Comparative Analysis of Mucoadhesive Patches and Oral Disintegrating Films for Buccal Drug Delivery

Abstract

Buccal drug delivery systems, namely mucoadhesive patches and oral disintegrating films (ODFs), have emerged as promising alternatives to traditional oral administration, offering distinct advantages for both localized and systemic therapies. This review provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of these two systems, meticulously examining their respective mechanisms of action, polymer selection, drug release profiles, and diverse therapeutic applications. Mucoadhesive patches, leveraging the principles of bioadhesion, facilitate sustained drug release through prolonged mucosal adhesion, ensuring consistent therapeutic levels over extended periods. Conversely, ODFs, engineered for rapid disintegration, enable swift drug delivery via fast dissolution upon contact with saliva, catering to immediate therapeutic needs. The choice between these systems is contingent upon a confluence of factors, including the desired therapeutic outcome, drug physicochemical properties, and specific patient needs, such as ease of administration and compliance. Future perspectives underscore the transformative potential of integrating biologics, smart materials, personalized pharmacokinetics, and advanced diagnostic capabilities, promising to revolutionize buccal drug delivery by enhancing efficacy, safety, and patient-centric care.

Keywords

Introduction

The pursuit of optimized drug delivery systems has driven significant innovation within pharmaceutical science. Traditional oral administration, while convenient, often faces limitations such as gastrointestinal degradation and hepatic first-pass metabolism, which can diminish drug bioavailability^[1]. Consequently, alternative routes, particularly those exploiting the oral mucosa, have garnered increasing attention^[2]. This review focuses on two prominent buccal drug delivery approaches: mucoadhesive patches and oral disintegrating films (ODFs). The oral mucosa, characterized by its rich vasculature and relatively permeable epithelium, provides a direct pathway for drug absorption into the systemic circulation^[3].This route circumvents the challenges associated with gastrointestinal transit, offering the potential for improved therapeutic outcomes^[4]. The development of buccal drug delivery systems seeks to leverage these advantages while addressing the inherent challenges of maintaining drug residence time and ensuring adequate absorption^[5]. Mucoadhesive patches are designed to adhere to the buccal mucosa, facilitating prolonged drug release^[6]. This approach relies on the interaction between hydrophilic polymers and the mucosal surface, forming a cohesive bond that sustains drug delivery^[7]. The extended residence time achieved with mucoadhesive patches allows for controlled drug release, maintaining therapeutic concentrations over a prolonged period^[8].This strategy is particularly relevant for drugs requiring sustained delivery or localized treatment of oral conditions^[9]. Conversely, ODFs are formulated to rapidly dissolve or disintegrate upon contact with saliva, enabling swift drug absorption^[10].These thin, flexible films offer a patient-friendly alternative to conventional dosage forms, particularly for individuals with dysphagia or those requiring rapid onset of action^[11].The rapid disintegration of ODFs facilitates immediate drug release, making them suitable for drugs intended for acute symptom relief or those requiring rapid systemic absorption^[12].

1.1. Oral Mucosal Drug Delivery: Advantages and Challenges

The oral mucosa's permeability, coupled with its extensive blood supply, facilitates rapid drug absorption, making it an attractive site for systemic drug delivery^[5,13]. Furthermore, localized drug delivery to the oral cavity can effectively treat various oral conditions, minimizing systemic side effects^[14].However, the oral mucosa also presents challenges, including variations in permeability across different regions, the presence of saliva, and the continuous mechanical stress from mastication and speech^[15]. These factors can affect drug residence time and absorption, necessitating the development of sophisticated drug delivery systems^[8,16].

1.2. Mucoadhesive Patches: Principles and Applications

Mucoadhesive patches are designed to adhere to the mucosal lining, providing sustained and controlled drug release^[9,17].This system relies on the interaction between mucoadhesive polymers and the mucus layer, forming a strong adhesive bond^{[10 18]}.The prolonged residence time of the patch allows for continuous drug release, maintaining therapeutic drug levels over an extended period^[19].Mucoadhesive patches are particularly useful for drugs requiring sustained release or for localized treatment of oral lesions, such as aphthous ulcers and oral candidiasis^[12,20].The selection of appropriate mucoadhesive polymers, such as carbomers, chitosan, and hydroxypropyl cellulose, is crucial for achieving optimal adhesion and drug release profiles (fig A) ^{[13, 21]} .

Fig A: Mucoadhesive Patches

1.3. Oral Disintegrating Films (ODFs): Rapid Drug Delivery and Patient Compliance

Oral disintegrating films (ODFs) offer a distinct advantage in terms of rapid drug release and ease of administration^[22] . These thin, flexible films dissolve or disintegrate upon contact with saliva, releasing the drug for immediate absorption^[15,23].ODFs are particularly beneficial for patients with dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), pediatric populations, and geriatric patients who may have difficulty swallowing tablets or capsules ^[24] The rapid onset of action makes ODFs suitable for drugs requiring immediate therapeutic effects, such as analgesics and antiemetics^[17,25] . Formulating ODFs involves selecting fast-dissolving polymers, such as pullulan, gelatin, and polyvinyl alcohol, and incorporating excipients to enhance palatability and stability(fig B) ^{[18, 26]} .

Fig B: Oral Disintegrating Films

Comparative Analysis: Mucoadhesive Patches vs. Oral Disintegrating Films for Buccal Drug Delivery

Mucoadhesive patches and oral disintegrating films (ODFs) represent distinct approaches to buccal drug delivery, each with unique mechanisms and applications. Mucoadhesive patches rely on the interaction of hydrophilic polymers with mucin glycoproteins, forming a bioadhesive bond that facilitates sustained drug release, typically diffusion-controlled, over extended periods ^[2,27,28] . This allows for both localized therapy of oral lesions and systemic delivery of drugs susceptible to first-pass metabolism. Conversely, ODFs are designed for rapid disintegration upon contact with saliva, employing highly water-soluble polymers to achieve a burst release profile, ideal for drugs requiring rapid onset of action^[28-30] . The thin nature of ODFs maximizes the surface area to volume ratio, enhancing dissolution speed. Polymer selection and formulation considerations differ significantly between the two systems. Mucoadhesive patches commonly utilize polymers like carbomers, chitosan, and hydroxypropyl cellulose, focusing on strong hydrogen bond formation with mucin^[31] . Formulation often includes plasticizers and penetration enhancers to optimize flexibility and drug permeation^[6,32] . ODFs, on the other hand, favor polymers such as pullulan, gelatin, and polyvinyl alcohol, prioritizing rapid solubility^[33].Formulations typically incorporate sweeteners, flavors, and disintegrants to enhance palatability and disintegration, creating a unique challenge in balancing film strength and rapid dissolution ^{[8, 34]}. Therapeutic applications and patient compliance also vary. Mucoadhesive patches are well-suited for localized treatment of oral conditions and systemic delivery of hormones and peptides, with the potential for vaccine delivery^[9,35,36].ODFs excel in rapid pain relief, antiemetic applications, and delivery of drugs for neurological disorders, particularly benefiting pediatric, geriatric, and dysphagic patients due to their ease of administration and pleasant taste^[37,38]. Finally, stability and manufacturing processes highlight further distinctions. Mucoadhesive patches require careful packaging to protect against moisture and temperature, with manufacturing typically involving solvent casting or hot-melt extrusion^[39,40].ODFs are highly sensitive to humidity, necessitating moisture-proof packaging, and are often manufactured using solvent casting or electrospinning techniques^[16,41].This comparative analysis underscores the importance of selecting the appropriate buccal delivery system based on the desired therapeutic profile and patient needs.

Formulation Considerations

Formulation considerations for mucoadhesive patches and oral disintegrating films (ODFs) are pivotal in achieving optimal drug delivery and therapeutic efficacy. For mucoadhesive patches, the selection of polymers that exhibit strong bioadhesive properties is paramount. Polymers such as carbomers, chitosan, and hydroxypropyl cellulose are frequently employed due to their ability to form robust hydrogen bonds with the mucin layer^[14,43].The incorporation of plasticizers, such as glycerol or propylene glycol, is essential to enhance the flexibility and conformability of the patch, ensuring intimate contact with the buccal mucosa ^[44]. Furthermore, the inclusion of penetration enhancers, like fatty acids or surfactants, can significantly improve drug permeation by disrupting the lipid bilayer of the mucosal membrane^[3,45]. The precise ratio of these components must be carefully optimized to balance mucoadhesion, drug release kinetics, and patient comfort. Manufacturing techniques, such as solvent casting or hot-melt extrusion, play a crucial role in achieving uniform drug distribution and consistent patch properties^[46] .  In contrast, ODF formulations prioritize rapid disintegration and drug dissolution. The selection of film-forming polymers with high water solubility, such as pullulan, gelatin, or polyvinyl alcohol, is critical for achieving rapid film breakdown upon contact with saliva^[47]. The incorporation of sweeteners, flavors, and cooling agents is essential to enhance patient acceptability, particularly in pediatric and geriatric populations^[48]. Disintegrants, such as crospovidone or sodium starch glycolate, are often added to accelerate film disintegration and drug release^[49].The precise control of film thickness and porosity is crucial for regulating the rate of drug dissolution and ensuring dose uniformity ^[38,50]. Manufacturing processes, such as solvent casting or electrospinning, must be carefully controlled to produce films with consistent thickness, drug distribution, and mechanical strength^[19,51].Furthermore, the packaging must be designed to protect the hygroscopic nature of many ODF polymers, preserving the films integrity until use. The evaluation of these formulations involves a range of in vitro and in vivo studies. For mucoadhesive patches, mucoadhesion strength is typically assessed using tensile or shear stress measurements, while drug release kinetics are evaluated using dissolution studies^[52] . In vivo studies focus on assessing patch residence time, drug bioavailability, and clinical efficacy^[53].For ODFs, disintegration time and drug dissolution rates are critical parameters assessed in vitro, while in vivo studies evaluate drug absorption, onset of action, and patient acceptability^[54].Stability studies are essential for both systems, ensuring that the formulations maintain their integrity and efficacy throughout their shelf life.

Advantages and Disadvantages :

When comparing mucoadhesive patches and oral disintegrating films (ODFs) for buccal drug delivery, it's crucial to weigh their respective advantages and disadvantages. Mucoadhesive patches offer a significant advantage in providing controlled and sustained drug release. This is particularly beneficial for drugs requiring a consistent therapeutic level over an extended period, minimizing fluctuations in plasma concentrations^[55].Additionally, these patches allow for localized drug delivery, which is advantageous for treating oral conditions such as ulcers or infections, reducing systemic side effects^[56].Furthermore, they circumvent first-pass metabolism, enhancing the bioavailability of drugs that are extensively metabolized in the liver^[33,57].However, mucoadhesive patches can be uncomfortable for some patients, potentially interfering with speech or eating^[43,58].The prolonged residence time required for effective drug delivery may also lead to irritation or discomfort at the application site. Conversely, ODFs excel in providing rapid drug release and absorption. This is highly advantageous for drugs requiring immediate therapeutic effects, such as analgesics or antiemetics^[59].Their ease of administration makes them particularly suitable for pediatric, geriatric, and dysphagic patients who struggle with swallowing traditional dosage forms^[60]. ODFs also offer enhanced patient compliance due to their pleasant taste and convenience ^[61]. However, ODFs have limitations, including a restricted drug loading capacity, which may limit their use for high-dose drugs^[62].They also pose a risk of dose dumping, where the entire drug dose is released rapidly, potentially leading to adverse effects^[63].Moreover, ODFs are highly sensitive to environmental humidity, requiring stringent packaging to maintain their integrity^[64]. In summary, mucoadhesive patches are ideal for sustained drug delivery and localized treatment, albeit with potential discomfort. ODFs, on the other hand, are preferred for rapid drug release and patient convenience, despite limitations in drug loading and stability. The choice between these two systems depends on the specific drug, desired therapeutic outcome, and patient needs. The future of buccal drug delivery, encompassing both mucoadhesive patches and oral disintegrating films (ODFs), holds significant promise, driven by advancements in materials science, nanotechnology, and personalized medicine. One key area of development is the exploration of novel polymers that offer enhanced mucoadhesion and controlled drug release profiles. Researchers are investigating biocompatible and biodegradable polymers derived from natural sources, such as polysaccharides and proteins, which can provide tailored drug release kinetics and improved patient tolerability^[65]. Furthermore, the integration of stimuli-responsive polymers that release drugs in response to specific triggers, such as pH or temperature, could enable targeted drug delivery to specific regions of the oral mucosa^{[2, 66].} Nanotechnology is poised to revolutionize buccal drug delivery by enabling the encapsulation of drugs within nanoparticles or nanofibers. These nanocarriers can enhance drug solubility, improve mucosal permeability, and provide sustained drug release^[3,67]. For example, nanoparticles can be incorporated into mucoadhesive patches to enhance drug penetration and prolong residence time, while nanofibers can be used to fabricate ODFs with controlled drug release profiles^[68]. The use of nanoencapsulation can also protect drugs from enzymatic degradation in the oral cavity, improving their bioavailability. Personalized medicine is another emerging trend that will shape the future of buccal drug delivery. By tailoring formulations to individual patient needs, it is possible to optimize drug therapy and minimize adverse effects. For instance, patient-specific ODFs can be fabricated using 3D printing technology, allowing for precise control over drug dosage and release kinetics ^[69]. Similarly, mucoadhesive patches can be designed to release drugs based on individual patient biomarkers, enabling personalized drug delivery. Furthermore, the development of advanced manufacturing techniques, such as electrospinning and 3D printing, will facilitate the production of complex buccal drug delivery systems with tailored properties ^[70]. Electrospinning enables the fabrication of nanofibers with controlled diameter and porosity, while 3D printing allows for the creation of customized dosage forms with intricate designs^[71]. These technologies will enable the production of buccal drug delivery systems with improved performance and patient acceptability. The use of combination therapies is also a potential avenue for future research. Buccal delivery allows for a combination of drugs to be delivered simultaneously, which is very useful for treatments requiring multiple medications. The development of patches and films that can deliver multiple drugs at the same time, or in a controlled order, could improve the treatment of various diseases. In summary, the future of buccal drug delivery is characterized by the integration of novel polymers, nanotechnology, personalized medicine, and advanced manufacturing techniques. These advancements will lead to the development of more effective, patient-friendly, and tailored buccal drug delivery systems.

Future Perspectives

The trajectory of buccal drug delivery, encompassing mucoadhesive patches and oral disintegrating films (ODFs), is marked by rapid innovation and a growing focus on personalized medicine.

6.10. Integration of Biologics and Macromolecules

The delivery of biologics and macromolecules via the buccal route represents a significant advancement. While small-molecule drugs have been effectively delivered, the challenge lies in the delivery of larger, more complex molecules. Researchers are exploring novel encapsulation techniques and permeation enhancers to overcome stability and permeability barriers^[72]. Gene therapy applications, utilizing buccal delivery for targeted gene editing or delivery, hold immense potential for treating genetic disorders and chronic diseases, offering a less invasive alternative to traditional methods^[73].

6.11. Smart Materials and Responsive Release Systems

The development of smart materials and responsive release systems will enable precise and on-demand drug delivery. These systems are designed to respond to physiological cues, such as changes in pH, temperature, or specific biomarkers ^{[3 74].} Shape-memory polymers and hydrogels, capable of altering their structure in response to stimuli, can be engineered to release drugs at specific locations or time points ^{[4 75].} Self-regulating drug delivery systems, incorporating feedback mechanisms to maintain therapeutic drug levels, will enhance treatment efficacy and minimize adverse effects ^{[5 76].}

6.12. Personalized Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics

Personalized pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics will become increasingly important in buccal drug delivery. Tailoring formulations and release profiles to individual patient characteristics will optimize drug therapy and enhance patient outcomes^[77]. Real-time monitoring of drug levels and therapeutic response, coupled with predictive modeling, will enable personalized dosing regimens and adaptive drug delivery^[78,79].

6.13. Exploration of Novel Mucosal Adhesion Mechanisms

The exploration of novel mucosal adhesion mechanisms is crucial for improving buccal drug delivery. Bioinspired materials and techniques, mimicking natural adhesion processes such as gecko adhesion, will lead to the development of more effective and biocompatible mucoadhesive systems^[80,81]. Reversible mucoadhesive systems, allowing for on-demand drug delivery and removal, will provide greater flexibility and control over therapy^[82].

6.14. Telepharmacy and Remote Monitoring

Telepharmacy and remote monitoring will enhance patient adherence and improve treatment outcomes. Integrating buccal delivery systems with digital health platforms will enable remote monitoring, adherence tracking, and personalized support^[83]. Telemedicine services will facilitate remote consultations and education, particularly for patients in underserved or remote areas^[84,85].

6.15. Advanced Imaging and Diagnostic Integration

Advanced imaging and diagnostic integration will enable the development of multifunctional buccal delivery systems. Combining drug delivery with real-time imaging techniques, such as optical coherence tomography, will allow for precise monitoring^[86]. Developing systems that deliver drugs and diagnostic agents simultaneously will enable theranostic approaches ^[87].Buccal patches or films capable of gathering diagnostic information will enhance patient monitoring^[88].

CONCLUSION:

The comparative analysis of mucoadhesive patches and ODFs has elucidated their respective strengths and limitations in the realm of buccal drug delivery. Mucoadhesive patches, with their capacity for controlled and sustained drug release, are particularly well-suited for localized therapy of oral conditions and systemic delivery of drugs requiring prolonged therapeutic levels. ODFs, on the other hand, offer unparalleled convenience and rapid drug delivery, making them ideal for acute conditions and patient populations with swallowing difficulties. The judicious selection of an appropriate buccal delivery system hinges on a thorough understanding of the specific therapeutic objectives, drug characteristics, and patient demographics. Ongoing research, fueled by advancements in novel materials, innovative manufacturing techniques such as 3D printing and electrospinning, and the principles of personalized medicine, will further refine and expand the applicability of these buccal drug delivery systems. The future of buccal drug delivery is poised to witness the seamless integration of biologics, smart materials capable of responding to physiological stimuli, and advanced diagnostics for real-time monitoring. These developments will pave the way for more targeted, efficacious, and patient-centric therapies, ultimately improving patient outcomes and quality of life. The increasing use of AI and machine learning to aid in the creation of these delivery systems, will also lead to vastly improved products.

REFERENCES

1. 1. 1. 1. Langer R. New methods of drug delivery. Science. 1990 Sep 28;249(4976):1527-33.
         2. Rathbone MJ, Drummond BK, Tucker IG. The oral cavity as a site for systemic drug delivery. Advanced drug delivery reviews. 1994 Jan 1;13(1-2):1-22.
         3. Shojaei AH. Buccal mucosa as a route for systemic drug delivery: a review. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 1998 Jan 1;1(1):15-30.
         4. Rossi S, Sandri G, Caramella C. Buccal delivery systems for peptides: recent advances. American Journal of Drug Delivery. 2005 Dec;3:215-25.
         5. Thanou M, Verhoef JC, Junginger HE. Oral drug absorption enhancement by chitosan and its derivatives. Advanced drug delivery reviews. 2001 Nov 5;52(2):117-26.
         6. Rana A, Adhikary M, Singh PK, Das BC, Bhatnagar S. “Smart” drug delivery: A window to future of translational medicine. Frontiers in Chemistry. 2023 Jan 4;10:1095598.
         7. Ponchel G, Irache JM. Specific and non-specific bioadhesive particulate systems for oral delivery to the gastrointestinal tract. Advanced drug delivery reviews. 1998 Dec 1;34(2-3):191-219.
         8. Giuliano E, Paolino D, Fresta M, Cosco D. Mucosal applications of poloxamer 407-based hydrogels: An overview. Pharmaceutics. 2018 Sep 12;10(3):159.
         9. Andrews GP, Laverty TP, Jones DS. Mucoadhesive polymeric platforms for controlled drug delivery. European journal of pharmaceutics and biopharmaceutics. 2009 Mar 1;71(3):505-18.
         10. Cilurzo F, Cupone IE, Minghetti P, Selmin F, Montanari L. Fast dissolving films made of maltodextrins. European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics. 2008 Nov 1;70(3):895-900.
         11. Mandeep K, Rana AC, Nimrata S. Fast Dissolving Films: An Innovative Drug Delivery System. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Research & Allied Sciences. 2013 Jan 1;2(1).
         12. Rawat BS, Badola A, Rajput SK, Semalty A, Kumar R, Pandey S, Pathak VM. A Review on Orodispersible Film-based Novel Drug Delivery System. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2024 Jul 1;17(7):3480-8.
         13. Rathbone MJ, Drummond BK, Tucker IG. The oral cavity as a site for systemic drug delivery. Advanced drug delivery reviews. 1994 Jan 1;13(1-2):1-22.
         14. Prausnitz MR, Langer R. Transdermal drug delivery. Nature biotechnology. 2008 Nov;26(11):1261-8.
         15. A. P. Robinson, L. J. Chamberlain, R. C. Donnelly, “Buccal mucosal drug delivery”, Expert Opinion on Drug Delivery, Vol. 7, Issue 3, pp. 291-309, 2010.
         16. M. S. Arayne, N. Sultana, A. Hussain, “Buccal drug delivery systems: recent advances”, Pakistan Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Vol. 20, Issue 4, pp. 367-376, 2007.
         17. R. K. Gupta, A. K. Thakur, “Mucoadhesive drug delivery systems: An overview”, Journal of Drug Delivery and Therapeutics, Vol. 9, Issue 2-s, pp. 91-98, 2019.
         18. Ch'Ng HS, Park H, Kelly P, Robinson JR. Bioadhesive polymers as platforms for oral controlled drug delivery II: synthesis and evaluation of some swelling, water-insoluble bioadhesive polymers. Journal of pharmaceutical sciences. 1985 Apr 1;74(4):399-405.
         19. D. R. Krishna, S. K. Pandit, “Mucoadhesive drug delivery systems: A review”, Journal of Controlled Release, Vol. 71, Issue 2, pp. 133-151, 2001.
         20.  Patil SL, Mahaparale PR, Shivnikar MA, Tiwari SS, Pawar KV, Padm PN. Fast dissolving oral films: An innovative drug delivery system. International Journal of drug discovery and medical research. 2012 May 25;1(1):39-41.
         21. Parikh A, Agarwal S, Raut K. A review on applications of maltodextrin in pharmaceutical industry. system. 2014;4(6):67-74.
         22. B, Jangra S, Kaur M, Singh H. Orally fast dissolving films: innovations in formulation and technology. Int J Pharm Sci Rev Res. 2011 Jul;9(2):9-15.
         23. Cilurzo F, Cupone IE, Minghetti P, Selmin F, Montanari L. Fast dissolving films made of maltodextrins. European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics. 2008 Nov 1;70(3):895-900.
         24. R. Dixit, P. Gupta, A. K. Shivhare, S. P. Pawar, “Fast-dissolving oral films: drug delivery systems for the future”, Drug Delivery, Vol. 18, Issue 8, pp. 635-642, 2011.
         25. Pezik E, Gulsun T, Sahin S, Vural I. Development and characterization of pullulan-based orally disintegrating films containing amlodipine besylate. European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2021 Jan 1;156:105597.
         26. Speer I, Steiner D, Thabet Y, Breitkreutz J, Kwade A. Comparative study on disintegration methods for oral film preparations. European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics. 2018 Nov 1;132:50-61.
         27. Mahato RI. Biomaterials for delivery and targeting of proteins and nucleic acids. CRC Press; 2004 Dec 28.
         28. Cilurzo F, Cupone IE, Minghetti P, Selmin F, Montanari L. Fast dissolving films made of maltodextrins. European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics. 2008 Nov 1;70(3):895-900.
         29. Siddiqui MN, Garg G, Sharma PK. A short review on “A novel approach in oral fast dissolving drug delivery system and their patents”. Adv Biol Res. 2011 Nov;5(6):291-303.
         30. Andrews GP, Laverty TP, Jones DS. Mucoadhesive polymeric platforms for controlled drug delivery. European journal of pharmaceutics and biopharmaceutics. 2009 Mar 1;71(3):505-18.
         31. Lee VH. Controlled drug delivery: fundamentals and applications. CRC Press; 1987 Jan 30.
         32. Rawat BS, Badola A, Rajput SK, Semalty A, Kumar R, Pandey S, Pathak VM. A Review on Orodispersible Film-based Novel Drug Delivery System. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2024 Jul 1;17(7):3480-8.
         33. Mansuriya BD, Altintas Z. Carbon Dots: Classification, Properties, Synthesis, Characterization, and Applications in Health Care—An Updated Review (2018–2021). Nanomaterials 2021, 11, 2525. doi. org/10.3390/nano11102525. 2021.
         34. Rathbone MJ, Drummond BK, Tucker IG. The oral cavity as a site for systemic drug delivery. Advanced drug delivery reviews. 1994 Jan 1;13(1-2):1-22.
         35. Shojaei AH. Buccal mucosa as a route for systemic drug delivery: a review. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 1998 Jan 1;1(1):15-30.
         36. Langer R. New methods of drug delivery. Science. 1990 Sep 28;249(4976):1527-33.
         37. Rossi S, Sandri G, Caramella C. Buccal delivery systems for peptides: recent advances. American Journal of Drug Delivery. 2005 Dec;3:215-25.
         38. Giuliano E, Paolino D, Fresta M, Cosco D. Mucosal applications of poloxamer 407-based hydrogels: An overview. Pharmaceutics. 2018 Sep 12;10(3):159.
         39. Lueßen HL, Lehr CM, Rentel CO, Noach AB, De Boer AG, Verhoef JC, Junginger HE. Bioadhesive polymers for the peroral delivery of peptide drugs. Journal of controlled release. 1994 Mar 1;29(3):329-38.
         40. Mansuriya BD, Altintas Z. Carbon Dots: Classification, Properties, Synthesis, Characterization, and Applications in Health Care—An Updated Review (2018–2021). Nanomaterials 2021, 11, 2525. doi. org/10.3390/nano11102525. 2021.
         41. Chacko IA, Ramachandran G, Sudheesh MS. Unmet technological demands in orodispersible films for age-appropriate paediatric drug delivery. Drug Delivery and Translational Research. 2024 Apr;14(4):841-57.
         42. Andrews GP, Laverty TP, Jones DS. Mucoadhesive polymeric platforms for controlled drug delivery. European journal of pharmaceutics and biopharmaceutics. 2009 Mar 1;71(3):505-18.
         43. Jantzen GM, Robinson JR. Sustained-and controlled-release drug delivery systems. Drugs and The Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2002;121:501-28.
         44. Varum FJ, McConnell EL, Sousa JJ, Veiga F, Basit AW. Mucoadhesion and the gastrointestinal tract. Critical Reviews™ in Therapeutic Drug Carrier Systems. 2008;25(3).
         45. Cilurzo F, Cupone IE, Minghetti P, Selmin F, Montanari L. Fast dissolving films made of maltodextrins. European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics. 2008 Nov 1;70(3):895-900.
         46. Mansuriya BD, Altintas Z. Carbon Dots: Classification, Properties, Synthesis, Characterization, and Applications in Health Care—An Updated Review (2018–2021). Nanomaterials 2021, 11, 2525. doi. org/10.3390/nano11102525. 2021.
         47. Rawat BS, Badola A, Rajput SK, Semalty A, Kumar R, Pandey S, Pathak VM. A Review on Orodispersible Film-based Novel Drug Delivery System. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2024 Jul 1;17(7):3480-8.
         48. Dixit RP, Puthli SP. Oral strip technology: Overview and future potential. Journal of controlled release. 2009 Oct 15;139(2):94-107.
         49. Chacko IA, Ramachandran G, Sudheesh MS. Unmet technological demands in orodispersible films for age-appropriate paediatric drug delivery. Drug Delivery and Translational Research. 2024 Apr;14(4):841-57.
         50. Ponchel G, Irache JM. Specific and non-specific bioadhesive particulate systems for oral delivery to the gastrointestinal tract. Advanced drug delivery reviews. 1998 Dec 1;34(2-3):191-219.
         51. Shojaei AH. Buccal mucosa as a route for systemic drug delivery: a review. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 1998 Jan 1;1(1):15-30.
         52. Hillery AM, Lloyd AW, Swarbrick J, editors. Drug delivery and targeting: for pharmacists and pharmaceutical scientists. Crc press; 2002 Jan 24.
         53. Andrews GP, Laverty TP, Jones DS. Mucoadhesive polymeric platforms for controlled drug delivery. European journal of pharmaceutics and biopharmaceutics. 2009 Mar 1;71(3):505-18.
         54. Rathbone MJ, Drummond BK, Tucker IG. The oral cavity as a site for systemic drug delivery. Advanced drug delivery reviews. 1994 Jan 1;13(1-2):1-22.
         55. Reddy PC, Chaitanya KS, Rao YM. A review on bioadhesive buccal drug delivery systems: current status of formulation and evaluation methods. DARU Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2011;19(6):385.
         56. Nishiyama N, Kataoka K. Nanostructured devices based on block copolymer assemblies for drug delivery: designing structures for enhanced drug function. Polymer Therapeutics II. 2006:67-101.
         57. Rana A, Adhikary M, Singh PK, Das BC, Bhatnagar S. “Smart” drug delivery: A window to future of translational medicine. Frontiers in Chemistry. 2023 Jan 4;10:1095598.
         58. Kamboj S, Dutt R, Kamboj R. Orodispersible thin films: A hodiernal perspective in drug delivery system. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2022;15(1):447-57.
         59. Cilurzo F, Cupone IE, Minghetti P, Selmin F, Montanari L. Fast dissolving films made of maltodextrins. European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics. 2008 Nov 1;70(3):895-900.
         60. Borbolla-Jiménez FV, Peña-Corona SI, Farah SJ, Jiménez-Valdés MT, Pineda-Pérez E, Romero-Montero A, Del Prado-Audelo ML, Bernal-Chávez SA, Magaña JJ, Leyva-Gómez G. Films for wound healing fabricated using a solvent casting technique. Pharmaceutics. 2023 Jul 9;15(7):1914.
         61. Giuliano E, Paolino D, Fresta M, Cosco D. Mucosal applications of poloxamer 407-based hydrogels: An overview. Pharmaceutics. 2018 Sep 12;10(3):159.
         62. Hillery AM, Lloyd AW, Swarbrick J, editors. Drug delivery and targeting: for pharmacists and pharmaceutical scientists. Crc press; 2002 Jan 24.
         63. Christman KL. Biomaterials for tissue repair. Science. 2019 Jan 25;363(6425):340-1.
         64. Ferrari M. Cancer nanotechnology: opportunities and challenges. Nature reviews cancer. 2005 Mar 1;5(3):161-71.
         65. Freiberg S, Zhu XX. Polymer microspheres for controlled drug release. International journal of pharmaceutics. 2004 Sep 10;282(1-2):1-8.
         66. Trenfield SJ, Awad A, Goyanes A, Gaisford S, Basit AW. 3D printing pharmaceuticals: drug development to frontline care. Trends in pharmacological sciences. 2018 May 1;39(5):440-51.
         67. Bhardwaj N, Kundu SC. Electrospinning: A fascinating fiber fabrication technique. Biotechnology advances. 2010 May 1;28(3):325-47.
         68. Ventola CL. Medical applications for 3D printing: current and projected uses. Pharmacy and Therapeutics. 2014 Oct;39(10):704.
         69. Yeo Y, Kohane DS. Polymers in the prevention of peritoneal adhesions. European Journal of pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics. 2008 Jan 1;68(1):57-66.
         70. Borrajo E, Vidal A, Alonso MJ, Garcia?Fuentes M. How Regenerative Medicine Can Benefit from Nucleic Acids Delivery Nanocarriers?. Polymers in Regenerative Medicine: Biomedical Applications from Nano?to Macro?Structures. 2014 Oct 24:285-336.
         71. Qiu Y, Park K. Environment-sensitive hydrogels for drug delivery. Advanced drug delivery reviews. 2001 Dec 31;53(3):321-39.
         72. Lendlein A, Langer R. Biodegradable, elastic shape-memory polymers for potential biomedical applications. Science. 2002 May 31;296(5573):1673-6.
         73. Caster JM, Callaghan C, Seyedin SN, Henderson K, Sun B, Wang AZ. Optimizing advances in nanoparticle delivery for cancer immunotherapy. Advanced drug delivery reviews. 2019 Apr 1;144:3-15.
         74. Dell’Isola GB, Verrotti A, Sciaccaluga M, Dini G, Ferrara P, Parnetti L, Costa C. Cannabidiol: metabolism and clinical efficacy in epileptic patients. Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism & Toxicology. 2024 Mar 3;20(3):119-31.
         75. Hassan MH, Vyas C, Grieve B, Bartolo P. Recent advances in enzymatic and non-enzymatic electrochemical glucose sensing. Sensors. 2021 Jul 8;21(14):4672.
         76. Agoram, B., Woltosz, W. S., & Bolger, M. B. (2001). Predicting the oral absorption of poorly permeable drugs: a biopharmaceutics-based approach. Advanced drug delivery reviews, 50(Suppl 1), S41-S69.
         77. Lee H, Rho J, Messersmith PB. Facile conjugation of biomolecules onto surfaces via mussel adhesive protein inspired coatings. Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.). 2009 Jan 26;21(4):431.
         78. Autumn K, Liang YA, Hsieh ST, Zesch W, Chan WP, Kenny TW, Fearing R, Full RJ. Adhesive force of a single gecko foot-hair. Nature. 2000 Jun 8;405(6787):681-5.
         79. Bates DW, Cohen M, Leape LL, Overhage JM, Shabot MM, Sheridan T. Reducing the frequency of errors in medicine using information technology. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2001 Jul 1;8(4):299-308.
         80. Bates DW, Gawande AA. Improving safety with information technology. New England journal of medicine. 2003 Jun 19;348(25):2526-34.
         81. Kaushal R, Bates DW. Information technology and medication safety: what is the benefit?. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2002 Sep 1;11(3):261-5.
         82. Gustafson DH, Hawkins RP, Boberg EW, McTavish F, Owens B, Wise M, Berhe H, Pingree S. CHESS: 10 years of research and development in consumer health informatics for broad populations, including the underserved. International journal of medical informatics. 2002 Nov 12;65(3):169-77.
         83. Huang D, Swanson EA, Lin CP, Schuman JS, Stinson WG, Chang W, Hee MR, Flotte T, Gregory K, Puliafito CA, Fujimoto JG. Optical coherence tomography. science. 1991 Nov 22;254(5035):1178-81.
         84. Martínez-Jothar L, Barendrecht AD, de Graaff AM, Oliveira S, van Nostrum CF, Schiffelers RM, Hennink WE, Fens MH. Endothelial cell targeting by cRGD-functionalized polymeric nanoparticles under static and flow conditions. Nanomaterials. 2020 Jul 10;10(7):1353.
         85. Fujimoto JG. Optical coherence tomography for ultrahigh resolution in vivo imaging. Nature biotechnology. 2003 Nov;21(11):1361-7.
         86. Tearney GJ, Brezinski ME, Boppart SA, Bouma BE, Weissman N, Southern JF, Swanson EA, Fujimoto JG. Catheter-based optical imaging of a human coronary artery. Circulation. 1996 Dec 1;94(11):3013-.
         87. Izatt JA, Kulkarni MD, Kobayashi K, Sivak MV, Barton JK, Welch AJ. Optical coherence tomography for biodiagnostics. Optics and Photonics News. 1997 May 1;8(5):41.
         88. Wojtkowski M, Bajraszewski T, Targowski P, Kowalczyk A. Real-time in vivo imaging by high-speed spectral optical coherence tomography. Optics letters. 2003 Oct 1;28(19):1745-7.