One thing first, because it shapes the rest. Biorepair is a toothpaste, the thing you brush with twice a day. Minvelle, the company writing this, makes a chewing gum for between brushings: one piece a day, chewed for at least 20 minutes, with 5.7 mg of nano-hydroxyapatite per 1.9 g piece printed on the box. A gum is an extra step, not a replacement for any toothpaste, Biorepair's included.

At a glance

Biorepair, in one table

Swipe sideways on mobile. Every row was checked on the date shown. Retail prices vary by country; the one set we verified is in Part 6.

Part 1

Who makes Biorepair? An Italian company, not a startup

Biorepair belongs to Coswell S.p.A., an Italian personal-care manufacturer based in Funo di Argelato in the province of Bologna. The footer of biorepair.it, checked on 26 September 2026, gives the full legal identity: Via P. Gobetti n. 4, 40050 Funo di Argelato (BO), tax and company register number 02827560729, VAT number 00708541206, REA number BO-336611, and a share capital of €27,867,000. The same footer states that the company is directed and coordinated by Fingual S.r.l. That is the profile of an established manufacturer, not a direct-to-consumer brand run from a mailbox.

On the German product page, Coswell says microRepair was developed "in collaboration with the University of Bologna in Coswell's laboratories" and describes it as "patented biomimetic zinc hydroxyapatite particles". We report that as Coswell's description. The university link is consistent with the literature: several of the independent laboratory papers on zinc-carbonate hydroxyapatite come from Italian university groups, including Bologna and Pavia.

The brand is international. The language switch on biorepair.it lists sites or distributors for the Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, France, Japan, Poland, Russia, Taiwan, Croatia, Hungary and an Arabic-language Middle East page. It also lists English. When we followed that English link on 26 September 2026, it returned a "404 Not Found" page. So there is no working English-language brand site to buy from or to read the labels on, which is one reason English-language information about Biorepair is so patchy.

A search trap: biorepair.com is a different company

If you search for Biorepair and land on biorepair.com, biorepair.de or biorepair.at, you are on the wrong site. Those domains belong to a laboratory-diagnostics company, not to the toothpaste maker, as our German review documented from their legal notices on 25 September 2026. And biorepair.us, when we opened it on 26 September 2026, contained only a script that redirects to a page called "/lander", the pattern of a parked domain. For the toothpaste, the manufacturer sites are biorepair.it and, for German-speaking markets, biorepair-zahnpflege.de.

Part 2

Biorepair vs Bioniq: what actually happened

A large share of English-language posts say that Biorepair "is now called Bioniq". That is not what the records show. The short version: Biorepair is Coswell's brand and is still on sale. Bioniq is the own brand of Dr. Kurt Wolff GmbH & Co. KG in Bielefeld, Germany, which used to distribute a Biorepair toothpaste in Germany and launched Bioniq when that arrangement ended.

2009 to 2021: Dr. Wolff sells Biorepair in Germany

Dr. Wolff, the company behind Alpecin and Plantur, sold Biorepair in Germany from 2009. A 2020 paper in Biomimetics (Steinert and colleagues, PMID 32354134) carries a conflict-of-interest statement for two authors employed by Dr. Wolff, which says the company markets oral-care products "(Biorepair and Karex)". So for about a decade, German shoppers knew Biorepair as a Dr. Wolff product, and most German-language reviews and tests from that period are about the Dr. Wolff tube.

2021: Dr. Wolff launches Bioniq

On 26 March 2021, Dr. Wolff announced Bioniq Repair toothpaste. Its press release describes the development as building on "a successful partnership, in order now to go its own way", in our translation. The release does not name Biorepair or Coswell. It describes the end of a partnership and the start of an own brand, not a renaming of someone else's brand. Our Bioniq toothpaste review covers what Bioniq contains today: plain hydroxyapatite, stated at 20%.

2026: both brands on the same shelf

The clearest evidence is retail. When our German review checked the Austrian drugstore chain dm on 25 September 2026, its product search listed two Biorepair products and four Bioniq products, under separate brand names. The barcodes tell the same story: the old Dr. Wolff Biorepair and today's Bioniq carry EAN codes starting with 4008666, the German number range used by Dr. Wolff, while today's Biorepair starts with 8017331, an Italian range. Two products, two companies.

Why this matters to you: if you read an older review, a Reddit thread or a German consumer test that mentions Biorepair, check the date. Anything from before 2021 is likely about the Dr. Wolff tube, and we could not confirm whether that formula was identical to Coswell's current one.

Part 3

What is in the tube? The ingredient list, word for word

This is the complete ingredient list of the classic Biorepair enamel toothpaste, sold in German-speaking markets as "Karies-Prophylaxe und Zahnschmelzschutz" (cavity prevention and enamel protection), as printed on Coswell's product page on 26 September 2026:

Aqua, Zinc Hydroxyapatite**, Hydrated Silica, Glycerin, Sorbitol, Silica, Sodium Myristoyl Sarcosinate, Sodium Methyl Cocoyl Taurate, Aroma, Cellulose Gum, Citric Acid, Tetrapotassium Pyrophosphate, Zinc PCA, Sodium Saccharin, Phenoxyethanol, Benzyl Alcohol, Sodium Benzoate. (** microRepair)

Seventeen ingredients. Grouped by function, which is basic chemistry and not a claim about effect:

Coswell product page, 26 September 2026.

What the order tells you

Ingredient lists run from the largest share to the smallest for ingredients above 1%. Zinc hydroxyapatite sits in second place, ahead of the abrasive, which fits Coswell's statement of 22%. For comparison, Bioniq Repair also lists its hydroxyapatite in second place and states 20%. Many US hydroxyapatite pastes list theirs further down and state a lower number, or none at all; our ranking of hydroxyapatite toothpastes sorts brands by exactly what they publish.

What is not in it

There is no fluoride in any form in this tube, or in the three other Biorepair ingredient lists we checked. There is no sodium lauryl sulfate, no parabens and no titanium dioxide in the classic enamel tube. A 2021 German consumer test criticised a Dr. Wolff-era Biorepair tube for containing propylparaben; today's Coswell list contains none. We could not determine whether that reflects a different formula or a reformulation.

The rest of the range

Coswell's Italian site lists a wide range under the Biorepair name on 26 September 2026: several enamel and "total protection" pastes, a sensitive-teeth line including one called Fast Sensitive Repair, a gum-care line under the name Peribioma, Pro White whitening pastes, kids and junior pastes, mouthwashes, floss and toothbrushes. It also lists Peribioma Pro chewing gum ("gomme masticabili"). We could not read that product's ingredient panel on the site, so we make no statement about what it contains or how much. The Peribioma Plus mouth foam our German review checked lists zinc hydroxyapatite together with xylitol and mastic oil, without a stated percentage.

Part 4

Zinc hydroxyapatite: why it is not the same as plain HAp

The most important difference between Biorepair and almost every US hydroxyapatite toothpaste sits in one word on the label. Biorepair declares Zinc Hydroxyapatite. Boka, RiseWell, Davids, Bioniq and most others declare Hydroxyapatite. In zinc hydroxyapatite, some of the calcium in the crystal is replaced by zinc; the research literature usually calls the Biorepair active zinc-carbonate hydroxyapatite, abbreviated Zn-CHA, because carbonate is built into the crystal as well.

Why add zinc? Zinc salts are used in many toothpastes, including fluoride ones, for their effect on oral bacteria and plaque. The idea behind zinc hydroxyapatite is to combine an enamel-like mineral and zinc in one particle. Whether that combination does more in the mouth than plain hydroxyapatite plus a separate zinc salt has not, as far as we could find, been settled by a head-to-head clinical study.

For a buyer this has one practical consequence. When a brand or an article cites studies on hydroxyapatite toothpaste, it is fair to ask which active was tested. The large clinical trials that people quote for hydroxyapatite, including the 18-month adult caries trial in Poland, tested plain hydroxyapatite. They say nothing direct about zinc hydroxyapatite, and the reverse is also true. That is not a criticism of Biorepair; it is a reason to read its evidence on its own terms, which we do in Part 5.

Nano or not, and what EU safety rules cover

All four Biorepair ingredient lists we checked say "Zinc Hydroxyapatite" without the "(nano)" suffix. Under the EU cosmetics regulation, an ingredient present as a nanomaterial must be labelled with "(nano)", so by its labelling Biorepair is not a nanomaterial. At the same time, several independent papers on the same active describe it as nanocrystals, including Al Asmari and Khan 2019 (PMID 32039076) and Kranz and colleagues 2022 (PMID 36295240). We found no independent measurement of the particle size in today's tube, so we leave that question open rather than decide it either way.

A related point is often missed. Regulation (EU) 2024/858, in force since 4 April 2024, permits hydroxyapatite (nano) up to 10% in toothpaste and 0.465% in mouthwash, for rod-shaped, uncoated particles, based on the SCCS opinion SCCS/1648/22. The SCCS assessed that material as safe under those conditions; in 2025 it assessed higher levels as safe for a different particle specification (SCCS/1677/25), which is an opinion, not law, as of 26 September 2026. Our German review searched the full text of SCCS/1648/22: the word zinc does not appear in it. The opinion therefore says nothing about zinc hydroxyapatite, positive or negative. That is not a sign of risk; it means the best-known EU safety assessment of hydroxyapatite was about a different material. Our guide to nano-hydroxyapatite safety covers the rest of the safety literature.

Part 5

What the studies show: ten papers, every PMID resolved

We searched PubMed for studies on zinc hydroxyapatite and on Biorepair by name and resolved every PMID below against the US National Library of Medicine on 26 September 2026. This is what exists:

All PMIDs resolved via NCBI on 26 September 2026. Lab = in vitro; no saliva, no daily life.

The laboratory studies

The only study we found in which a Biorepair product is named in the abstract against another brand is Poggio and colleagues 2010 (PMID 20673785), an independent Italian laboratory study. Fifty extracted incisors were eroded with a soft drink and then treated with Biorepair Plus or Sensodyne Pronamel. Both pastes reduced surface roughness and the depth of demineralisation, and the difference between them was not significant. That is a fair result for Biorepair: in this model it did about as well as a well-known enamel toothpaste.

Alessandri Bonetti and colleagues 2014 (PMID 24902674) exposed 42 enamel samples to acid for eight days after interproximal reduction, a procedure in orthodontics where a thin layer of enamel is removed between teeth. Samples were treated with a Zn-CHA toothpaste, a 1,400 ppm fluoride toothpaste, or nothing. The Zn-CHA group showed the least damage under the electron microscope, and the fluoride group did not differ from the untreated control. It sounds striking, but it is one laboratory model without saliva, and the result does not match decades of clinical evidence on fluoride. We would not draw a conclusion about your mouth from it.

Kranz and colleagues 2022 (PMID 36295240) treated etched enamel and dentine slices three times a day for 15 days with a paste the authors refer to as biorepair, and compared them with untreated slices. The treated surfaces showed mineral deposits. Again: no fluoride comparison, and a deposit on an etched slice is not the same as fewer cavities.

The studies in people

Al Asmari and Khan 2019 (PMID 32039076) followed 72 people with sensitive teeth who used a zinc-carbonate hydroxyapatite toothpaste for eight weeks. Sensitivity scores fell compared with the starting point. The study had no control group, so it cannot separate the effect of the paste from what would have happened anyway, such as people brushing more gently once they joined a study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Steinert and colleagues 2020 (PMID 32354134) is an observational study of 46 people who used a toothpaste with "biomimetic zinc hydroxyapatite" for four weeks and filled in questionnaires. Two authors were Dr. Wolff employees at a time when the company, by its own statement, marketed Biorepair and Karex. A questionnaire without a control group measures satisfaction, not effect.

The most rigorous design is Hagenfeld and colleagues 2019 (PMID 30851050). It is a secondary analysis of a 12-week double-blind randomised trial in 41 people treated for periodontitis, who brushed with either a zinc-substituted carbonated hydroxyapatite toothpaste or an amine fluoride and stannous fluoride toothpaste. The outcome was not cavities but changes in the plaque microbiome, and the two groups did not differ. The original trial was funded by Dr. Kurt Wolff GmbH & Co. KG, according to its disclosures.

Finally, Solinas and colleagues 2021 (PMID 34956681) describe a single four-year-old with molar-incisor hypomineralisation who used a microRepair mousse for six months and was free of symptoms after a year. One case is a reason for more research, not evidence of a general effect.

What is missing

What we did not find is the study that matters most for a fluoride-free toothpaste: a randomised trial in which today's Biorepair is tested for months against a fluoride toothpaste, with new cavities as the outcome. That does not prove no such study exists; it means we could not find one with a PMID that clearly concerns Biorepair or zinc hydroxyapatite. For plain hydroxyapatite, such trials do exist, and our comparison of nano-hydroxyapatite and fluoride goes through them.

What the reviews say about hydroxyapatite as a class

Three systematic reviews summarise the clinical studies on hydroxyapatite toothpaste. Limeback, Enax and Meyer 2021 (PMID 34925515) found three randomised trials suitable for meta-analysis out of 291 records and reported a protective effect for hydroxyapatite; two of the authors are Dr. Wolff employees and the company supported the work. Pawinska and colleagues 2024 (PMID 39471896) is an updated review with a similar author and funding background. The most independent of the three, Chatzidimitriou and colleagues 2025 (PMID 40107597), declared no conflicts and found no significant difference between hydroxyapatite and fluoride pastes for the onset of caries, on only four studies.

The point for Biorepair: none of the three reviews analyses zinc hydroxyapatite separately. They treat hydroxyapatite as one class. Reading them as proof that Biorepair protects as well as fluoride stretches results to an active they did not look at on its own.

The "repairs 100% of enamel" line

On 26 September 2026 the meta description of Coswell's German site read, in our translation: "The only fluoride-free toothpaste based on microRepair. It repairs 100% of the enamel from the first use." The product page footnotes the word "repairs" with an asterisk. The page does not say, at that point, which measurement the 100% refers to, and we found no study with a PMID that shows it for the toothpaste. We report the claim as Coswell's and leave it at that. Our explainer on what "enamel repair" on a toothpaste can mean goes through the realistic range, from filling surface micro-defects to regrowing enamel, which no toothpaste does.

Part 6

Price, availability and what buyers say

The one set of retail prices we verified is from Austria and Germany on 25 September 2026: the 75 ml classic enamel tube cost €5.45 at dm.at (€7.27 per 100 ml) and €4.45 at the German chain Müller (€5.93 per 100 ml). Bioniq Repair cost €7.45 for 75 ml at dm.at on the same day. That makes Biorepair one of the least expensive toothpastes with a high stated amount of a hydroxyapatite-type active.

For US, UK, Canadian and Australian buyers the picture is less clean. Coswell does not operate a working English-language shop: the English link on biorepair.it returned a 404 page on 26 September 2026, and biorepair.us is a parked domain. If you buy Biorepair in an English-speaking country, you are most likely buying a product imported from the Italian or another European range, at a price set by the seller. We did not verify those prices and we do not link marketplace listings. Two practical checks help: look for "Zinc Hydroxyapatite" on the ingredient photo, and check whether the tube is the Italian range (names such as "Total Protective Repair" or "Plus") or a German-market tube.

Ratings

Ratings are good but hard to attribute. On 25 September 2026 the classic tube had 4.8 out of 5 from 56 ratings at dm.at, and a German marketplace listing for the 22% microRepair tube showed 4.7 out of 5 from 735 reviews. We did not analyse the critical reviews systematically, so we do not name themes. Two warnings apply to reviews found online: many older ones are about the Dr. Wolff tube, and many Bioniq posts call Biorepair "the old name". Stars measure taste, feel and satisfaction, not cavity protection.

Independent tests

The German consumer foundation Stiftung Warentest commented on Biorepair on 19 August 2009, about the Dr. Wolff tube: "So far, meaningful clinical studies that clearly prove effectiveness are lacking", and "the Biorepair toothpaste does without effective caries protection from fluorides", in our translation. Its 2022 update points to Bioniq Repair as the successor "from the supplier Dr. Wolff". Both refer to the Dr. Wolff-era product, not necessarily to Coswell's current tube, and we found no test of the current Coswell tube.

Part 7

Who Biorepair suits, and who should skip it

Biorepair makes sense if

• you are an adult who has decided, ideally with your dentist, to brush without fluoride, and you understand the difference between lab and clinical evidence;
• a stated, high amount of active on the label matters to you: 22% is a clear number, and its place on the ingredient list backs it up;
• you want a toothpaste without sodium lauryl sulfate;
• price matters: per 100 ml, where it is sold in European drugstores, it costs less than most hydroxyapatite pastes.

Biorepair is probably not your pick if

• you want the broadest cavity evidence available today; that is still fluoride, and most dental guidelines recommend it;
• you have a high cavity risk and your dentist recommends fluoride;
• you are choosing for a small child: most paediatric dental guidance recommends a fluoride children's toothpaste, so discuss any exception with your dentist;
• you specifically want plain hydroxyapatite because you are relying on the clinical trials that tested it; in that case look at brands that use it, such as those in our fluoride-free toothpaste ranking.

Biorepair and other brands, on paper

Labels as published by the makers; see our separate reviews for each brand's sources. Different actives, so this is not an effect comparison.

Part 8

Biorepair and a nano-hydroxyapatite gum: different jobs

A toothpaste works for the two minutes you brush, twice a day. Most of the acid challenges to enamel happen in between, after meals and snacks. That is the gap a chewing gum is designed for. Chewing a sugar-free gum for at least 20 minutes after eating increases saliva flow, and saliva is the mouth's own buffer and mineral supply; that 20-minute condition is attached to the EU-authorised health claim for sugar-free gum. Minvelle adds a stated dose of nano-hydroxyapatite, 5.7 mg per piece, to that chewing window.

So the question is not Biorepair or Minvelle. If you brush with Biorepair, the gum would be an extra step after a meal, not a switch. If you brush with a fluoride toothpaste, the same applies. We have written about how a hydroxyapatite paste and an anti-cavity gum compare in more detail.

What a gum cannot do

• It does not replace brushing. A gum does not remove plaque the way a toothbrush and paste do.
• It does not replace fluoride toothpaste. If your dentist has recommended fluoride, keep using it.
• It does not repair a cavity. No gum and no toothpaste fills a hole in a tooth. That is a job for a dentist.
• It does not bleach teeth. There is no peroxide in it; at most it helps with surface stains between brushings.
• It has not been in a clinical trial. There is no clinical trial on the finished Minvelle gum. What we publish is the dose, the full ingredient list and a batch certificate from lab testing of the finished gum.

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

In fairness

What Biorepair does well

It would be unfair to list only the open questions. Biorepair publishes its full ingredient list and, for two pastes, a percentage for the active, which is not a given in this category. The active sits second on the list, so the percentage is consistent with the label. The brand names a university as its development partner, and there are independent laboratory studies by Italian and German groups on this active, including one in which a Biorepair paste matched Sensodyne Pronamel on eroded enamel.

The classic formula is short, free of sodium lauryl sulfate and parabens, and inexpensive for the amount of active it states. Coswell is an established manufacturer with a registered company, a stated share capital and a long product history. For an adult who wants to brush without fluoride, Biorepair offers a lot of active per euro, even if the clinical question stays open.

How we checked

Method and conflict of interest

We read Coswell's Italian and German sites, the product pages and ingredient lists, and the legal footer on 25 and 26 September 2026; searched PubMed for zinc hydroxyapatite, zinc-carbonate hydroxyapatite and Biorepair and resolved every PMID; and used our German review's retail and test research from 25 September 2026, which is linked in the sources. We did not buy or lab-test a tube. Minvelle sells a nano-hydroxyapatite gum, which is a commercial interest in this topic. We do not sell toothpaste, and nothing in this review depends on Biorepair doing badly. If Coswell publishes a randomised caries trial on the current tube, or a particle-size specification, we will update this page.

The verdict

Biorepair, in one paragraph

Biorepair is a real, long-running Italian toothpaste with a clear label: 22% zinc hydroxyapatite in the classic tube, no fluoride, no sodium lauryl sulfate, and a low price where it is sold in Europe. Its evidence is mostly laboratory work on the zinc-modified mineral, plus a few small clinical studies; the big hydroxyapatite trials tested a different active. It is not the old name of Bioniq. For an adult who wants to brush without fluoride and values a stated dose, it is a sensible option. For the strongest cavity evidence, fluoride remains the benchmark.

Questions, answered

The things people actually ask