CaviChew vs Underbrush: what each discloses.
Two hydroxyapatite gums, compared only on what each brand publicly discloses: dose, particle data, ingredients, lab documents and guarantee terms. Same rows as the public database this page is generated from.
| What each brand publishes | CaviChew | Underbrush |
|---|---|---|
| Hydroxyapatite per piece | not disclosed | not disclosed |
| Particle form and size | Nano, ≤100 nm rod-shaped (stated) |
Nano particle size not stated
|
| Full ingredient list |
Yes no amounts
|
Yes no amounts
|
| Lab reports public | No | No |
| Studies cited on site |
No refers to studies on "other remineralizing gums"
|
Yes 39 numbered citations
|
| Money-back guarantee | not disclosed | not disclosed |
| Verifiability scorecard | CaviChew | Underbrush |
|---|---|---|
| Dose disclosed | not disclosed | not disclosed |
| Documents downloadable | 0 | 0 |
| Guarantee in writing | not found (checked 2026-07-11) |
No gum is final sale; guarantee only via a paid add-on
|
| Reviews verifiable off-site |
Yes Amazon: 193 reviews, 4.3★
|
No on-site widget only
|
CaviChew does not publish a per-piece dose, offers 0, and lists its guarantee as not disclosed. Underbrush does not publish a per-piece dose, offers 0, and lists its guarantee as not disclosed. Every cell above is what each brand states publicly, nothing is scored on taste or opinion; where a cell says not disclosed, the claim could not be verified from the brand’s own materials.
This comparison is generated from the Hydroxyapatite Gum Database, maintained by Minvelle. We sell a gum in this category and appear in the same database under identical rules, which is exactly why every cell here is sourced instead of scored.