The Boka vs. Crest Battle: NAD's Nano-Hydroxyapatite Decision and the Future of Fluoride-Free Claims

If you've been following the toothpaste wars, May 2025 marked a pivotal moment when the oral care industry found itself in the spotlight over a heated dispute between two very different approaches to dental health. On one side, you had Essor Group, the company behind Boka's nano-hydroxyapatite toothpaste, promising a fluoride-free future for oral care. On the other, Procter & Gamble, the giant behind Crest, challenged those very promises through the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the BBB's National Programs. What unfolded wasn't just a corporate spat, it became a defining case that could reshape how fluoride-free toothpaste brands market their products and what consumers can expect from the claims they see on the tube.

Understanding Nano-Hydroxyapatite: From NASA to Your Bathroom Cabinet

The story really begins with nano-hydroxyapatite itself, a synthetic version of the mineral that makes up our tooth enamel. Originally developed by NASA researchers in the 1970s to help astronauts maintain their dental health in space, n-HA has become the darling of the fluoride-free movement. Brands like Boka have built their entire identity around this ingredient, positioning it as a safer, more natural alternative to fluoride that can supposedly do everything from remineralizing teeth to whitening them and even supporting oral health through prebiotic action. It sounds almost too good to be true, which is exactly what caught Procter & Gamble's attention.

The Science Behind NAD's Nano-Hydroxyapatite Toothpaste Decision

When we dig into the science behind nano-hydroxyapatite, the picture becomes more complex. There are indeed hundreds of studies exploring n-HA's potential, with research suggesting it can fill microscopic gaps in tooth enamel and potentially offer benefits comparable to fluoride in certain situations. The key word here is "potentially." While some studies show promising results for remineralization and sensitivity relief, most of this research involves laboratory models or short-term clinical trials rather than long-term, real-world effectiveness data.

What's particularly important to understand is that the FDA hasn't approved hydroxyapatite toothpaste for cavity prevention, and it hasn't received the ADA Seal of Acceptance either. This regulatory gap became crucial when we look at what happened in the NAD nano-hydroxyapatite toothpaste decision.

How Procter & Gamble Challenged Boka's Fluoride-Free Claims

The heart of the dispute came down to what constitutes "competent and reliable scientific evidence" for advertising claims. When Procter & Gamble challenged Essor Group in spring 2025, they weren't questioning whether nano-hydroxyapatite has potential benefits—they were questioning whether Boka had the specific evidence to support their bold marketing claims. The challenge focused on three main areas: claims that Boka toothpaste "remineralizes" and "fortifies" teeth, assertions about whitening capabilities, and promises about prebiotic benefits for oral health and fresh breath.

NAD's Groundbreaking Ruling on Toothpaste Marketing Claims

What NAD discovered during their review was telling and would become central to the NAD nano-hydroxyapatite toothpaste decision. Essor had submitted various studies about nano-hydroxyapatite as an ingredient, but none of these studies actually tested Boka's finished product. This distinction might seem minor, but it's actually huge in the world of advertising regulation. It's one thing to show that an ingredient has certain properties in isolation or in laboratory conditions; it's another thing entirely to prove that your specific formulation, with all its other ingredients and in real-world use, delivers those same benefits. NAD found that Essor simply didn't have the product-specific evidence needed to support their remineralization claims.

The whitening claims faced similar scrutiny. Essor argued that their toothpaste could whiten teeth through a combination of the brushing action, abrasive ingredients like silica and sodium bicarbonate, and the n-HA itself, which they claimed could deposit hydroxyapatite crystals on the enamel surface to create a whiter appearance. While this theory might sound plausible, NAD concluded that Essor hadn't provided adequate evidence to support these whitening claims for their actual product.

Essor's Appeal: Fighting the NAD Nano-Hydroxyapatite Toothpaste Decision

Essor Group wasn't willing to accept NAD's conclusions without a fight. They appealed the decision to the National Advertising Review Board (NARB), arguing that their claims were based on sound science and that NAD had been too restrictive in their interpretation. However, when NARB reviewed the case in July 2025, they largely upheld NAD's recommendations. The appellate panel echoed concerns that Essor's evidence didn't directly test their products and emphasized that claims about remineralization, whitening, and breath freshening needed to be supported by studies on the actual formulated products, not just their individual ingredients.

The Broader Impact of the NAD Nano-Hydroxyapatite Toothpaste Decision on the Industry

NARB's decision was particularly significant because it sent a clear message to the entire industry about the level of evidence required for marketing claims. The panel noted that neither the FDA nor the ADA has concluded that nano-hydroxyapatite remineralizes teeth, and they found that Essor's positioning of their claims alongside product images conveyed specific product benefits that weren't adequately supported. This ruling essentially raised the bar for what constitutes acceptable evidence in toothpaste advertising and established the NAD nano-hydroxyapatite toothpaste decision as a landmark case.

What This Means for Fluoride-Free Toothpaste Consumers

The implications of this case extend far beyond Boka and Crest. For consumers who have embraced fluoride-free alternatives, the NAD nano-hydroxyapatite toothpaste decision doesn't mean these products are ineffective or unsafe—nano-hydroxyapatite toothpastes are generally considered safe to use, and many people report positive experiences with them. What it does mean is that the bold claims many brands have been making about their fluoride-free products may not be as well-supported as consumers might expect.

From a market perspective, this case represents a maturing of the fluoride-free toothpaste industry. The rapid growth of this segment has been driven largely by consumer demand for "cleaner" products and concerns about fluoride safety, but regulatory scrutiny was inevitable as the market grew. Brands that want to succeed in this space will need to invest in product-specific clinical trials rather than relying on ingredient-level research to support their marketing claims.

Dental Professional Perspectives on the NAD Decision

The dental professional community remains divided on nano-hydroxyapatite. Some practitioners are enthusiastic about its potential, particularly for patients who experience sensitivity with fluoride or prefer fluoride-free options. Others maintain that fluoride remains the gold standard for cavity prevention and emphasize that innovations shouldn't outpace proven science. This professional divide reflects the broader challenge of balancing consumer preferences with evidence-based recommendations in light of the NAD nano-hydroxyapatite toothpaste decision.

Regulatory Trends and Future Enforcement in Dental Advertising

What's particularly interesting is how the NAD nano-hydroxyapatite toothpaste decision fits into broader trends in dental industry regulation. Enforcement agencies are becoming more aggressive about substantiation requirements, and brands across all categories are facing increased scrutiny of their marketing claims. The fluoride-free segment, with its rapid growth and bold marketing promises, was perhaps inevitable as a target for this increased oversight.

The Future of Fluoride-Free Marketing After the NAD Decision

Looking ahead, the NAD nano-hydroxyapatite toothpaste decision creates both challenges and opportunities for the fluoride-free toothpaste market. On one hand, brands will need to be more careful about their claims and invest in more rigorous product testing. On the other hand, companies that do invest in proper clinical validation may find themselves with a significant competitive advantage in a market that's still growing rapidly and now worth over $6 billion globally.

For consumers, this case serves as a reminder to approach marketing claims with healthy skepticism, regardless of whether they're choosing fluoride or fluoride-free products. The science behind nano-hydroxyapatite is promising, and these products may indeed offer benefits for many people, but the bold claims some brands have made aren't necessarily supported by the level of evidence we might expect.

Lessons Learned from the NAD Nano-Hydroxyapatite Toothpaste Decision

The Boka vs. Crest battle ultimately represents a broader conversation about innovation, regulation, and consumer protection in the oral care industry. While Essor Group has stated they will comply with NARB's recommendations, they've also emphasized their commitment to continued research and science-backed innovation. This suggests that the story of nano-hydroxyapatite in oral care is far from over—it's simply entering a new phase where marketing claims will need to be more closely aligned with scientific evidence.

As we move forward, the NAD nano-hydroxyapatite toothpaste decision will likely be remembered as a watershed moment that helped establish clearer standards for fluoride-free oral care marketing. Whether this leads to better products, more honest advertising, or both remains to be seen, but it certainly marks an important step toward ensuring that the promises brands make to consumers are backed by solid evidence rather than just compelling marketing copy.

The landmark NAD nano-hydroxyapatite toothpaste decision of 2025 has fundamentally changed how dental companies can market their fluoride-free products, creating a new standard that prioritizes rigorous product-specific testing over ingredient-level research. This case will continue to influence dental advertising practices for years to come, ultimately benefiting consumers who deserve transparency and scientific backing for the oral care products they choose.

---

Howard Law is a business, regulatory and M&A law firm in the greater Charlotte, North Carolina area, with additional services in M&A advisory and business brokerage. Howard Law is a law firm based in the greater Charlotte, North Carolina area focused on business law, corporate law, regulatory law, mergers & acquisitions, M&A advisor and business brokerage. Handling all business matters from incorporation to acquisition as well as a comprehensive understanding in assisting through mergers and acquisition. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements. The information on this website is for general and informational purposes only and should not be interpreted to indicate a certain result will occur in your specific legal situation. Information on this website is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established.