Ask a formulator what fraction of a toothpaste can be hydroxyapatite and the reflex answer traces back to one number: the ~10% used in remineralisation trials and blessed by the EU\u2019s safety opinion for nano grades. A team at Hasanuddin University in Makassar asked a different question: what if the mineral is not an additive on top of the formula, but the abrasive base itself?<\/p>\n
Their material came from an unglamorous local source \u2014 bones of Sardinella fimbriata<\/em>, a fish processed at scale in Indonesia. The characterisation was respectable for a biogenic powder: the bone ash ran to 60.25% calcium oxide with 39.66% phosphorus pentoxide by XRF, and \u201cthe XRD of the natural fish bone hydroxyapatite compound has a crystallinity of 82.9%.\u201d<\/p>\n Then the formulation step, and the interesting move: \u201cF1, F2, and F3 contained 30, 40, and 50 parts of hydroxyapatite, respectively, replacing an equivalent amount of the standard abrasive (calcium carbonate).\u201d Not a 2% actives sprinkle \u2014 the mineral as the body of the paste. The formulations passed their physical tests, and the conclusion was direct: the fish-bone hydroxyapatite \u201ccan be incorporated into toothpaste formulated with F3, which includes a 50% hydroxyapatite concentration.\u201d<\/p>\n That was the sharper result. In the sensory evaluation, \u201cthe average hedonic test liked each toothpaste formula, but the F3 formula was preferred in color, aroma, taste, and texture.\u201d The highest<\/em> mineral loading won on all four counts. Whatever intuition says a chalky biogenic powder ruins mouthfeel at high doses, ten Indonesian panellists disagreed.<\/p>\n The abrasive framing also changes what \u201cquality\u201d means. An active at 2% is judged on biology; an abrasive at 40 or 50% is judged on hardness, particle-size distribution, and how it wears both stains and enamel \u2014 properties this study leaves for the dentifrice standards to police. That checklist is what any buyer would run before moving a biogenic powder from the actives column to the base column. What the Makassar data establishes is narrower and still useful: nothing about consumer acceptance forbids trying.<\/p>\n The honest limits: ten panellists is a pilot, not a market study; the paper measured no remineralisation or caries endpoint; and one calcination temperature was tested \u2014 the authors themselves call for comparative work. And this is micron-scale fish-bone material replacing an abrasive, a different regulatory question from nano grades with biological claims.<\/p>\nDid anyone want to brush with it?<\/h2>\n
What does this change for a buyer?<\/h2>\n