When we launched navan in late 2024, I built a simple outcome-tracking pipeline into the customer experience. Every subscriber gets an optional 30, 60, and 90-day check-in: four short questions, no email back-and-forth, two minutes total. We promised the community we'd be transparent about what we found — good, mid, or otherwise.
This is the report.
2,427 dogs on the protocol as of June 1, 2026. 1,891 dogs with complete 30/60/90-day data. Here's what it shows.
The headline
Across the 1,891-dog complete cohort:
- 91% of owners reported a measurable improvement in breath odor by day 30.
- 76% reported visible plaque reduction at the gum line by day 60.
- 68% reported sustained gum-color improvement (pinker, less red) by day 90.
- 34% reported their vet noticed a change at the next checkup — unprompted.
That last number is the one I find most interesting. It's the only outcome that requires a third party to validate the result. The first three could be observer bias; the fourth one is a vet, looking at a mouth, saying "huh, this looks better than last time."
The protocol moves the outcome where it matters most — in the chair, six months later, when a professional looks at your dog's mouth and notices.
Where the protocol works best
We broke the data down by breed size, age, and starting condition. The most consistent results came from:
Small breeds (under 20 lbs)
The core bundle cohort showed the strongest 30-day signal — 94% breath improvement. Small jaws, frequent feeders, and a smaller gum surface area mean the daily chew has an outsized impact per session. This is also the population most underserved by the existing dental-care market.
Dogs with mild gingivitis (stage 1)
The protocol works best before dental disease becomes visible. Dogs entering the protocol at stage 1 (red gum line, no visible tartar) showed the highest 90-day improvement scores — 81% sustained gum-color shift. Earlier intervention = bigger result.
Dogs whose owners committed to true daily rotation
The single biggest variable in our data — bigger than breed, age, or starting condition — was protocol adherence. Dogs whose owners reported "daily chew, almost never miss" had 4× better outcomes than dogs whose owners reported "a few times a week." That's the protocol effect.
Where the protocol works less well
Equally important. Here's where the data is more honest than the marketing:
Dogs with advanced periodontitis (stage 3+)
If your dog is already in stage 3 or 4 periodontitis, the protocol can't reverse the bone loss that's already happened. We saw clear breath improvement in this cohort, but minimal visible structural change. The protocol is preventive and early-intervention — not a substitute for a professional cleaning in a dog whose disease has progressed.
Dogs who didn't actually chew the chew
This sounds obvious but it's a real data point. About 7% of the cohort had at least one protein that their dog wouldn't engage with for more than 2-3 minutes. For these dogs, the rotation effect breaks down. Most got better outcomes by swapping that protein for a single-protein subscription of one their dog actually liked.
Very large dogs eating the wrong bundle
Early in 2025, before we launched the endurance bundle, larger dogs (50+ lbs) on the core bundle showed weaker results. The chews were too small to engage their jaws for sustained periods. Outcome data for large dogs improved dramatically once they migrated to the endurance bundle.
The surprises
The fresh-breath signal hit faster than we expected
We thought breath improvement would be a 60-day metric. It turned out to be a 30-day metric, sometimes a 14-day metric. Owners reported it almost immediately after the daily ritual stabilized. The mechanism is probably bacterial-load reduction in the oral cavity from the increased chewing time, not structural change to the tooth.
The rotation effect was bigger than the single-protein effect
We expected this directionally but didn't expect the magnitude. Dogs on the three-protein rotation had measurably better outcomes than dogs eating the same total chew minutes from a single protein. Texture variety appears to do more than we'd given it credit for. (Dr. Reyes wrote about the science of this in a separate piece.)
Owners loved the check-ins
We built the check-in pipeline because we needed the data. We didn't expect owners to like the check-ins. Response rates have climbed every quarter — 78% completion in the last cohort, vs. an industry average of around 22% for post-purchase surveys. Owners want to be part of their dog's protocol. We're going to lean into that.
What we got wrong
Two things, openly:
We underestimated the importance of bag size. Our original 3-piece-per-bag format worked for small dogs but ran out too fast for medium-sized dogs in between. We've corrected this in our 2026 packaging refresh — bags now scale to dog size.
We oversold the chew-time numbers in early marketing. Our initial "30 minutes of chewing per session" claim was based on test-population data that skewed toward gentle chewers. The real distribution is wider: 8–45 minutes per session depending on the dog. We've updated the product pages with the real range.
What's next in the data work
We're partnering with three university veterinary dental programs in Q3 2026 to run a structured clinical study comparing protocol-on dogs vs. matched controls, with vet-performed dental scoring at 0 / 90 / 180 days. This is the gold standard we're working toward — observer-blind, third-party-scored outcomes. We'll publish results regardless of what they show.
The protocol has been quietly working for our founding cohort. The next 24 months are about proving it the way it deserves to be proven.
Dr. Priya Kapoor is a public health veterinarian with a focus on canine periodontal disease epidemiology. She designed and runs the 30/60/90-day outcome tracking program for the navan community. All data above is from the NAVAN 2026 community cohort (n=1,891 complete responses).
