Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Violeta Popovici
 -- 2353 2023-09-06 08:28:53 |
2 references update
Fanny Huang
 Meta information modification 2353 2023-09-06 08:43:01 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Ozon, E.A.; Sarbu, I.; Popovici, V.; Mitu, M.A.; Musuc, A.M.; Karampelas, O.; Velescu, B.S. Three-Dimensional Printing Technologies for Oral Films. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/48866 (accessed on 01 July 2024).
Ozon EA, Sarbu I, Popovici V, Mitu MA, Musuc AM, Karampelas O, et al. Three-Dimensional Printing Technologies for Oral Films. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/48866. Accessed July 01, 2024.
Ozon, Emma Adriana, Iulian Sarbu, Violeta Popovici, Mirela Adriana Mitu, Adina Magdalena Musuc, Oana Karampelas, Bruno Stefan Velescu. "Three-Dimensional Printing Technologies for Oral Films" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/48866 (accessed July 01, 2024).
Ozon, E.A., Sarbu, I., Popovici, V., Mitu, M.A., Musuc, A.M., Karampelas, O., & Velescu, B.S. (2023, September 06). Three-Dimensional Printing Technologies for Oral Films. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/48866
Ozon, Emma Adriana, et al. "Three-Dimensional Printing Technologies for Oral Films." Encyclopedia. Web. 06 September, 2023.
Three-Dimensional Printing Technologies for Oral Films
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/pr11092628

The interest in buccal drug delivery is under consideration due to some distinct properties compared to the traditional pharmaceutical formulations for oral administration: significantly higher bioavailability, a faster absorption rate of the drug, and substantial compliance for special needs patients. Oral films are obtained through various technologies, from conventional tools to 3D and 4D printing approaches. Three-dimensional printing can solve the formulation problems of producing oral films (OFs).

three-dimensional printing technologies oral films

1. Introduction

Oral administration is most widely used because of the low cost of therapy, convenience, and self-medication. Due to high patient compliance, over 70% of commercially available drugs are formulated for oral administration. A relatively new formulation consists of oral films (OF) adapted for buccal drug administration, avoiding gastric pH, first-pass metabolism, and enzymatic degradation of active pharmaceutical ingredients (API), and providing effective therapy for patients with special needs [1][2][3]. Oral films are novel drug delivery systems containing active ingredients in water-soluble polymer matrixes [4]. They release the drug when placed in the oral cavity by dissolving or adhering to the buccal mucosa [5]. Their action can be topical [6][7][8] or systemic [9][10][11]. The variety of active ingredients contained in OF is wide: plant extracts [12][13][14][15], herbal compounds [16][17][18], nutraceuticals [19], conventional drugs [20][21][22][23][24][25][26], antibiotics [27], antivirals [28][29], vaccines [30], insulin [31], and other proteins [32].
Oral films can be orodispersible films (fast-dissolving oral films or oral dissolving films—ODF) [33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] and mucoadhesive buccal films (MBF) [46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53]. The ODFs are formulated for rapid drug release and subsequent absorption in the oral cavity or digestive tract [54][55][56]. MBFs are designed for prolonged drug release [57][58][59]. Due to their properties, OFs are considered patient-centered pharmaceutical formulations [60]. Oral film formulations ensure high patient compliance due to accessibility, application/removal, retention, and analgesia [6]. They are usually prepared by classical methods (solvent and semisolid casting methods, melt extrusion, solid dispersion extrusion, and rolling) [33][61]. Currently, the most advanced tools use 3D printing technology and classical methods [62][63].

2. Oral Films as Innovative Dosage Forms

The main constituents of oral films are polymers, plasticizers, and API. To increase their acceptability, they could also contain other components: taste correctors, disintegration promoters, flavors, salivary secretion stimulants, and coloring agents [64][65].
Film-forming polymers provide rapid disintegration in the oral cavity and mechanical strength.
Plasticizers are responsible for the flexibility of the film, lowering the melting temperature during hot melt extrusion, increasing the film-forming ability of the polymers, and other mechanical properties. They can significantly affect the solubility and absorption of active ingredients and can be used as solubility and absorption enhancers.
Mucoadhesive polymers are required to provide optimal adherence to the buccal mucosa. The most commonly used ones are Methyl Cellulose (MC), Carboxymethyl Cellulose (CMC), Ethyl Cellulose (EC), Hydroxyethyl Cellulose (HEC), Hydroxypropyl Methyl Cellulose (HPMC), Hydroxypropyl Cellulose (HPC), Polyvinyl Alcohol (PVA), and Polyvinyl Pyrrolidone (PVP) [1][4][63][66].
Oral films’ evaluation regards multiple aspects like physicochemical and pharmacotechnical properties. In addition, oral films containing API are compared with placebo.
Physicochemical investigations are assessed using specific methods. FT-IR spectrophotometry allows the examination of the infrared spectra of all formulation components; thus, unwanted interactions between them and pure API could be detected. Oral film morphology is examined using SEM. The X-ray diffraction analysis helps to determine the crystallized or amorphous nature of the oral films’ constituents. Differential scan calorimetry (DSC) analysis determines if the API is compatible with auxiliary substances.
The pharmacotechnical evaluation measures moisture absorption capacity, tensile strength, elongation, thickness folding endurance, pH value, swelling degree, disintegration time, dissolution rate, and release kinetics. 
The aspect of solubility in saliva is more formula-oriented than API solubility. The solubility of many APIs can be increased by selecting the optimal pH, salt form, and solubility enhancers in saliva medium to accommodate most of Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS) classes 1–3. With tensioactives or other methods like cyclodextrin complexation and pegilation, the list for BCS classes three and four can be increased.
The most important aspects that should be considered include good taste for better patient acceptance, high moisture resistance and a suitable tension surface to withstand the stresses of moisture and mouth movement, good solubility in saliva, the ability to be ionized in the oral cavity, and the ability to penetrate the oral mucosa to ensure a rapid therapeutic effect.
Key aspects resulting from the literature search highlight the following: not requiring water at the disposal, no risk of suffocation, increased stability compared with liquid form, ease of application for the patient, and suitability for patients with mental disorders, dysphagia, and swallowing disorders. From the active dosage and bioavailability standpoint, oral films provide increased API bioavailability, a low dosage, ease of dosing, a high absorption rate, and are more practical.
These limitations could be diminished by the current innovative manufacturing methods for OFs through 3D printing technology.

3. Three-Dimensional Printing Technologies for Oral Films

Three-dimensional printing [67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77] can solve the formulation problems of producing OFs. Currently, buccal dosage forms are reserved for potent agents due to the limited capacity of drug incorporation. Three-dimensional printing techniques could be used to superimpose the layers of OF to accommodate more active ingredients per unit area. They also consider the mucosal surface’s limited area for drug absorption and may provide a potential solution for incompatible ingredients by compartmentalizing the buccal film layers [2]. In addition, 3D printing could provide a platform for controlled drug release over longer periods, reducing the frequency of administration.

3.1. Three-dimensional Inkjet Printing

Three-dimensional inkjet printing is an extension of conventional inkjet printing limited to a single-layer coating [3][78][79][80]. Three-dimensional inkjet printing (material jetting) enables multilayer buildup in the vertical direction using a layer-by-layer printing tool [81]. A computer-aided design (CAD) of the 3D structural system emphasizes the printing instructions; the size of each layer is automatically generated by easy-to-use software algorithms [81].
Thus, multilayer OFs achieve all the characteristics of inkjet printing: good printing resolution and a wide range of liquids or suspensions that can be used as ink materials.
Each layer must be cured before the subsequent inks are applied. The type of ink applied has a significant effect on the curing stages. Low-temperature curing by IR lamps or UV/Vis light is the most commonly used mechanism in 3D inkjet printing processes. They can be quickly set up during 3D inkjet printer setup [82].
  • Advantages
Three-dimensional inkjet printing represents a suitable method for personalized OFs.
The complexity of the structured layers did not significantly affect the manufacturing time compared to the overall size of the printed object. Manufacturing costs are very predictable and are limited to the necessary materials to be printed, each layer’s curing time, and the inkjet printer’s energy consumption. The production time can be significantly reduced (e.g., from a few days to a few hours). In addition, this method can be used to combine very different liquid inks (with different viscosities and solubilities) [81].
  • Limitations
The cure time limits the 3D inkjet’s potential to obtain fast-printed complex 3D structures. The layer thickness is also limited.
The solvents used to print the top layers could influence the underlying layers. Their properties (adhesion and delamination) could affect the entire printed structure [81].

3.2. Extrusion-Based 3D Printing Methods

3.2.1. Fused Deposition Modeling

Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) is one of the most popular techniques in 3D printing. By depositing thermoplastic filaments layer by layer and extruding them through a nozzle (either melted or softened), the 3DP structure is created, following a CAD geometry. The material is heated above its melting point in the head of the 3D printer (hot melt extrusion, or HME); then, the mixture of polymer and agent melts and deposits layer by layer as fine filaments [83]. They solidify quickly and produce the desired 3D structure. FDM enables mold reproducibility and uniformity of active ingredient concentration [84].
  • Advantages
FDM allows a wide range of filaments: Polylactic acid (PLA), Polyethylene Terephthalate Glycol (PETG), Polyvinylalcohol (PVA), Polycaprolactone (PCL), Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS), Polyphenylsulphone (PPSF), Acrylonitrile Styrene Acrylate (ASA) [83][85]. It represents a significant advantage, according to various 3D-printed structures’ destinations. Due to the FDM 3D printing technique, they cannot be easily contaminated. FDM also offers appreciable mechanical strength for 3D-printed structures [86]. It can obtain different release profiles for the printed dosage forms by changing the formulation’s 3D model design, infill percentage, or surface area [83][87].
  • Limitations
FDM is a multistep process involving prior filament preparation by HME. During processing, the repeated thermal stress led to the potential degradation of heat-sensitive drugs/polymers [88]. Even if FDM can print many details, the finest ones are limited [83][85] by the nozzle size, layer thickness, and polymer type. The final 3D-printed product’s stability and strength depend on the mechanical properties of the filaments [89]. Polymers that harden faster (with a more significant difference between TG and melting point) in the cooling step give sharper detail levels.

3.2.2. Pressure-Assisted Microsyringe (PAM)/Semisolid Extrusion (SSE)

The PAM/SSE technique uses viscous and semisolid materials for microsyringes [89][90][91]. It uses compressed air to extrude the semisolid material, leading to 3D-printed microstructures. In the PAM/SSE process, the starting material’s viscosity is highly significant and must be adjusted. If the viscosity is high, the material can clog the nozzle; if the viscosity is low, the 3D structure will not have mechanical stability during the layer formation, and the nozzle will drip. The desired 3D model structure is generated using CAD software and converted to a .stl file. After that, it is loaded into the 3D printer equipment. The CAD file changes allow the required transformations of the final 3D-printed object [89].
  • Advantages
Compared to FDM, PAM/SSE ensures continuous 3D-printed form fabrication at room temperature. The filament prior preparation through HME is unnecessary [90][92]; thus, PAM/SSE is suitable for thermo-labile drugs. The 3D printing process is computer-controlled; production time, manual labor, and costs are diminished [89] compared to conventional techniques.
  • Limitations
Incorporating solvents raises concerns about safety and stability during manufacturing and drying [90]. Optimizing the initial viscosity affects the integrity of the 3D-printed product. Nose plugging can occur during the 3D printing process. Printing optimization is essential to ensuring the mechanical uniformity and durability of the 3D-printed structure. Only aqueous solvents are suitable for the PAM /SSE technique [90].

3.2.3. Direct Powder Extrusion (DPE)

As SSE, DPE avoids the initial filament fabrication by HME. Thus, the production cost is significantly reduced, the formulation development is accelerated, and attention is moved to the single 3DP process [89].
  • Advantages
Thermal stresses are avoided, so the mechanical stability of the filaments is not a problem for manufacturing, unlike the FDM process. Single-step printing is a convenient and more practical method for on-site fabrication in hospitals and pharmacies [89].
  • Limitations
The final product has surface roughness and variable weight. If the melt residence time in the heating zone of the extruder is long, the rheological properties of the drug/excipients could be affected, and the risk of API’s thermal degradation could be substantial. Due to pneumatic pressure, material oxidation before printing can occur [89].

3.3. Liquid Crystal Display 3D Printing

Liquid crystal display (LCD) 3D printing is an emerging technology with low-cost equipment [93]. It is one of the three currently available photocuring three-dimensional printing technologies. LCD 3D printers are based on UV wavelengths. The UV light comes from an array of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) that shine through the LCD [94], used as an imaging system. As control parameters, the exposure time and scanning speed correspond to varying degrees of polymerization, influencing the light density in the projection process and the scan type. The most critical parameters in LCD 3DP are exposure time, wavelength, and amount of power supply [95]. Unlike UV light, visible light-induced photopolymerization is safe for the human body and ensures high light penetrability. Developments of photosensitive systems that can operate in visible light has attracted great interest recently and is strongly supported by LED development. Three-dimensional printers using such LED technology (e.g., LED projectors) have recently been introduced on the market [96]. With the printing process in visible light, there are many possibilities for developing new resin formulations [97] with safer photoinitiators and polymers.
  • Advantages
LCD machines have good resolution and are low-cost. Currently, the LCD 3D photocuring machine is applied in dentistry, jewelry, toys, etc.
  • Limitations
LCDs have a short functioning life and need to be periodically replaced; only 10% of the light can penetrate the LCD screen, while the rest of it is absorbed. The partial light leakage could lead to the exposure of photosensitive resin at the bottom. The liquid tank needs to be cleaned regularly. The adhesions of the printed part to the screen can determine failed prints.
As an overview, the advantages and limitations of all methods previously discussed are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Advantages and limitations of 3D printing technologies in oral film manufacturing.
Printing Technique Advantages Limitations
3D Inkjet Printing - Suitable for personalized oral films - Cure time limits fast-printed complex structures
- Complexity of structured layers does not significantly impact manufacturing time - Solvents used for top layers can affect underlying layers
- Predictable fabrication costs
Extrusion-Based 3D Printing Methods - Wide range of filaments available - Thermal stress may lead to the potential degradation of heat-sensitive drugs/polymers
- Shapes’ reproducibility and API concentrations’ uniformity - Limitations on achieving fine details due to nozzle size, layer thickness, and polymer type
- Different release profiles are achievable by changing the 3D model design, infill percentage, or surface area - Final product stability and strength depend on the mechanical properties of the filaments
Pressure-Assisted
Microsyringe (PAM)		 - Continuous 3D printing at room temperature - Concerns regarding safety and stability during solvent incorporation and drying processes
- Suitable for thermo-labile drugs - Nozzle clogging may occur during the printing process
Semisolid Extrusion (SSE) - Computer-controlled process with reduced production time, manual labor, and costs - Optimization of printing pressure is essential for mechanical uniformity and durability
- Only aqueous solvents are appropriate
Direct Powder Extrusion (DPE) - Significantly reduced production cost - Surface roughness and variable weight in the final product
- Accelerated formulation development - Risk of thermal degradation of API due to melting residence time and potential material oxidation
Liquid Crystal Display 3D Printing - Good resolution and low cost - Short functioning life of LCDs and the need for periodic replacement
- Safe visible light-induced photopolymerization - Light leakage from LCDs and exposure of the photosensitive resin
- Liquid tank requires regular cleaning
- Adhesion issues between printed parts and screen

References

  1. Shipp, L.; Liu, F.; Kerai-Varsani, L.; Okwuosa, T.C. Buccal Films: A Review of Therapeutic Opportunities, Formulations & Relevant Evaluation Approaches. J. Control. Release 2022, 352, 1071–1092.
  2. Orlu, M.; Ranmal, S.R.; Sheng, Y.; Tuleu, C.; Seddon, P. Acceptability of Orodispersible Films for Delivery of Medicines to Infants and Preschool Children. Drug Deliv. 2017, 24, 1243–1248.
  3. Vaz, V.M.; Kumar, L. 3D Printing as a Promising Tool in Personalized Medicine. AAPS PharmSciTech 2021, 22, 49.
  4. Kakar, S.; Prasad, N.; Singh, R. A Review on Buccal Patches. Orig. Int. J. Sci. 2016, 3, 4–8.
  5. Neagu, O.M.; Ghitea, T.; Marian, E.; Vlase, L.; Vlase, A.-M.; Ciavoi, G.; Fehér, P.; Pallag, A.; Bácskay, I.; Nemes, D.; et al. Formulation and Characterization of Mucoadhesive Polymeric Films Containing Extracts of Taraxaci Folium and Matricariae Flos. Molecules 2023, 28, 4002.
  6. Laffleur, F.; Krouská, J.; Tkacz, J.; Pekař, M.; Aghai, F.; Netsomboon, K. Buccal Adhesive Films with Moisturizer- the next Level for Dry Mouth Syndrome? Int. J. Pharm. 2018, 550, 309–315.
  7. Watanabe, S.; Suemaru, K.; Takechi, K.; Kaji, H.; Imai, K.; Araki, H. Oral Mucosal Adhesive Films Containing Royal Jelly Accelerate Recovery From 5-Fluorouracil—Induced Oral Mucositis. J. Pharmacol. Sci. 2013, 118, 110–118.
  8. Tagami, T.; Okamura, M.; Ogawa, K.; Ozeki, T. Fabrication of Mucoadhesive Films Containing Pharmaceutical Ionic Liquid and Eudragit Polymer Using Pressure-Assisted Microsyringe-Type 3D Printer for Treating Oral Mucositis. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 1930.
  9. Jillani, U.; Mudassir, J.; Ijaz, Q.A.; Latif, S.; Qamar, N.; Aleem, A.; Ali, E.; Abbas, K.; Wazir, M.A.; Hussain, A.; et al. Design and Characterization of Agarose/HPMC Buccal Films Bearing Ondansetron HCl in Vitro and in Vivo: Enhancement Using Iontophoretic and Chemical Approaches. Biomed Res. Int. 2022, 2022, 1662194.
  10. Kraisit, P.; Limmatvapirat, S.; Luangtana-Anan, M.; Sriamornsak, P. Buccal Administration of Mucoadhesive Blend Films Saturated with Propranolol Loaded Nanoparticles. Asian J. Pharm. Sci. 2018, 13, 34–43.
  11. Dangre, P.V.; Phad, R.D.; Surana, S.J.; Chalikwar, S.S. Quality by Design (QbD) Assisted Fabrication of Fast Dissolving Buccal Film for Clonidine Hydrochloride: Exploring the Quality Attributes. Adv. Polym. Technol. 2019, 2019, 3682402.
  12. Popovici, V.; Matei, E.; Cozaru, G.; Bucur, L.; Gîrd, C.E.; Schröder, V.; Ozon, E.A.; Sarbu, I.; Musuc, A.M.; Atkinson, I.; et al. Formulation and Development of Bioadhesive Oral Films Containing Usnea Barbata (L.) F.H.Wigg Dry Ethanol Extract (F-UBE-HPC) with Antimicrobial and Anticancer Properties for Potential Use in Oral Cancer Complementary Therapy. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 1808.
  13. Popovici, V.; Matei, E.; Cozaru, G.C.; Bucur, L.; Gîrd, C.E.; Schröder, V.; Ozon, E.A.; Karampelas, O.; Musuc, A.M.; Atkinson, I.; et al. Evaluation of Usnea Barbata (L.) Weber Ex F.H.Wigg Extract in Canola Oil Loaded in Bioadhesive Oral Films for Potential Applications in Oral Cavity Infections and Malignancy. Antioxidants 2022, 11, 1601.
  14. Popovici, V.; Matei, E.; Cozaru, G.C.; Bucur, L.; Gîrd, C.E.; Schröder, V.; Ozon, E.A.; Musuc, A.M.; Mitu, M.A.; Atkinson, I.; et al. In Vitro Anticancer Activity of Mucoadhesive Oral Films Loaded with Usnea Barbata (L.) F.H.Wigg Dry Acetone Extract, with Potential Applications in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma Complementary Therapy. Antioxidants 2022, 11, 1934.
  15. Popovici, V.; Matei, E.; Cozaru, G.C.; Bucur, L.; Gîrd, C.E.; Schröder, V.; Ozon, E.A.; Mitu, M.A.; Musuc, A.M.; Petrescu, S.; et al. Design, Characterization, and Anticancer and Antimicrobial Activities of Mucoadhesive Oral Patches Loaded with Usnea Barbata (L.) F. H. Wigg Ethanol Extract F-UBE-HPMC. Antioxidants 2022, 11, 1801.
  16. Das, R. Effective Mucoadhesive Buccal Patches: Wound Healing Activity of Curcumin & Centella Asiatica Extract Compared to RhEGF. Int. J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci. 2011, 3, 97–100.
  17. Chandrashekar, A.; Annigeri, R.G.; Usha, V.A.; Thimmasetty, J. A Clinicobiochemical Evaluation of Curcumin as Gel and as Buccal Mucoadhesive Patches in the Management of Oral Submucous Fibrosis. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. 2021, 131, 428–434.
  18. Elbayoumi, T.; Gavin, A.; Pham, J.T.H.; Wang, D.; Brownlow, B. Layered Nanoemulsions as Mucoadhesive Buccal Systems for Controlled Delivery of Oral Cancer Therapeutics. Int. J. Nanomed. 2015, 10, 1569.
  19. Subramanian, P. Mucoadhesive Delivery System: A Smart Way to Improve Bioavailability of Nutraceuticals. Foods 2021, 10, 1362.
  20. Perioli, L.; Ambrogi, V.; Angelici, F.; Ricci, M.; Giovagnoli, S.; Capuccella, M.; Rossi, C. Development of Mucoadhesive Patches for Buccal Administration of Ibuprofen. J. Control. Release 2004, 99, 73–82.
  21. Carvalho, J.P.F.; Silva, A.C.Q.; Bastos, V.; Oliveira, H.; Pinto, R.J.B.; Silvestre, A.J.D.; Vilela, C.; Freire, C.S.R. Nanocellulose-Based Patches Loaded with Hyaluronic Acid and Diclofenac towards Aphthous Stomatitis Treatment. Nanomaterials 2020, 10, 628.
  22. Pardo-Figuerez, M.; Teno, J.; Lafraya, A.; Prieto, C.; Lagaron, J.M. Development of an Electrospun Patch Platform Technology for the Delivery of Carvedilol in the Oral Mucosa. Nanomaterials 2022, 12, 438.
  23. Diaz del Consuelo, I.; Falson, F.; Guy, R.H.; Jacques, Y. Ex Vivo Evaluation of Bioadhesive Films for Buccal Delivery of Fentanyl. J. Control. Release 2007, 122, 135–140.
  24. Zhu, T.; Yu, X.; Yi, X.; Guo, X.; Li, L.; Hao, Y.; Wang, W. Lidocaine-Loaded Hyaluronic Acid Adhesive Microneedle Patch for Oral Mucosal Topical Anesthesia. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 686.
  25. Alyahya, M.; Repka, M.; Ashour, E. Lidocaine Mucoadhesive Film Fabrication Using Fused Deposition Modeling 3d Printing, 2020, Thesis for the degree of Master of Science, The Department of Pharmaceutics and Drug Delivery, The University of Mississippi, USA. Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 1827. Available online: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/etd/1827 (accessed on 15 June 2023).
  26. Olechno, K.; Maciejewski, B.; Głowacz, K.; Lenik, J.; Ciosek-Skibińska, P.; Basa, A.; Winnicka, K. Orodispersible Films with Rupatadine Fumarate Enclosed in Ethylcellulose Microparticles as Drug Delivery Platform with Taste-Masking Effect. Materials 2022, 15, 2126.
  27. Nair, A.S.; Vidhya, K.M.; Saranya, T.R.; Sreelakshmy, K.R.; Nair, S.C. Mucoadhesive Buccal Patch of Cefixime Trihydrate Using Biodegradable Natural Polymer. Int. J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci. 2014, 6, 366–371.
  28. Saxena, A.; Tewari, G.; Saraf, S.A. Formulation and Evaluation of Mucoadhesive Buccal Patch of Acyclovir Utilizing Inclusion Phenomenon. Braz. J. Pharm. Sci. 2011, 47, 887–897.
  29. Marioane, C.A.; Bunoiu, M.; Mateescu, M.; Sfîrloagă, P.; Vlase, G.; Vlase, T. Preliminary Study for the Preparation of Transmucosal or Transdermal Patches with Acyclovir and Lidocaine. Polymers 2021, 13, 3596.
  30. Tian, Y.; Bhide, Y.C.; Woerdenbag, H.J.; Huckriede, A.L.W.; Frijlink, H.W.; Hinrichs, W.L.J.; Visser, J.C. Development of an Orodispersible Film Containing Stabilized Influenza Vaccine. Pharmaceutics 2020, 12, 245.
  31. Mumuni, M.A.; Kenechukwu, F.C.; Ofokansi, K.C.; Attama, A.A.; Díaz, D.D. Insulin-Loaded Mucoadhesive Nanoparticles Based on Mucin-Chitosan Complexes for Oral Delivery and Diabetes Treatment. Carbohydr. Polym. 2020, 229, 115506.
  32. Tian, Y.; Visser, J.C.; Klever, J.S.; Woerdenbag, H.J.; Frijlink, H.W.; Hinrichs, W.L.J. Orodispersible Films Based on Blends of Trehalose and Pullulan for Protein Delivery. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 2018, 133, 104–111.
  33. Santosh Kumar, R.; Satya Yagnesh, T.N. Oral Dissolving Films: An Effective Tool for Fast Therapeutic Action. J. Drug Deliv. Ther. 2019, 9, 492–500.
  34. Serrano, D.R.; Fernandez-Garcia, R.; Mele, M.; Healy, A.M.; Lalatsa, A. Designing Fast-Dissolving Orodispersible Films of Amphotericin B for Oropharyngeal Candidiasis. Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, 369.
  35. Ehtezazi, T.; Algellay, M.; Islam, Y.; Roberts, M.; Dempster, N.M.; Sarker, S.D. The Application of 3D Printing in the Formulation of Multilayered Fast Dissolving Oral Films. J. Pharm. Sci. 2018, 107, 1076–1085.
  36. Sharma, D.; Kaur, D.; Verma, S.; Singh, D.; Singh, M.; Singh, G. Fast Dissolving Oral Films Technology: A Recent Trend for an Innovative Oral Drug Delivery System. Int. J. Drug Deliv. 2015, 7, 60–75.
  37. dos Santos Garcia, V.A.; Borges, J.G.; Vanin, F.M.; de Carvalho, R.A. Orally Disintegrating Films of Biopolymers for Drug Delivery. In Biopolymer Membranes and Films; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 289–307.
  38. Brniak, W.; Maślak, E.; Jachowicz, R. Orodispersible Films and Tablets with Prednisolone Microparticles. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2015, 75, 81–90.
  39. Hoffmann, E.M.; Breitenbach, A.; Breitkreutz, J. Advances in Orodispersible Films for Drug Delivery. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 2011, 8, 299–316.
  40. Sjöholm, E.; Sandler, N. Additive Manufacturing of Personalized Orodispersible Warfarin Films. Int. J. Pharm 2019, 564, 117–123.
  41. Shahzad, Y.; Maqbool, M.; Hussain, T.; Yousaf, A.M.; Khan, I.U.; Mahmood, T.; Jamshaid, M. Natural and Semisynthetic Polymers Blended Orodispersible Films of Citalopram. Nat. Prod. Res. 2020, 34, 16–25.
  42. Chachlioutaki, K.; Tzimtzimis, E.K.; Tzetzis, D.; Chang, M.-W.; Ahmad, Z.; Karavasili, C.; Fatouros, D.G. Electrospun Orodispersible Films of Isoniazid for Pediatric Tuberculosis Treatment. Pharmaceutics 2020, 12, 470.
  43. Ma, Y.; Guan, R.; Gao, S.; Song, W.; Liu, Y.; Yang, Y.; Liu, H. Designing Orodispersible Films Containing Everolimus for Enhanced Compliance and Bioavailability. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 2020, 17, 1499–1508.
  44. Van Nguyen, K.; Dang, T.K.; Vu, L.T.D.; Ha, N.T.; Truong, H.D.; Tran, T.H. Orodispersible Film Incorporating Nanoparticulate Loratadine for an Enhanced Oral Bioavailability. J. Pharm. Investig. 2023, 53, 417–426.
  45. Visser, J.C.; Woerdenbag, H.J.; Hanff, L.M.; Frijlink, H.W. Personalized Medicine in Pediatrics: The Clinical Potential of Orodispersible Films. AAPS PharmSciTech 2017, 18, 267–272.
  46. Preis, M.; Breitkreutz, J.; Sandler, N. Perspective: Concepts of Printing Technologies for Oral Film Formulations. Int. J. Pharm. 2015, 494, 578–584.
  47. Mukhopadhyay, R.; Gain, S.; Verma, S.; Singh, B.; Vyas, M.; Mehta, M.; Haque, A. Polymers in Designing the Mucoadhesive Films: A Comprehensive Review. Int. J. Green Pharm. 2018, 12, S330–S344.
  48. Cavallari, C.; Fini, A.; Ospitali, F. Mucoadhesive Multiparticulate Patch for the Intrabuccal Controlled Delivery of Lidocaine. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 2013, 83, 405–414.
  49. Liu, X.; Li, Q.; Wang, Y.; Crawford, M.; Bhupal, P.K.; Gao, X.; Xie, H.; Liang, D.; Cheng, Y.L.; Liu, X.; et al. Designing a Mucoadhesive ChemoPatch to Ablate Oral Dysplasia for Cancer Prevention. Small 2022, 18, 2201561.
  50. Pamlényi, K.; Regdon, G., Jr.; Nemes, D.; Fenyvesi, F.; Bácskay, I.; Kristó, K. Stability, Permeability and Cytotoxicity of Buccal Films in Allergy Treatment. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 1633.
  51. Nair, V.V.; Cabrera, P.; Ramírez-Lecaros, C.; Jara, M.O.; Brayden, D.J.; Morales, J.O. Buccal Delivery of Small Molecules and Biologics: Of Mucoadhesive Polymers, Films, and Nanoparticles—An Update. Int. J. Pharm. 2023, 636, 122789.
  52. Rohani Shirvan, A.; Bashari, A.; Hemmatinejad, N. New Insight into the Fabrication of Smart Mucoadhesive Buccal Patches as a Novel Controlled-Drug Delivery System. Eur. Polym. J. 2019, 119, 541–550.
  53. Abdella, S.; Afinjuomo, F.; Song, Y.; Upton, R.; Garg, S. 3D Printed Bilayer Mucoadhesive Buccal Film of Estradiol: Impact of Design on Film Properties, Release Kinetics and Predicted in Vivo Performance. Int. J. Pharm. 2022, 628, 122324.
  54. Ferlak, J.; Guzenda, W.; Osmałek, T. Orodispersible Films—Current State of the Art, Limitations, Advances and Future Perspectives. Pharmaceutics 2023, 15, 361.
  55. Scarpa, M.; Stegemann, S.; Hsiao, W.-K.; Pichler, H.; Gaisford, S.; Bresciani, M.; Paudel, A.; Orlu, M. Orodispersible Films: Towards Drug Delivery in Special Populations. Int. J. Pharm. 2017, 523, 327–335.
  56. Musazzi, U.M.; Khalid, G.M.; Selmin, F.; Minghetti, P.; Cilurzo, F. Trends in the Production Methods of Orodispersible Films. Int. J. Pharm. 2020, 576, 118963.
  57. Print, I.; Online, I.; Singh, C.L.; Srivastava, N.; Monga, M.G.; Singh, A. A Review: Buccal Buccoadhesive Drug Delivery System. World J. Pharm. Sci. 2014, 2, 1803–1807.
  58. Muse, M.; Dua, J.S.; Prasad, D.N. A review on buccal film: An inovative dosage form. Indian Drugs 2017, 54, 5–14.
  59. Khan, S.; Parvez, N.; Kumar Sharma, P.; Aftab Alam, M.; Husain Warsi, M. Novel Aproaches -Mucoadhesive Buccal Drug Delivery System. Int. J. Res. Dev. Pharm. Life Sci. 2016, 5, 2201–2208.
  60. Tian, Y.; Orlu, M.; Woerdenbag, H.J.; Scarpa, M.; Kiefer, O.; Kottke, D.; Sjöholm, E.; Öblom, H.; Sandler, N.; Hinrichs, W.L.J.; et al. Oromucosal Films: From Patient Centricity to Production by Printing Techniques. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 2019, 16, 981–993.
  61. Godbole, A.; Joshi, R.; Sontakke, M. Oral Thin Film Technology—Current Challenges and Future Scope. Int. J. Adv. Res. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2018, 7.
  62. Zhang, J.; Lu, A.; Thakkar, R.; Zhang, Y.; Maniruzzaman, M. Development and Evaluation of Amorphous Oral Thin Films Using Solvent-Free Processes: Comparison between 3d Printing and Hot-Melt Extrusion Technologies. Pharmaceutics 2021, 13, 1613.
  63. Chinna Reddy, P.; Chaitanya, K.S.C.; Madhusudan Rao, Y. A Review on Bioadhesive Buccal Drug Delivery Systems: Current Status of Formulation and Evaluation Methods. DARU J. Pharm. Sci. 2011, 19, 385–404.
  64. Goyanes, A.; Scarpa, M.; Kamlow, M.; Gaisford, S.; Basit, A.W.; Orlu, M. Patient Acceptability of 3D Printed Medicines. Int. J. Pharm. 2017, 530, 71–78.
  65. Fastø, M.M.; Genina, N.; Kaae, S.; Kälvemark Sporrong, S. Perceptions, Preferences and Acceptability of Patient Designed 3D Printed Medicine by Polypharmacy Patients: A Pilot Study. Int. J. Clin. Pharm. 2019, 41, 1290–1298.
  66. Montenegro-Nicolini, M.; Morales, J.O. Overview and Future Potential of Buccal Mucoadhesive Films as Drug Delivery Systems for Biologics. AAPS PharmSciTech 2017, 18, 3–14.
  67. Patil, V.G.; Mahaparle, S.; Amilkanthawar, V. 3D Printing: Opportunities and Challenges. J. Emerg. Technol. Innov. Res. 2020, 7, 828–836.
  68. Hemanth, K.G.; Hemamanjushree, S.; Abhinaya, N.; Pai, R.; Girish Pai, K. 3d Printing: A Review on Technology, Role in Novel Dosage Forms and Regulatory Perspective. Res. J. Pharm. Technol. 2021, 14, 562–572.
  69. Seoane-Viaño, I.; Otero-Espinar, F.J.; Goyanes, Á. 3D Printing of Pharmaceutical Products. In Additive Manufacturing; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 569–597.
  70. Trenfield, S.; Basit, A.W. Personalising Drug Products Using 3D Printing. ONdrugDelivery 2019, 2019, 28–32.
  71. Preeti Singh; Saroj Yadav; Nayyar Parvej; Gunjan Singh 3D Printing Technology in Pharmaceutical Industry. Int. J. Sci. Res. Sci. Technol. 2022, 9, 592–604.
  72. Godge, D.G.R.; Ghume, V.K.; Bidave, B.B.; Golhar, A.R. 3D Printing Technology in Pharmaceutical Drug Delivery. Int. J. Pharm. Sci. Rev. Res. 2021, 68, 15–20.
  73. Sahai, N.; Gogoi, M. Techniques and Software Used in 3D Printing for Nanomedicine Applications. In 3D Printing Technology in Nanomedicine; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 23–41.
  74. Mohammed, A.A.; Algahtani, M.S.; Ahmad, M.Z.; Ahmad, J.; Kotta, S. 3D Printing in Medicine: Technology Overview and Drug Delivery Applications. Ann. 3d Print. Med. 2021, 4, 100037.
  75. Gaurav; Hasan, N.; Malik, A.K.; Singh, V.; Raza, K.; Ahmad, F.J.; Kesharwani, P.; Jain, G.K. Recent Update of 3D Printing Technology in Pharmaceutical Formulation Development. J. Biomater. Sci. Polym. Ed. 2021, 32, 2306–2330.
  76. Desu, P.K.; Maddiboyina, B.; Vanitha, K.; Rao Gudhanti, S.N.K.; Anusha, R.; Jhawat, V. 3D Printing Technology in Pharmaceutical Dosage Forms: Advantages and Challenges. Curr. Drug Targets 2021, 22, 142416.
  77. Faidallah, R.F.; Hanon, M.M.; Szakál, Z.; Oldal, I. Biodegradable Materials Used in FDM 3D Printing Technology: A Critical Review. J. Mod. Mech. Eng. Technol. 2022, 9, 90–105.
  78. Gupta, M.S.; Kumar, T.P.; Davidson, R.; Kuppu, G.R.; Pathak, K.; Gowda, D.V. Printing Methods in the Production of Orodispersible Films. AAPS PharmSciTech 2021, 22, 129.
  79. Buanz, A.B.M.; Belaunde, C.C.; Soutari, N.; Tuleu, C.; Gul, M.O.; Gaisford, S. Inkjet Printing versus Solvent Casting to Prepare Oral Films: Effect on Mechanical Properties and Physical Stability. Int. J. Pharm. 2015, 494, 611–618.
  80. Uddin, M.J.; Hassan, J.; Douroumis, D. Thermal Inkjet Printing: Prospects and Applications in the Development of Medicine. Technologies 2022, 10, 108.
  81. Zub, K.; Hoeppener, S.; Schubert, U.S. Inkjet Printing and 3D Printing Strategies for Biosensing, Analytical, and Diagnostic Applications. Adv. Mater. 2022, 34, 2105015.
  82. Foo, W.C.; Widjaja, E.; Khong, Y.M.; Gokhale, R.; Chan, S.Y. Application of Miniaturized Near-Infrared Spectroscopy for Quality Control of Extemporaneous Orodispersible Films. J. Pharm. Biomed Anal. 2018, 150, 191–198.
  83. Konta, A.A.; García-Piña, M.; Serrano, D.R. Personalised 3D Printed Medicines: Which Techniques and Polymers Are More Successful? Bioengineering 2017, 4, 79.
  84. Melocchi, A.; Uboldi, M.; Cerea, M.; Foppoli, A.; Maroni, A.; Moutaharrik, S.; Palugan, L.; Zema, L.; Gazzaniga, A. A Graphical Review on the Escalation of Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) 3D Printing in the Pharmaceutical Field. J. Pharm. Sci. 2020, 109, 2943–2957.
  85. Wickramasinghe, S.; Do, T.; Tran, P. FDM-Based 3D Printing of Polymer and Associated Composite: A Review on Mechanical Properties, Defects and Treatments. Polymers 2020, 12, 1529.
  86. Mazzanti, V.; Malagutti, L.; Mollica, F. FDM 3D Printing of Polymers Containing Natural Fillers: A Review of Their Mechanical Properties. Polymers 2019, 11, 1094.
  87. Arief, R.K.; Adesta, E.Y.T.; Hilmy, I. Hardware Improvement of FDM 3D Printer: Issue of Bed Leveling Failures. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Explor. Eng. 2019, 8, 603–614.
  88. Khalid, G.M.; Billa, N. Solid Dispersion Formulations by FDM 3D Printing—A Review. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 690.
  89. Annaji, M.; Ramesh, S.; Poudel, I.; Govindarajulu, M.; Arnold, R.D.; Dhanasekaran, M.; Babu, R.J. Application of Extrusion-Based 3D Printed Dosage Forms in the Treatment of Chronic Diseases. J. Pharm. Sci. 2020, 109, 3551–3568.
  90. Long, J.; Gholizadeh, H.; Lu, J.; Bunt, C.; Seyfoddin, A. Application of Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) Method of 3D Printing in Drug Delivery. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2017, 23, 433–439.
  91. Seoane-Viaño, I.; Januskaite, P.; Alvarez-Lorenzo, C.; Basit, A.W.; Goyanes, A. Semisolid Extrusion 3D Printing in Drug Delivery and Biomedicine: Personalised Solutions for Healthcare Challenges. J. Control. Release 2021, 332, 367–389.
  92. Cano-Vicent, A.; Tambuwala, M.M.; Hassan, S.S.; Barh, D.; Aljabali, A.A.A.; Birkett, M.; Arjunan, A.; Serrano-Aroca, Á. Fused Deposition Modelling: Current Status, Methodology, Applications and Future Prospects. Addit. Manuf. 2021, 47, 102378.
  93. Madžarević, M.; Ibrić, S. Evaluation of Exposure Time and Visible Light Irradiation in LCD 3D Printing of Ibuprofen Extended Release Tablets. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2021, 158, 105688.
  94. Quan, H.; Zhang, T.; Xu, H.; Luo, S.; Nie, J.; Zhu, X. Photo-Curing 3D Printing Technique and Its Challenges. Bioact. Mater. 2020, 5, 110–115.
  95. Shahrubudin, N.; Lee, T.C.; Ramlan, R. An Overview on 3D Printing Technology: Technological, Materials, and Applications. Procedia Manuf. 2019, 35, 1286–1296.
  96. Al Mousawi, A.; Poriel, C.; Dumur, F.; Toufaily, J.; Hamieh, T.; Fouassier, J.P.; Lalevée, J. Zinc Tetraphenylporphyrin as High Performance Visible Light Photoinitiator of Cationic Photosensitive Resins for LED Projector 3D Printing Applications. Macromolecules 2017, 50, 746–753.
  97. Borges, A.F.; Silva, C.; Coelho, J.F.J.; Simões, S. Oral Films: Current Status and Future Perspectives. J. Control. Release 2015, 206, 108–121.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Pharmacology & Pharmacy
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Emma Adriana Ozon
,
Iulian Sarbu
,
Violeta Popovici
,
Mirela Adriana Mitu
,
Adina Magdalena Musuc
,
Oana Karampelas
,
Bruno Stefan Velescu
View Times: 465
Entry Collection: Biopharmaceuticals Technology
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 06 Sep 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback