AAPS PharmSciTech

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 1321–1332 | Cite as

Comparative Evaluation of Porous Versus Nonporous Mucoadhesive Films as Buccal Delivery System of Glibenclamide

  • Ajay Kumar
  • Vikas Bali
  • Manish Kumar
  • Kamla PathakEmail author
Research Article


The present research work focused on the comparative assessment of porous versus nonporous films in order to develop a suitable buccoadhesive device for the delivery of glibenclamide. Both films were prepared by solvent casting technique using the 32 full factorial design, developing nine formulations (F1–F9). The films were evaluated for ex vivo mucoadhesive force, ex vivo mucoadhesion time, in vitro drug release (using a modified flow-through drug release apparatus), and ex vivo drug permeation. The mucoadhesive force, mucoadhesion time, swelling index, and tensile strength were observed to be directly proportional to the content of HPMC K4M. The optimized porous film (F4) showed an in vitro drug release of 84.47 ± 0.98%, ex vivo mucoadhesive force of 0.24 ± 0.04 N, and ex vivo mucoadhesion time of 539.11 ± 3.05 min, while the nonporous film (NF4) with the same polymer composition showed a release of 62.66 ± 0.87%, mucoadhesive force of 0.20 ± 0.05 N, and mucoadhesive time of 510 ± 2.00 min. The porous film showed significant differences for drug release and mucoadhesion time (p < 0.05) versus the nonporous film. The mechanism of drug release was observed to follow non-Fickian diffusion (0.1 < n < 0.5) for both porous and nonporous films. Ex vivo permeation studies through chicken buccal mucosa indicated improved drug permeation in porous films versus nonporous films. The present investigation established porous films to be a cost-effective buccoadhesive delivery system of glibenclamide.


buccoadhesive drug delivery glibenclamide in vitro release and ex vivo permeation porous film 



The authors are thankful to Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (Sikkim, India) for providing the gift sample of glibenclamide.


  1. 1.
    Bhanja S, Ellaiah P, Choudhury R, Murthy KVR, Panigrahi B, Padhy SK. Formulation, development and evaluation of mucoadhesive buccal patches of methotrexate. J Adv Pharm Res. 2010;1:17–25.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rossi S, Sandri G, Caramella CM. Buccal drug delivery: a challenge already won? Drug Discov Today Technol. 2005;2:59–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Swamy PV, Kumar AT, Shirsand SB, Patil AN, Farhana L. Design and evaluation of buccal patches of granisetron hydrochloride. Ind J Pharm Edu Res. 2010;44:95–101.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chaudhary R, Qureshi MS, Patel J, Panigrahi UP, Giri IC. Formulation, development and in vitro evaluation of mucoadhesive buccal patches of methotrexate. Int J Pharm Sci Res. 2010;1:357–65.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    McElnay JC, Hughes CM. Drug delivery—buccal route. In: Swarbrick J, Boylan JC, editors. Encyclopedia of pharmaceutical technology. New York: Dekker; 2002. p. 800–9.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wong CF, Yuen KH, Peh KK. Formulation and evaluation of controlled release Eudragit buccal patches. Int J Pharm. 1999;178:11–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Patel VM, Prajapati BG, Patel MM. Formulation, evaluation and comparison of bilayered and multilayered mucoadhesive buccal devices of propranolol hydrochloride. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2007;8:E1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nafee NA, Ismail FA, Boraie NA, Mortada LM. Mucoadhesive buccal patches of miconazole nitrate: in vitro/in vivo performance and effect of ageing. Int J Pharm. 2003;264:1–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Satishbabu BK, Srinivasan. Formulation and evaluation of buccoadhesive films of atenolol. Ind J Pharm Sci. 2008;70:175–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Park CR, Munday DL. Evaluation of selected polysaccharide excipient in buccoadhesive tablets for sustained release of nicotine. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2004;30:609–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alur HH, Johnston TP, Mitra AK. Peptides and proteins: buccal absorption. In: Swarbrick J, Boylan JC, editors. Encyclopedia of pharmaceutical technology. New York: Dekker; 2001. p. 206.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Philip AK, Srivastava M, Pathak K. Buccoadhesive gels of glibenclamide: a means for achieving enhanced bioavailability. Drug Deliv. 2009;16:405–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gaudanavar PS, Bagali RS, Patil SM, Chandashkhara S. Formulation and in vitro evaluation of mucoadhesive buccal films of glibenclamide. Der Pharmacia Lettre. 2010;2:382–7.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marikanti R, Kumar AK, Nagaraju I, Sowjanya TL, Srikanth B, Venkateswarlu G. Design and in vitro evaluation of drug release and bioadhesive properties from buccoadhesive tablets of glibenclamide for systemic delivery. J Chem Pharm Res. 2010;2:291–303.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Anders R, Merkle HP. Evaluation of laminated mucoadhesive patches for buccal drug delivery. Int J Pharm. 1989;49:231–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ilango R, Kavimani S, Mullaicharam AR, Jayakar B. In vitro studies on buccal strips of glibenclamide using chitosan. Ind J Pharm Sci. 1997;59:232–5.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Muzib YI, Kumari KS. Mucoadhesive buccal films of glibenclamide: development and evaluation. Int J Pharm Investig. 2011;1:42–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Attama AA, Akpa PA, Onugwu LE, Igwilo G. Novel buccoadhesive delivery system of hydrochlorothiazide formulated with ethyl cellulose–hydroxypropyl methylcellulose interpolymer complex. Sci Res Essays. 2008;3:343–7.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Semalty M, Semalty A, Kumar G, Juyal V. Development of mucoadhesive buccal films of glipizide. Int J Pharm Sci Nanotechnol. 2008;1:184–90.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Peppas NA. Analysis of Fickian and non-Fickian drug release from polymers. Pharm Acta Helv. 1985;60:110–1.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Park H, Robinson JR. Physico-chemical properties of water insoluble polymers important to mucin epithelial adhesion. J Control Rel. 1985;2:47–57.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Junginger HE, Hoogstaate JA, Verhoef JC. Recent advances in buccal drug delivery and absorption—in vitro and in vivo studies. J Control Release. 1999;62:149–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chen JL, Cyr GN. Compositions producing adhesion through hydration. In: Manly RS, editor. Adhesion in biological systems. London: Academic Press; 1970. p. 163–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Koland M, Charyulu RN, Prabhu P. Mucoadhesive films of losartan potassium for buccal delivery: design and characterization. Ind J Pharm Educ Res. 2010;44:315–23.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Majithiya RJ, Raval AJ, Umrethia ML, Ghosh PK, Murthy RSR. Enhancement of mucoadhesion by blending anionic, cationic and nonionic polymers. Drug Deliv Technol. 2008;8:40–5.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Morales JO, McConville JT. Manufacture and characterization of mucoadhesive buccal films. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2011;77:187–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Korsmeyer RW, Gurny R, Doelker E, Buri P, Peppas NA. Mechanism of solute release from porous hydrophilic polymers. Int J Pharm. 1983;15:25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pathak K. Mucoadhesion—a prerequisite or a constraint in nasal drug delivery? Int J Pharm Investig. 2011;2:62–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rao MRP, Borate SG, Thanki KC, Ranpise AA, Parikh GN. Development and in vitro evaluation of floating rosiglitazone maleate microspheres. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2009;35:834–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Desai KGH, Kumar TMP. Preparation and evaluation of a novel buccal adhesive system. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2004;5:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jain A, Ghosh B, Nayak S, Soni V. A study of transdermal delivery of glibenclamide using iontophoresis. Int J Health Res. 2009;2:83–91.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Anlar S, Capan Y, Hincal A. Physico-chemical and bioadhesive properties of polyacrylic acid polymers. Pharmazie. 1993;48:285–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ajay Kumar
    • 1
  • Vikas Bali
    • 1
  • Manish Kumar
    • 1
  • Kamla Pathak
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of PharmaceuticsRajiv Academy for PharmacyMathuraIndia

Personalised recommendations