Evaluation of poly(acrylic acid-co-ethylhexyl acrylate) films for mucoadhesive transbuccal drug delivery: factors affecting the force of mucoadhesion

Advances in Mucoadhesion and Mucoadhesive Polymers

“…[37] Therefore, the development of an alternative testing method, which does not involve animal experiments in assessment of mucoadhesives, is of significant importance and several attempts have been made to identify a synthetic substitute of animal mucosal tissues. Wet glass surface was tested by Shojaei et al [38] as a substrate to evaluate mucoadhesive properties of tablets and compared with porcine buccal mucosa. However, it was demonstrated that the forces of adhesion generated on the glass surface were an order of magnitude different than those from contact with porcine buccal mucosa.…”

Poloxamer 407 microspheres for orotransmucosal drug delivery. Part II: In vitro/in vivo evaluation

“…The effect of many classes of penetration enhancers such as surfactants and bile salts, fatty acids, ethanol (Nicolazzo et al, 2005;Burgalassi et al, 2006), cyclodextrin derivatives (Figueiras et al, 2009) or chitosan derivatives (Sandri et al, 2004a) has been studied. To provide a better retention of the dosage form in the site of application, bioadhesive polymers have been used extensively in buccal drug delivery systems (Burgalassi et al, 1996;Shojaei et al, 2000;Kockisch et al, 2003;Sandri et al, 2004b), hence the mucoadhesion/enhancer combination can lengthen the residence time and improve the drug bioavailability.…”

Mucoadhesion and mucosa-mimetic materials—A mini-review

“…These were able to mimic the rheological properties of mucus from the trachea, by validation against literature values of storage and loss moduli, and showed the same viscoelastic properties under various different conditions. Shojaei et al (2000) compared the adhesion of a novel mucoadhesive to wet glass with ex vivo mucosa, finding that the glass was a poor mimic of mucosa, and demonstrating that the surface 310…”