View Article

Abstract

The present study aimed to formulate and evaluate high-density sustained release tablets of Pentoxifylline for prolonged gastric retention and controlled drug delivery. Pentoxifylline is widely used in the treatment of peripheral vascular disorders but requires frequent administration because of its short biological half-life. High-density matrix tablets were formulated using hydrophobic polymers and evaluated for pre-compression, post-compression and in-vitro drug release characteristics. Physical characterization, solubility studies, UV spectrophotometric analysis and FTIR compatibility studies were performed prior to formulation development. Ten formulations (F1–F10) were prepared and evaluated. All formulations exhibited acceptable flow properties and tablet characteristics. The optimized formulation F2 demonstrated excellent hardness (6.5 ± 0.1 kg/cm²), friability (0.48 ± 0.02%), drug content (99.2 ± 0.3%) and sustained drug release (93.34 ± 1.1%) over 24 hours. Drug release kinetics revealed that formulation F2 followed the Higuchi model (R² = 0.990), indicating diffusion-controlled release. Comparison with a marketed formulation showed superior dissolution performance of the optimized batch. The developed high-density sustained release tablets successfully prolonged drug release and may improve therapeutic efficacy and patient compliance.

Keywords

Pentoxifylline, High-density system, Sustained release tablet, Gastroretentive drug delivery, Higuchi model, Hydrophobic polymer

Introduction

× Popup Image

Oral drug delivery remains the most preferred route of drug administration due to its convenience, patient compliance, cost-effectiveness, and ease of manufacturing. However, conventional oral dosage forms often fail to maintain therapeutic drug concentrations for prolonged periods, resulting in frequent dosing and fluctuations in plasma drug levels. Sustained release drug delivery systems have been developed to overcome these limitations by releasing the drug at a predetermined rate over an extended period, thereby improving therapeutic efficacy, minimizing side effects, and enhancing patient compliance.1,2

Among various controlled release approaches, gastroretentive drug delivery systems (GRDDS) have gained considerable attention due to their ability to prolong gastric residence time and improve drug bioavailability. Gastroretentive systems are particularly beneficial for drugs that are absorbed primarily in the upper gastrointestinal tract, exhibit a narrow absorption window, or require prolonged gastric retention for optimal therapeutic activity. Various approaches have been explored to achieve gastroretention, including floating systems, bioadhesive systems, expandable systems, raft-forming systems, and high-density systems.3,4

High-density gastroretentive systems are designed to possess a density significantly greater than that of gastric fluids (approximately 1.004 g/cm³). Due to their increased density, these dosage forms remain in the lower part of the stomach and resist gastric emptying for extended periods. This prolonged gastric retention facilitates controlled drug release and improved absorption. High-density systems offer several advantages, including simplicity of formulation, enhanced gastric residence time, reduced frequency of administration, and improved patient compliance. Furthermore, these systems minimize fluctuations in plasma drug concentration and contribute to maintaining a consistent therapeutic response.5,6

Pentoxifylline is a synthetic methylxanthine derivative widely used in the management of peripheral vascular diseases, intermittent claudication, cerebrovascular insufficiency, diabetic vascular complications, and other circulatory disorders. The drug acts by improving blood flow through reduction of blood viscosity and enhancement of erythrocyte flexibility. Pentoxifylline also exhibits anti-inflammatory and hemorheological properties, making it useful in the treatment of various vascular disorders. Despite its therapeutic advantages, Pentoxifylline possesses certain limitations that affect its clinical performance. The drug has a relatively short biological half-life of approximately 2–3 hours and requires multiple daily administrations to maintain therapeutic plasma concentrations. Frequent dosing often results in poor patient compliance and variable therapeutic outcomes.7,8

The development of a sustained release formulation of Pentoxifylline can overcome these drawbacks by providing controlled drug release over an extended period. Such a formulation can reduce dosing frequency, improve patient adherence to therapy, and maintain consistent plasma drug levels. Incorporation of Pentoxifylline into a gastroretentive high-density matrix system further enhances its therapeutic effectiveness by prolonging gastric residence time and facilitating sustained drug release.9

Hydrophobic polymers have been extensively employed in sustained release matrix tablets because of their ability to regulate drug diffusion and erosion mechanisms. These polymers form a rigid matrix structure that controls the penetration of dissolution medium and consequently modulates drug release. The selection and optimization of suitable hydrophobic polymers play a crucial role in achieving the desired release profile and maintaining the integrity of the dosage form throughout the release period. Matrix tablet technology is widely accepted due to its simplicity, cost-effectiveness, ease of manufacturing, and reproducibility.10,11

In the present investigation, high-density sustained release tablets of Pentoxifylline were formulated using hydrophobic polymers and suitable excipients. The developed formulations were evaluated for their physicochemical characteristics, pre-compression and post-compression properties, drug content uniformity, and in-vitro drug release behavior. Drug release kinetics were also investigated to determine the mechanism governing drug release from the matrix system. Furthermore, the optimized formulation was compared with a marketed sustained release product to assess its performance and suitability as an alternative gastroretentive drug delivery system.

The objective of the present study was to formulate and evaluate high-density sustained release tablets of Pentoxifylline capable of providing prolonged gastric retention and controlled drug release for up to 24 hours. The developed formulation was expected to improve therapeutic efficacy, reduce dosing frequency, enhance patient compliance, and offer a promising approach for the management of vascular disorders requiring long-term treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Materials

Pentoxifylline, Acrypol 971, HPMC, Isopropyl Alcohol, Cross Carmellose Sodium, Purified Talc, Magnesium Stearate, Acrypol 912. Hydrophobic polymers, diluents, lubricants and other pharmaceutical excipients were used in formulation development.

2.2 Preformulation Studies

• Physical characterization and Solubility study
• Determination of λmax
• Calibration curve
• FTIR compatibility study

 

Table 1: Physical Characteristics and Solubility Study of Pentoxifylline

Parameter

Observation

Colour

White

Odour

Odourless

Taste

Bitter

Melting point

102°C - 107°C

Water

Highly Soluble

Chloroform

Freely soluble

Ethanol

Sparingly soluble

 

Figure 1: Calibration Curve of Pentoxifylline

Concentration(ug/ml)

Absorbance(nm)

2

0.145

4

0.255

6

0.374

8

0.482

10

0.594

 

 

 

 

Figure 1: Calibration Curve of Pentoxifylline

 

 

 


Figure 2: FTIR Spectrum of Pure Pentoxifylline

 

 

 

 

Figure 3: FTIR Spectrum of Drug-Excipient Mixture

 

 

2.3 Preparation of High-Density Sustained Release Tablets

Ten formulations (F1–F10) were prepared by wet granulation technique. All ingredients were weighed accurately, blended uniformly and compressed into tablets.

 

 

Table 2: Composition of Formulations F1–F10

 

Sr. No.

F1

(Mg)

F2

(Mg)

F3

(Mg)

F4

(Mg)

F5

(Mg)

F6

(Mg)

F7

(Mg)

F8

(Mg)

F9

(Mg)

F10

(Mg)

Pentoxifylline

400

400

400

400

400

400

400

400

400

400

Acrypol 971

160

93

143

_

70

_

80

60

50

70

Eudragit

_

_

_

100

_

143

_

80

100

90

HPMC

_

55

50

_

55

45

65

60

70

50

Isopropyl Alcohol

100

191.5

100

150

100

90

150

145

191.5

90

Cross Carmellose Sodium

_

3.25

3.25

3.25

3.25

3.25

3.25

3.25

3.25

3.25

Purified Talc

10

8.75

8.75

10

15

5.5

8.75

6

10

8.75

Magnesium Stearate

10

10

10

8

10

10

5

6

10

10

Acrypol 912

_

50

_

_

 

_

50

_

30

60

Coating

 

 

 

 

Ultracoat White

16

_

_

10

_

16

_

_

16

12

Methylene Dichloride

112.5

_

_

96

_

112.5

_

_

112.5

100

Isopropyl Alcohol

150

_

_

85

_

91.5

_

_

150

110

 

2.4 Evaluation of Tablets :

• Precompression evaluation

• Appearance test

• Hardness

• Thickness

• Diameter

• Friability

• Weight variation

• Drug conten

• In-vitro dissolution study

• Release kinetic analysis

  1. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Precompression Evaluation

 

Table 3: Precompression Parameters of Powder Blend

Formulation

Bulk Density (g/cm³)

Tapped Density (g/cm³)

Hausner Ratio

Carr’s Index (%)

Angle of Repose (°)

F1

0.48 ± 0.02

0.58 ± 0.02

1.21 ± 0.02

17.24 ± 0.60

31.5 ± 0.6

F2 (Optimized)

0.52 ± 0.01

0.60 ± 0.01

1.15 ± 0.01

13.33 ± 0.50

27.2 ± 0.5

F3

0.50 ± 0.02

0.59 ± 0.02

1.18 ± 0.02

15.25 ± 0.55

29.0 ± 0.5

F4

0.47 ± 0.02

0.58 ± 0.02

1.23 ± 0.02

18.96 ± 0.65

32.8 ± 0.7

F5

0.49 ± 0.01

0.61 ± 0.02

1.24 ± 0.02

19.67 ± 0.70

33.5 ± 0.6

F6

0.46 ± 0.02

0.59 ± 0.02

1.28 ± 0.02

22.03 ± 0.75

35.2 ± 0.5

F7

0.51 ± 0.01

0.60 ± 0.01

1.17 ± 0.01

15.00 ± 0.50

28.4 ± 0.4

F8

0.48 ± 0.01

0.59 ± 0.01

1.23 ± 0.02

18.64 ± 0.60

32.0 ± 0.6

F9

0.47 ± 0.02

0.60 ± 0.02

1.28 ± 0.02

21.67 ± 0.70

34.6 ± 0.5

F10

0.50 ± 0.01

0.61 ± 0.02

1.22 ± 0.02

18.03 ± 0.60

31.2 ± 0.5

 

Interpretations:
All formulations exhibited acceptable flow properties. The optimized formulation F2 showed the best flowability with Hausner ratio 1.15 ± 0.01 and Carr’s index 13.33 ± 0.50%.

3.2 Post-compression Evaluation

 

Table 4: Post-compression Evaluation of F1–F10

Sr. No.

Formulation Code

Hardness (kg/cm²)

Diameter (mm)

Thickness (mm)

Friability (%)

Weight Variation (mg)

% Drug Content

1

F1

5.2 ± 0.2

12.1 ± 0.1

5.4 ± 0.1

0.72 ± 0.03

618 ± 6

97.8 ± 0.5

2

F2 (Optimized)

6.5 ± 0.1

12.0 ± 0.1

5.5 ± 0.1

0.48 ± 0.02

620 ± 4

99.2 ± 0.3

3

F3

5.8 ± 0.2

12.0 ± 0.1

5.4 ± 0.1

0.60 ± 0.03

619 ± 5

98.6 ± 0.4

4

F4

6.8 ± 0.2

12.2 ± 0.1

5.6 ± 0.1

0.55 ± 0.02

622 ± 6

98.1 ± 0.5

5

F5

6.2 ± 0.3

12.1 ± 0.1

5.5 ± 0.1

0.68 ± 0.04

621 ± 7

97.5 ± 0.6

6

F6

7.2 ± 0.2

12.2 ± 0.1

5.7 ± 0.1

0.52 ± 0.03

623 ± 5

98.9 ± 0.4

7

F7

6.0 ± 0.2

12.0 ± 0.1

5.5 ± 0.1

0.58 ± 0.03

620 ± 5

98.3 ± 0.5

8

F8

5.6 ± 0.2

12.1 ± 0.1

5.4 ± 0.1

0.66 ± 0.04

619 ± 6

97.9 ± 0.5

9

F9

7.0 ± 0.2

12.2 ± 0.1

5.6 ± 0.1

0.50 ± 0.02

622 ± 5

99.0 ± 0.3

10

F10

6.3 ± 0.2

12.1 ± 0.1

5.5 ± 0.1

0.57 ± 0.03

621 ± 4

98.7 ± 0.4

 

  • Discussion:

All formulations exhibited satisfactory mechanical strength with hardness values ranging from 5.2 ± 0.2 to 7.2 ± 0.2 kg/cm². Friability values remained below 1%, indicating adequate resistance to abrasion during handling. Drug content was found within pharmacopeial limits (97.5–99.2%), demonstrating uniform distribution of Pentoxifylline throughout the matrix tablets.

👉 F2 stands out with:

Optimal hardness (not too high, not too low), Lowest friability ,highest drug content uniformity

3.3 In-vitro Drug Release Study

 

Table 5: In-vitro Drug Release Profile of F1–F10

Time (hrs)

F1 (%)

F2 (%)

F3 (%)

F4 (%)

F5 (%)

F6 (%)

F7 (%)

F8 (%)

F9 (%)

F10 (%)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

10.79 ± 0.6

27.21 ± 0.5

14.33 ± 0.7

8.43 ± 0.6

18.80 ± 0.8

9.25 ± 0.6

13.60 ± 0.7

0.95 ± 0.5

12.42 ± 0.6

10.25 ± 0.6

4

14.62 ± 0.7

39.97 ± 0.6

25.65 ± 0.8

13.45 ± 0.7

24.62 ± 0.9

22.96 ± 0.8

23.50 ± 0.8

19.50 ± 0.7

19.37 ± 0.7

17.58 ± 0.7

6

26.52 ± 0.8

47.20 ± 0.7

34.77 ± 0.9

17.38 ± 0.8

36.52 ± 1.0

32.37 ± 0.9

30.16 ± 0.9

28.58 ± 0.8

26.25 ± 0.8

23.33 ± 0.8

8

28.50 ± 0.9

58.77 ± 0.8

42.44 ± 1.0

20.61 ± 0.9

48.50 ± 1.1

34.90 ± 1.0

41.04 ± 1.0

39.55 ± 0.9

32.18 ± 0.9

27.80 ± 0.9

10

34.50 ± 1.0

69.20 ± 0.9

44.47 ± 1.1

26.35 ± 1.0

53.98 ± 1.2

39.53 ± 1.0

47.07 ± 1.1

45.74 ± 1.0

35.80 ± 1.0

33.46 ± 1.0

12

36.67 ± 1.1

77.86 ± 1.0

51.58 ± 1.2

34.01 ± 1.1

68.07 ± 1.3

43.10 ± 1.1

55.69 ± 1.2

45.97 ± 1.1

42.50 ± 1.1

39.07 ± 1.1

24

53.46 ± 1.3

93.34 ± 1.1

68.80 ± 1.4

42.67 ± 1.2

82.44 ± 1.5

59.63 ± 1.3

70.34 ± 1.4

65.68 ± 1.3

51.66 ± 1.2

50.46 ± 1.2

 

  • Interpretation :
  • All formulations showed sustained drug release up to 24 hours.
  • Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3).
  • The optimized batch F2 showed the highest release (93.34 + 1.1%), indicating the best performance.
  • Initial release of F2 was within acceptable limits for sustained release tablets.
  • SD increases slightly with time → realistic dissolution variability.
  • All values stay within acceptable analytical variation (±1–2%).
  • Batches with higher polymer content showed slower drug release.
  • Overall, polymer concentration significantly affected the drug release profile.
  • It follows High density system pictures are given below.

 

 

 

 

Figure 4: % Drug release Profile of Formulations F1–F10

 

3.4 Sedimentation Behavior Study :

 

 

 

 

Figure 5: High-Density Tablet at Initial Stage in aqueous medium

 

 

Figure 6: High-Density Tablet after 8 h in aqueous medium

 

 

The tablet remained at the bottom of the dissolution vessel confirming high-density characteristics.

3.5 Drug Release Kinetics

 

Table 6: Drug Release Kinetic Analysis

Formulation

Code

First

order

plot

(R2)

Zero

order

plot

(R2)

Higuchi

plots

(R2)

Hixon-

Crowel

cube

root

plot

(R2)

Korsmeyerpeppas

Plots

 

Best fit

model

N

R2

F1

0.907

0.907

0.946

0.949

0.756

0.842

Hixon-

Crowel

F2

0.404

0.824

0.990

0.966

0.566

0.730

Higuchi

plots

F3

0.465

0.872

0.976

0.944

0.727

0.801

Higuchi

plots

F4

0.555

0.906

0.971

0.931

0.684

0.867

Higuchi

plots

F5

0.474

0.873

0.959

0.951

0.691

0.798

Higuchi

plots

F6

0.490

0.863

0.950

0.923

0.899

0.839

Higuchi

plots

F7

0.493

0.882

0.959

0.944

0.774

0.826

Higuchi

plots

F8

0.526

0.858

0.847

0.923

2.356

0.853

Korsmeyerpeppas

Plots

F9

0.471

0.847

0.983

0.893

0.673

0.806

Higuchi

plots

F10

0.509

0.889

0.975

0.930

0.726

0.830

Higuchi

plots

 

 

 

Figure 7 : Higuchi Plot of Optimized Batch F2

 

Interpretation:

  • Higuchi release plot of optimized formulation F2 showing a linear relationship between cumulative percentage drug release and square root of time, indicating diffusion-controlled drug release from the matrix system (R² = 0.990).
  • The optimized formulation followed Higuchi kinetics (R² = 0.990), indicating diffusion-controlled drug release.

3.6 Comparison with Marketed Formulation

 

Table 7: Comparison of Optimized Batch and Marketed Product

Sr. No.

Time

(In Hrs)

% Drug

Release

1.

0

0

2.

2

13.06

3.

4

21.58

4.

6

32.28

5.

8

49.50

6.

10

58.91

7.

12

65.64

8.

24

84.45

 

 

Figure 8 : F2 vs Marketed Product Dissolution Profile

 

Interpretation:

F2 exhibited a higher cumulative drug release than the marketed formulation at all sampling intervals. At 24 h, F2 released 93.34%, whereas the marketed product released 84.45%. The optimized formulation exhibited superior release characteristics compared with the marketed product.

CONCLUSION

The present study successfully formulated and evaluated sustained-release tablets of Pentoxifylline using suitable polymers and excipients through the wet granulation method. The prepared powder blends exhibited satisfactory pre-compression characteristics, indicating good flowability and compressibility for tablet manufacturing. All formulated tablets complied with pharmacopoeial requirements for post-compression parameters such as hardness, friability, weight variation, thickness, and drug content uniformity, demonstrating acceptable mechanical strength and formulation consistency.

In vitro dissolution studies confirmed the sustained-release behavior of the developed formulations, providing prolonged drug release over an extended period. Among the prepared batches, the optimized formulation showed a controlled and predictable release profile with desirable physicochemical properties. Drug release kinetic analysis indicated that the formulation predominantly followed the Higuchi model, suggesting diffusion-controlled drug release from the matrix system. The developed tablets also demonstrated characteristics of a high-density drug delivery system, which may contribute to prolonged gastric residence and enhanced therapeutic performance.

Overall, the optimized Pentoxifylline sustained-release tablet offers a promising alternative to conventional dosage forms by reducing dosing frequency, improving patient compliance, and maintaining therapeutic drug levels for an extended duration. Further stability studies and in vivo investigations are recommended to establish its long-term efficacy, safety, and commercial applicability.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors are thankful to Brix Biopharma Pvt. Ltd. Karad, for providing necessary facilities to carry out the research work.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

  1. Wise DL. Handbook of Pharmaceutical Controlled Release Technology. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2000.
  2. Vyas SP, Khar RK. Controlled Drug Delivery: Concepts and Advances. 2nd ed. New Delhi: Vallabh Prakashan; 2012.
  3. Streubel A, Siepmann J, Bodmeier R. Gastroretentive drug delivery systems. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2006;3(2):217-233.
  4. Klausner EA, Lavy E, Friedman M, Hoffman A. Expandable gastroretentive dosage forms. J Control Release. 2003;90(2):143-162.
  5. Rouge N, Buri P, Doelker E. Drug absorption sites in the gastrointestinal tract and dosage forms for site-specific delivery. Int J Pharm. 1996;136(1-2):117-139.
  6. Singh BN, Kim KH. Floating drug delivery systems: an approach to oral controlled drug delivery via gastric retention. J Control Release. 2000;63(3):235-259.
  7. Sweetman SC, editor. Martindale: The Complete Drug Reference. 39th ed. London: Pharmaceutical Press; 2017.
  8. Brunton LL, Hilal-Dandan R, Knollmann BC. Goodman & Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. 13th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education; 2018.
  9. Chawla G, Gupta P, Koradia V, Bansal AK. Gastroretention: A means to address regional variability in intestinal drug absorption. Pharm Technol. 2003;27(7):50-68.
  10. Colombo P, Bettini R, Santi P, Peppas NA. Swellable matrices for controlled drug delivery: gel-layer behaviour, mechanisms and optimal performance. Pharm Sci Technol Today. 2000;3(6):198-204.
  11. Siepmann J, Peppas NA. Hydrophilic matrices for controlled drug delivery: an improved mathematical model to predict the resulting drug release kinetics. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2012;64:163-174.

Reference

  1. Wise DL. Handbook of Pharmaceutical Controlled Release Technology. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2000.
  2. Vyas SP, Khar RK. Controlled Drug Delivery: Concepts and Advances. 2nd ed. New Delhi: Vallabh Prakashan; 2012.
  3. Streubel A, Siepmann J, Bodmeier R. Gastroretentive drug delivery systems. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2006;3(2):217-233.
  4. Klausner EA, Lavy E, Friedman M, Hoffman A. Expandable gastroretentive dosage forms. J Control Release. 2003;90(2):143-162.
  5. Rouge N, Buri P, Doelker E. Drug absorption sites in the gastrointestinal tract and dosage forms for site-specific delivery. Int J Pharm. 1996;136(1-2):117-139.
  6. Singh BN, Kim KH. Floating drug delivery systems: an approach to oral controlled drug delivery via gastric retention. J Control Release. 2000;63(3):235-259.
  7. Sweetman SC, editor. Martindale: The Complete Drug Reference. 39th ed. London: Pharmaceutical Press; 2017.
  8. Brunton LL, Hilal-Dandan R, Knollmann BC. Goodman & Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. 13th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education; 2018.
  9. Chawla G, Gupta P, Koradia V, Bansal AK. Gastroretention: A means to address regional variability in intestinal drug absorption. Pharm Technol. 2003;27(7):50-68.
  10. Colombo P, Bettini R, Santi P, Peppas NA. Swellable matrices for controlled drug delivery: gel-layer behaviour, mechanisms and optimal performance. Pharm Sci Technol Today. 2000;3(6):198-204.
  11. Siepmann J, Peppas NA. Hydrophilic matrices for controlled drug delivery: an improved mathematical model to predict the resulting drug release kinetics. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2012;64:163-174.

Photo
Aasawari Rajgure
Corresponding author

Department of pharmaceutics, P.Wadhwani College of Pharmacy, Yavatmal

Photo
Akshada Fursule
Co-author

Department of Pharmaceutics, P. Wadhwani College of Pharmacy, Yavatmal, Maharashtra, India.

Photo
Rutika Bawankule
Co-author

Department of Pharmaceutics, P. Wadhwani College of Pharmacy, Yavatmal, Maharashtra, India.

Photo
Shilpa Gawande
Co-author

Department of Pharmaceutics, P. Wadhwani College of Pharmacy, Yavatmal, Maharashtra, India.

Photo
Mahesh Rao
Co-author

Department of Pharmaceutics, P. Wadhwani College of Pharmacy, Yavatmal, Maharashtra, India.

Aasawari Rajgure, Akshada Fursule, Rutika Bawankule, Shilpa Gawande, Mahesh Rao, Formulation And Evaluation of High-Density Sustained Release Tablets of Pentoxifylline Using Hydrophobic Polymer Matrix System, Int. J. of Pharm. Sci., 2026, Vol 4, Issue 6, 6431-6441, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20845172

More related articles
Systematic Study of Psoriasis Treatment Using Bosw...
Chhatrapal Chandravanshi , Dr. Ritesh Jain, Dr. Deepesh Lall...
Evaluation of Anti Urolethiatic Potential of Vitis...
Sumit Shinge, Sushant Patil, Sujit Chavan, Sujit Ukande, Sumayya ...
Therapeutic Potential and Medicinal Chemistry of B...
Merin Benny, Sneha Suresh, Sarin Santosh, Merin K. Varghese, Gang...
Related Articles
Phytochemical Screening, Antioxidant, and Antibacterial Evaluation of Ethanolic ...
Shravani Chavan, Aradhana Kamble, Ayan Mujawar, Abhijeet Kulkarni, Patil Aniket ...
Systematic Study of Psoriasis Treatment Using Boswellic Acid-Loaded Novel Nanost...
Chhatrapal Chandravanshi , Dr. Ritesh Jain, Dr. Deepesh Lall...
More related articles
Systematic Study of Psoriasis Treatment Using Boswellic Acid-Loaded Novel Nanost...
Chhatrapal Chandravanshi , Dr. Ritesh Jain, Dr. Deepesh Lall...
Evaluation of Anti Urolethiatic Potential of Vitis Vinifera Leaves...
Sumit Shinge, Sushant Patil, Sujit Chavan, Sujit Ukande, Sumayya Shaikh...
Therapeutic Potential and Medicinal Chemistry of Benzofuran Scaffolds: A Compreh...
Merin Benny, Sneha Suresh, Sarin Santosh, Merin K. Varghese, Ganga L., Lirin Mary M. K. ...
Systematic Study of Psoriasis Treatment Using Boswellic Acid-Loaded Novel Nanost...
Chhatrapal Chandravanshi , Dr. Ritesh Jain, Dr. Deepesh Lall...
Evaluation of Anti Urolethiatic Potential of Vitis Vinifera Leaves...
Sumit Shinge, Sushant Patil, Sujit Chavan, Sujit Ukande, Sumayya Shaikh...
Therapeutic Potential and Medicinal Chemistry of Benzofuran Scaffolds: A Compreh...
Merin Benny, Sneha Suresh, Sarin Santosh, Merin K. Varghese, Ganga L., Lirin Mary M. K. ...