose, particle type and price.

Facts checked on 25 September 2026 from the brands' own pages and the sources below. If a brand changes a page, tell us and we will update the table.

Questions, answered

The things people actually ask