Save (0)



Islam et al. World Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences

SJIF Impact Factor 7.632

Volume 8, Issue 12, 77-93 Review Article ISSN 2278 – 4357



Fariya Mozammel, Irin Dewan, S. M. Ashraful Islam*


Department of Pharmacy, University of Asia Pacific, 74/A Green Road, Farmgate, Dhaka-

1205, Bangladesh.


Article Received on
02 Oct. 2019, Drug administration through the mucosal membranes (buccal mucosa)

Revised on 23 Oct. 2019, is known as buccal drug delivery. It has been introduced in 1947 when
Accepted on 12 Nov. 2019

DOI: 10.20959/wjpps201912-14974 dental adhesive powder and gum tragacanth were mixed to apply

penicillin to the oral mucosa. Oral route is perhaps the most preferred

by patients and clinicians alike among the various routes of drug
*Corresponding Author

delivery. Fifty percent (50%) commercially available drugs are

Prof. Dr. S. M. Ashraful

Islam administered through oral drug delivery system and this system has

Department of Pharmacy, more advantages due to ease of administration and patient
University of Asia Pacific, [3]

acceptance. But certain drugs have lack of efficacy due to decreased
74/A Green Road, Farmgate,

GI intolerance, bioavailability, unpredictable absorption, pre-systemic
Dhaka-1205, Bangladesh.

elimination etc. In comparison to the conventional oral medications

retentive buccal mucoadhesive formulations may prove to be a viable alternative as they can

be readily attached to the oral mucosa (Figure 1-2), retained for a longer period of time and

can be removed at any time.

Delivery of therapeutic agents via buccal drug delivery system has become highly interesting

for both local as well as systemic action. Bio adhesion is the basic process in buccal drug

delivery system. Bio adhesion is a phenomenon of interfacial molecular attractive forces

between the natural or synthetic polymers and the surfaces of biological substrate which

allows the polymer to adhere to mucosal surface for an extended or long period of time. Vol 8, Issue 12, 2019. 77



Islam et al. World Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences


Figure 1: Structure of the Human Oral Mucosa.


much more recent research subject then the other route for the past several years due to

advances of the biotechnology which introduces peptide drugs. These biomolecules cannot be

administered by oral route due to low absorption, degradation and low bioavailability. Here,

buccal process turns out to be more effective and acceptable. Buccal process is also more

effective and acceptable for short half-life drugs (e.g., midazolam) which are not suitable for

oral administration due to frequent administration. On the other hand, injectable preparations

of short half-life drugs result in poor patient compliance.



Figure 2: Anatomic Location and Extent of Masticatory, Lining and Specialized


Large surface area represented by buccal mucosa (23% of the total surface of the oral mucosa

including the tongue) makes it more fit for systemic drug delivery (Figure 2). The buccal

cavity provides a highly vascular mucous membrane site for the administration of drug. In Vol 8, Issue 12, 2019. 78



Islam et al. World Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences

humans, the permeation of drugs through the buccal epithelium is said to associate both the

transcellular and paracellular routes.


1. Drug administration is easy and therapy extinction in emergency can be facilitated.

2. Drug can be administered in unconscious and trauma patients. Bioavailability increases

due to prevention of first pass metabolism.

3. Flexibility in physical state and flexible shape, size and surface of dosage form.

Absorption rate is maximum rate due to close contact with the absorbing membrane.

Onset of action is rapid.

4. Mucosal surfaces do not have a stratum corneum in comparison to TDDS. So, the major

barrier layer to transdermal drug delivery is not a factor in buccal routes of


5. Though less permeable than the sublingual area, the buccal mucosa is well vascularized,

and drugs can be rapidly absorbed into the venous system underneath the oral mucosa.

6. Dose reduction can be achieved, reduces dose dependent side effects, and eliminates peak

valley profile. Drugs unstable in acidic environment of stomach or are destroyed by the

enzymatic or alkaline environment of the intestine can be administered.

7. Improved patient compliance due to elimination of associated pain with injections.


1. Ample dose are often difficult to be administered.

2. Patients have possibility to swallow the tablet being forgotten. Eating and drinking may

be restricted till the end of drug release.

3. [9]
Unacceptable for drugs, which are unstable at pH of buccal environment.

4. Bitter taste and unpleasant drugs that irritate the mucosa cannot be administered by this


5. Continuous saliva secretion from the major and minor salivary glands leads to the rapid

dissolution of the drug.

6. Formulation may get disrupted by the swelling and hydration of the bioadhesive polymers

due to over hydration of the formation.

7. [12]
Surface area available is less for absorption in comparision of oral route. Vol 8, Issue 12, 2019. 79



Islam et al. World Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences


1. Buccal mucoadhesive tablets: Buccal mucoadhesive tablets are dry dosage forms that

have to be moistened prior to placing in contact with buccal mucosa. Most commonly

investigated dosage form tablets are small, flat and oval with a diameter of approximately

5-8 mm. They may be prepared using different methods like as wet granulation technique

or direct compression.

2. Semisolid preparations (Ointments and Gels): Compared to solid bioadhesive dosage

forms bioadhesive gels or ointments have less patient acceptability and most of them are

used within the oral cavity only for localized drug therapy. They have the advantage of

easy dispersion throughout the oral cavity.

3. Patches and films: Patches are mainly laminates consisting of an impermeable backing

layer and drug-containing reservoir layer where drug is released in a controlled manner

from the drug-containing reservoir layer, and a bioadhesive surface for mucosal

attachment. So they consists of two laminates, with an aqueous solution of the adhesive

polymer being cast onto an impermeable backing sheet, which is then cut into the

required oval shape.

A novel mucosal adhesive film called “Zilactin” – consisting of an alcoholic solution of

HPC and three organic acids which was applied to the oral mucosal can be retained in

place for at least 12 hrs. even when it is challenged with fluids.

4. Microspheres, microcapsules, micro particles: They cause less local irritation and

provide comfortable sensation of a foreign object within the oral cavity.

5. Powders: Powder containing HPC and beclomethasone when sprayed on to the oral

mucosa of rats, a significant increase in the residence time relative to an oral solution is

seen and 2.5% of beclomethasone is retained on buccal mucosa for over 4 hrs.

6. Lozenges: They act typically within the mouth including the corticosteroids,

antimicrobials, local anaesthetics, antifungal and antibiotics.

7. Bioadhesive liquids and Hollow fibers: Liquids used to coat buccal surface are viscous

and serve as either protective agents or as drug vehicles for delivery of drug on to the

mucosal surface. Dry mouth is treated with artificial saliva solution that is retained on

mucosal surfaces to provide lubrication. Burnside et al designed a micro porous hollow

fiber of poysulfone, intended for delivery of histrelin. This fiber is intended to be placed

in the buccal cavity for oral mucosal drug delivery.

8. Buccal sprays: This type of spray delivers a mist of fine droplets onto mucosal

membrane layer. e. g. Estradiol sprays. Vol 8, Issue 12, 2019. 80



Islam et al. World Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences


1. Drug component: The drug should have following characteristics:

 Small conventional single dose of the drug.

 For controlled drug delivery it should have biological half-life between 2-8 hrs.

 Drug absorption should be passive when given orally.

 Higher tmax values when given orally.

 Exhibits first pass effect.

2. Polymers (Bio-adhesive): In the formulation of buccoadhesive dosage forms the first step

is to select and characterize the appropriate bio-adhesive polymers. In matrix devices bio-

adhesive polymers are also used in which the drug is embedded in the polymer matrix

controlling the duration of release of drugs.

3. Backing membrane: Backing membrane material should be inert and impermeable both

to the drug and penetration enhancer so that it can prevent the drug loss and offers better

patient compliance. Some examples of backing membrane include HPMC, HPC,


4. Permeation Enhancers: Permeation enhancers are substances facilitating the permeation

through buccal mucosa. Selection of enhancer and its efficacy depends on the

physicochemical properties of the drug, site of administration, nature of the vehicle and other



The adhesion mechanism of certain macro­molecules to the surface of a mucous tissue is not

well understood yet. Attraction and repulsion between polymer and mucus membrane are the

main forces for mucoadhesion. The attraction force must dominate for a successful

mucoadhesion. The mechanism of mucoadhesion is generally divided in two steps: contact

stage & consolidation stage. Each step can be facilitated by the nature of the dosage form and

its administration process.

From the figure (Figure 3) we can see that the first stage or the contact stage is characterized

by the contact between the mucous membrane and the mucoadhesive by means of spreading

and swelling of the formu­lation and thus initiating its deep contact with the mucus layer.

Again we can see in the consolidation step in presence of moisture the mucoadhe­sive

materials are activated. Vol 8, Issue 12, 2019. 81



Islam et al. World Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences


Figure 3: Mechanism of Mucoadhesion.

The mucoadhesive molecules become break free and link up by weak van der Waals and

hydrogen bonds in presence of moisture. Different enzymes responsible for hydrolysis like

pepsin, trypsin and chymotrypsin, makes the enzymatic activity of buccal mucosa [Carvalho

et al., 2010]. Different theories about the mucoaddition are as follows:

1. Electronic Theory: According to this theory, electronic transfer occurs upon contact of an

adhesive polymer and the mucus glycoprotein network. This is due to differences in their

electronic structure. This proposes to result in the formulation of an electronic double layer at

the interface.

2. Adsorption Theory: According to the adsorption theory, adhesive attachment occurs on

the basis of hydrogen bonding and Vanderwaal’s forces.



Figure 4: The Process of Consolidation.

According to this theory (figure 4), after an initial contact between two surfaces, the materials

adhere because of surface forces acting between the atoms in the two surfaces.

3. Wetting Theory: The wetting theory applies to liquid systems or low viscosity

bioadhesives which produce affinity to the surface in order to spread over it. This affinity can Vol 8, Issue 12, 2019. 82



Islam et al. World Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences

be measured by using measuring techniques for example contact angle which should be equal

or close to zero (Figure 5). According to Dupres equation work of adhesion is given by:

Wa = YA + YB – YAB

Where A & B refer to the biological membranes and the bioadhesive formulation

respectively. The work of cohesion is given by: Wc = 2YA or YB.



Figure 5: The Wetting Theory.

For a bioadhesive material B spreading on a biologicalsubstrate, the spreading coefficient is

given by: SB/A = YA – (YB+YAB) should be positive for a bioadhesive material to adhere

to a biological membrane.

4. Diffusion Theory: According to this theory, mucus and the polymer chains mix to a

sufficient depth to create an adhesive bond which is semi-permanent type where the

penetration depends on diffusion coefficient (Figure 6).



Figure 6: Secondary Interaction between Muco-adhesive device and Mucus. Vol 8, Issue 12, 2019. 83



Islam et al. World Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences

5. Fracture Theory: Fracture theory of adhesion is related force required to detach or

separate two surfaces after adhesion. The fracture strength is equivalent to adhesive strength

as given by, G = (Eε. /L) ½ (Figure 7).



Figure 7: Fractures Occurring for Mucoadhesion.

Where: E- Young’s modules of elasticit, ε- Fracture energy, L- Critical crack length when

two surfaces are separated.


A. Polymeric Factors

1. Molecular weight: In case of linear polymers bio-adhesiveness improves with increasing

molecular weight. For maximum mucoadhesion the optimum molecular weight

depends upon the tissue and the type of mucoadhesive polymer. Polymer with high

molecular weight promotes physical entangling where mucus layer is better penetrated by

the low molecular weight polymers. Higher molecular weight polymers will not moisten

quickly to expose free groups for interaction with the substrate. On the other hand low

molecular weight polymers will dissolve quickly.

2. Active polymer concentration: This factor depends on type of dosage form. In case of

solid dosage form, the higher the concentration of polymer the stronger the

mucoadhesion. However, for liquid dosage form, maximum mucoadhesion is shown

when there is an optimum polymer concentration. To produce maximum level of

bioadhesion there should be an optimum concentration of a bio adhesive polymer.

3. Polymer chain flexibility: It is important for interpenetration and enlargement. The

mobility of the individual polymer chain decreases upon cross linking of water soluble Vol 8, Issue 12, 2019. 84



Islam et al. World Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences

polymers and thus the effective length of the chain decreases that can penetrate into the

mucus layer and as a result bioadhesive strength is reduced.

4. Spatial Conformation: Spatial confirmation of a molecule is also an important factor.

Despite a high molecular weight of 19,500,000 for dextrans, they have similar adhesive

strength to the polyethylene glycol with a molecular weight of 200,000. The helical

conformation of dextran may shield many adhesively active groups, primarily responsible

for adhesion, unlike PEG polymers which have a linear conformation.

5. Cross-Linking Density: As the density of cross-linking increased, diffusion of water into

the polymer network occurs at a lower rate which in turn causes an insufficient swelling

of the polymer and a decreased rate of interpenetration between polymer and mucin.

Flory has reported this general property of polymers, in which the degree of swelling at

equilibrium has an opposite relationship with the degree of cross-linking of a polymer.

6. Hydrogen Bonding Capacity: It is another critical factor in polymeric mucoadhesion. It

was reported that for mucoadhesion to occur, desired polymers must have functional

groups and they have to form hydrogen bonds. It was also found that flexibility of the

polymer is important to improve this hydrogen bonding potential. Polymers such as poly

vinyl alcohol, hydroxylated methacrylate, and poly methacrylic acid, as well as all their

copolymers, have good hydrogen bonding capacity.

7. Charge sign of polymer: This is an important element for bioadhesion. In comparison to

anionic polymers, nonionic polymers undergo a smaller degree of adhesion. Peppas and

Buri have demonstrated that strong anionic charge on the polymer is one of the required

characteristics for mucoadhesion. Some cationic high-molecular-weight polymers, such

as chitosan, have shown to possess good adhesive properties specially in a neutral or

slightly alkaline medium.

8. Hydration (Swelling): Polymer swelling permits a mechanical entanglement by exposing

the bioadhesive sites for hydrogen bonding and/or electrostatic interaction between the

polymer and the mucous network. However, a critical degree of hydration of the

mucoadhesive polymer exists where optimum swelling and bio adhesion occurs.

B. Environment Related Factors

1. Applied Strength: Whatever the polymer the adhesion strength increases with the

applied strength or with the duration of its application. The pressure initially applied to

the mucoadhesive tissue contact site can affect the depth of interpenetration. If high Vol 8, Issue 12, 2019. 85



Islam et al. World Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences

pressure is applied for a sufficiently long period of time, polymers become mucoadhesive

even though they do not have attractive interaction with mucin.

2. pH: On the surface of both mucus and the polymers pH generally influences the charge.

Due to difference in dissociation of functional groups on the amino acids and the

carbohydrate moiety of the polypeptide backbone mucus will have a different charge

density depending on pH. It should be also noted that pH of the medium is important for

the degree of hydration of cross linked polyacrylic acid, showing consistently increased

hydration from pH 4 to 7 and then hydration decreases as the alkalinity increases.

3. Initial Contact Time: To determine the extent of swelling and interpenetration of the

bioadhesive polymer chains, the initial contact time between the bioadhesive and mucus

layer is important. Moreover, bioadhesive strength increases as the initial contact time


C. Physiological Variables

1. Mucin Turnover: Mucin turnover is limits the residence time of the mucoadhesive on

the mucus layer. Due to mucin turnover mucoadhesives are detached from the surface

no matter how high the mucoadhesive strength is. Mucin turnover results in

substantial amounts of soluble mucin molecules. These molecules interact with the

mucoadhesive before they have a chance to interact with the mucus layer.

2. States of disease: The mucoadhesive property needs to be evaluated if they are used in

the diseased state. The physiochemical properties of mucus changes during disease

conditions such as bacterial and fungal infections, common cold etc.


buccal cavity occurs by passive diffusion of the nonionized species through the intercellular

spaces of the epithelium using a concentration gradient. By first order kinetics the dynamics

of buccal absorption can be explained. There is a linear relationship between time and

salivary secretion which can be given as follows:

-dm/dt= KC/ViVt

Where, m – mass of drug in mouth at time, K – proportionality constant, C – concentration of

drug in mouth at time, Vi – the volume of solution put into mouth cavity and Vt – salivary

secretion rate [Reddy et al., 2013].

PATHWAYS FOR BUCCAL DRUG ABSORPTION: There is a passive pathway for

buccal drug to be transported via oral mucosa (Figure 8). Vol 8, Issue 12, 2019. 86



Islam et al. World Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences


Figure 8: Pathways of Buccul Drug Absorption.

There are two routes: paracellular routes / Intercellular routes and Transcellular routes

/Intracellular routes. One route is usually preferred over the other depending on the

physicochemical properties of the diffusant. Permeation by the transcellular route may

involve transport across the apical cell membrane, intracellular space and basolateral

membrane either by passive transport or by active transport. Substances with low molar

volume (80 cm /mol) can be transported through aqueous pores in cell membranes of

epithelium. Cell membrane acts as the major transport barrier for hydrophilic compounds and

the intercellular spaces pose as the main barrier to permeation of lipophilic compounds. Due

to stratified oral epithelium, solute permeation requires combination of these two routes.



A. In vitro Methods: In vitro studies uses buccal tissues from animal models examining

drug transport across buccal mucosa where animals are sacrificed immediately before the

start of an experiment. Firstly buccal mucosa with underlying connective tissue from the

oral cavity is surgically removed. After the connective tissue is carefully removed, the

buccal mucosal membrane is isolated which are then placed and stored in ice-cold (4°C)

buffers (usually Krebs buffer) until mounted between side-by-side diffusion cells for the

in vitro permeation experiments.

B. In vivo Methods: By means of buccal absorption test this method was first originated by

Beckett and Triggs (Figure 9). Vol 8, Issue 12, 2019. 87



Islam et al. World Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences


Figure 9: In-vivo Drug Release Apparatus.

The kinetics of drug absorption was measured in this method. Followed by the expulsion of

the solution it involves the swirling of a 25 ml sample of the test solution for up to 15 minutes

by human volunteers. In order to assess the amount of drug absorbed the amount of drug

remaining in the expelled volume is then determined. Various modifications of the buccal

absorption test have been carried out correcting for salivary dilution and accidental

swallowing, but these modifications also suffer from the inability of site localization.

C. Experimental Animal Species: Another methodology is carried out in experimental

Animal Species. Special attention is warranted to the choice of experimental animal

species for such experiments aside from the specific methodology employed to study

buccal drug absorption/permeation characteristics. Many researchers have also used small

animals including rats and hamsters or permeability studies.


1. pH of surface: To investigate the possibility of any side effects in vivo the surface pH of

the buccal patch is determined. Firstly the buccal patches are left to swell by keeping it in

contact with 1 ml of distilled water for 2 hr at room temperature on the surface of an

agar plate. The surface pH is measured by means of a pH paper placed on the surface of

the swollen patch.

2. Measurements of thickness: Using an electronic digital micrometer the thickness of

each film is measured at five different locations (centre and four corners).

3. Folding Endurance: It is determined manually. Patch is repeatedly folded at same point

until it ruptures or breaks. Folding endurance of the patches is determined by repeatedly

folding one patch at the same place till it broke or folded up to 200 times manually which Vol 8, Issue 12, 2019. 88



Islam et al. World Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences

is considered satisfactory to reveal good patch properties. The number of folding required

for cracking or breaking a patch was taken as the folding endurance.

4. Swelling Study: Due to swelling weight increase. Buccal patches are weighed

individually (W1) and placed separately in 2% agar gel plates, incubated at 37°C ± 1°C

and examined for any physical changes. A graph paper is placed beneath the petridish, to

measure the increase in the area. After every interval of 3 hours, patches are removed

from the gel plates and using the filter paper excess surface water is removed carefully.

The swollen patches are then again weighed (W2) and using the following formula the

swelling index (SI) were calculated.

SI = {(W2-W1)/W1} X 100

The difference in the weights gives the weight increase due to absorption of water

and swelling of patch.

5. Study of thermal Analysis: Using differential scanning calorimeter (DSC) thermal

analysis study is performed.

6. Morphological Characteristics: Using scanning electron microscope (SEM)

morphological characters are studied by.

7. Test for water absorption capacity: Circular Patches, with a surface area of 2.3 cm are

allowed to swell on the surface of agar plates prepared in simulated saliva and kept in an

incubator maintained at 37°C ± 0.5°C. Samples are weighed at various time intervals

(0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, and 4 hours) and then allowed to dry for 7 days in a desiccators over

anhydrous calcium chloride at room temperature then the final constant weights are


Water Uptake (%) = {(Ww – Wf)/ Wf } X 100

Where, Ww is the wet weight and Wf is the final weight. The swelling of each film is


In Vitro drug release test: Here the dissolution medium consisted of phosphate buffer pH

6.8 maintaining a temperature at 37°C ± 0.5°C and with a rotation speed of 50 rpm. The

backing layer of buccal patch is attached to the glass disk with instant adhesive material and

the disk is allocated to the bottom of the dissolution vessel. Five (5) ml sample can be

withdrawn at predetermined time intervals and analyzed for drug content at suitable nm using

a UV spectrophotometer. Vol 8, Issue 12, 2019. 89



Islam et al. World Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences

Ex-Vivo mucodhesion strength test: Fresh buccal mucosa (sheep and rabbit) is collected

and used within 2 hours of slaughter and separated by removing underlying fat tissues. The

buccal mucosa cut into pieces and a piece is tied in the open mouth of a glass vial, filled with

phosphate buffer (pH 6.8). This glass vial is tightly fitted into a glass beaker filled with

phosphate buffer (pH 6.8, 37°C ± 1°C) so it just touched the mucosal surface. The patch is

stuck to the lower side of a rubber stopper with cyano acrylate adhesive. Before the study two

sides of the balance made equal and balanced with a 5g weight. The 5g weight is removed

from the left hand side pan which loaded the pan attached with the patch over the mucosa.

The balance is kept in this position for 5 minutes of contact time. The water is added slowly

at 10 drops/min to the right-hand side pan until the patch detached from the mucosal


Permeation study: The receptor compartment is filled with phosphate buffer pH 6.8 and is

maintained by stirring with a magnetic bead at 50 rpm. Samples are withdrawn at

predetermined time intervals and then analyzed for drug content.

Ex-vivo mucoadhesion time: The fresh buccal mucosa is tied on the glass slide and a

mucoadhesive patch is wetted with 1 drop of phosphate buffer pH 6.8 and pasted to the

buccal mucosa by applying a light force with a fingertip for 30 seconds. The glass slide is

then put in the beaker filled with 200 ml of the phosphate buffer of pH 6.8 kept at 37°C ±

1°C. After 2 minutes, a 50-rpm stirring rate is applied to simulate the buccal cavity

environment and after that patch adhesion is monitored for 12 hours. The time for changes in

color, shape, collapsing of the patch and drug content is noted.

8. Measurement of mechanical properties: Mechanical properties of the patches can be

evaluated using a microprocessor based advanced force gauze equipped with a motorized

test. Using a tensile tester mechanical properties of the films (patches) include tensile

strength and elongation at break is evaluated. Film strip that has dimensions of 60 x 10

mm and without any visual defects cut and positioned between two clamps separated by a

distance of 3 cm. Clamps designed to secure the patch without crushing it during the test,

the lower clamp held stationary and the strips are pulled apart by the upper clamp moving

at a rate of 2 mm/sec until the strip breaks. Force and elongation of the film at the point

when the strip breaks is recorded. The tensile strength and elongation at break values are

calculated using the formula.

[T= (M X g) / (B X T) ] Vol 8, Issue 12, 2019. 90



Islam et al. World Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences

Where, M – is the mass in gm, g – is the acceleration due to gravity 980 cm/sec , B – is the

breadth of the specimen in cm, T – is the thickness of specimen in cm. Tensile strength
2 2

(kg/mm ) is the force at break (kg) per initial cross sectional area of the specimen (mm ).

9. Stability study in human saliva: The stability study of optimized bilayered and

multilayered patches is performed in human saliva. The human saliva is collected from

humans with age between 18-50 years. In separate petridishes containing 5ml of human

saliva buccal patches are placed in a temperature controlled oven at 37°C ± 0.2°C for 6

hours. Films stability study is carried out for all the batches according to ICH guidelines.

Permeability Measurement using animal models: To perform this study the most

commonly used animal models are dogs, rabbits, and pigs. A general criterion is the

resemblance of the animal mucosa to the oral mucosa of human beings in both ultra-structure

and enzyme activity for selecting an in vivo animal model that represent the physical and

metabolic barriers of the oral mucosa.


Buccal drug delivery offers numerable advantages in terms of administration, accessibility

and withdrawal, retentivity, high patient compliance, economy and low enzymatic activity.

This system has applications from different angles includes avoiding first-pass metabolism in

the liver and pre-systemic elimination in the gastrointestinal tract. Also this area is well suited

for a retentive device and appears to be acceptable to the patient. Another advantage is to

accommodate drug permeation the permeability in the local environment of the mucosa can

be controlled and manipulated with the right dosage form design and formulation. Buccal

drug delivery is a promising area for continued research with the aim of systemic delivery of

orally inefficient drugs as well as a feasible and attractive alternative for noninvasive delivery

of potent peptide and protein drug molecules. However, in the area of buccal drug delivery

for safe and effective buccal permeation the absorption enhancers are crucial component for a

prospective future. Mucoadhesive systems may play an increasing role in the development of

new pharmaceuticals with the great influx of new molecules stemming from drug research.

Due to success, advantages and ease of access of drug delivery through oral mucosal tissue

the buccal and sublingual routes have favourable opportunities and many formulation

approaches although the current commercially available formulation are mostly limited to

tablets and films. So it can be said that the buccal mucosa offers several advantages for

controlled drug delivery for long period of time and also favourable area for systemic Vol 8, Issue 12, 2019. 91



Islam et al. World Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences

delivery of orally unsatisfactory drugs and attractive alternative for non-offensive delivery of

potent peptide and protein drug molecule. For improving drug absorption especially for the

new generation oral mucoadhesive dosage forms will be an exciting research in coming days.


1. Namit S, Garg MM. Current Status of Buccal Drug Delivery System: A Review. Journal

of Drug Delivery & Therapeutics. 2015; 5(1): 34-40.

2. Reddy RJ. Anjum M, Hussain MA. A Comprehensive Review on Buccal Drug Delivery

System. American Journal of Advanced Drug Delivery. 2013; 1(3): 300-312.

3. Sheoran R. Buccal Drug Delivery System: A Review. International Journal of

Pharmaceutical Sciences Review and Research. 2018; 50(1): 40-46.

4. Carvalho FC, Bruschi ML, Evangelista RC, Gremiao MPD. Mucoadhesive Drug Delivery

Systems. Brazilian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2010; 46(1): 1-17.

5. Arun JL, Rani S, Kumar M. Buccal Drug Delivery System: History and Recent

Developments. Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research. 2016; 9(6): 36-


6. Rao, NGR, Shravani B, Reddy MS. An Overview on Buccoadhesive Drug Delivery

System Tool to Enhance Bioavailability. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and

Research. 2013; 5(4): 80-88.

7. Latheeshjlal L, Sunil M A. Abdhul M. Vaidya M J. Formulation and Development of

Buccal Drug Delivery System Containing Curcumin. International Journal of PharmTech

Research. 2011; 3(1): 37-41.

8. Mitul P, Asif K, Pratik S, Ashwini D. Buccal Drug Delivery System. Internation research

Journal of Pharmacy. 2011; 2(12): 4-11.

9. Kuldeep V, Shiv GK. Buccal Patches: Novel Advancement in Mucoadhesive Drug

Delivery System. Indo American Journal of Pharmaceutical Research. 2015; 5(2): 727-


10. Siraj S, Zaker S, Khan GJ, Siddik PM. A Review on Buccal Mucoadhesive Drug Delivery

System. European Journal of Pharmaceutical and Medical research. 2017; 4(11): 247-252.

11. Shridhar GS, Manohar SD, Bhanudas SR. Mucoadhesive Buccal Drug Delivery: An

Overview. Journal of Advanced Pharmacy Education & Research. 2013; (4): 319-332.

12. Swapna G, Shrikant S. An Overview on Buccoadhesive Drug Delivery System Tool to

Enhance Bioavailability. International Journal of Pharmacy & Analytical Research. 2015;

4(3): 310-320. Vol 8, Issue 12, 2019. 92



Islam et al. World Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences

13. Gawas SM, Dev A, Deshmukh G, Rathod S. Current Approaches in Buccal Drug

Delivery System. Pharmaceutical And Biological Evaluations. 2016; 3(2): 165-177.

14. Mujoriya R, Dhamande K, Wankhede UR, Angure S. A Review on study of Buccal Drug

Delivery System. Innovative Systems Design and Engineering. 2011; 2(3): 2222-1727.

15. Iswariya VT, Rao AHOP. Buccal Tablets a Comprehensive Review. European Journal of

Pharmaceutical and medical Research. 2016; 3(8): 252-262.

16. Patel AR, Patel AD, Chaudhry SV. Mucoadhesive Buccal Drug Delivery System.

International Journal of Pharmacy & Life Sciences. 2011; 2(6): 848-856.

17. Amir SH, Smart JD, Yajaman S. Buccal Mucosa as A Route for Systemic Drug Delivery.

Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences. 1998; 1(1): 15-30.

18. Chatterjee B, Amalina N, Sengupta P, Mandal UK. Mucoadhesive Polymers and Their

Mode of Action: A Recent Update. Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Science. 2017;

7(5); 195-203.

19. Sharma N, Sardana SJS. Buccoadhesive Drug Delivery System: A Review. Journal of

Advanced Pharmacy Education & Research. 2013; 3(1): 1-15.

20. Khan S, Parvez N, Sharma PK, Alam MA, Warsi MH. Novel Aproaches – Mucoadhesive

Buccal Drug Delivery System. International Journal of Research and Development in

Pharmacy and Life Sciences. 2016; 5(4): 2201-2208. Vol 8, Issue 12, 2019. 93