Literature DB >> 33161036

A crossover clinical study to evaluate pain intensity from microneedle insertion in different parts of the oral cavity.

Stephany Di Carla Santos1, Nádia Cristina Fávaro-Moreira1, Henrique Ballassin Abdalla2, Gabriela Gama Xavier Augusto1, Yuri Martins Costa1, Maria Cristina Volpato1, Francisco Carlos Groppo1, Harvinder Singh Gill3, Michelle Franz-Montan4.   

Abstract

The objective of the present study was to evaluate discomfort and safety of microneedle (MN) insertion in several intraoral regions. A device was developed to standardize MN insertions. MNs were inserted in the following regions of the oral cavity: gingiva, palatine alveolar process, buccal mucosa, dorsum of the tongue and inner portion of the lower lip. Perforations from MNs post insertion were confirmed with topical gentian violet stain. Pain was evaluated in a randomized, double-blinded, crossover study in 30 volunteers. Each volunteer received a MN patch, a 30G hypodermic needle (positive control) and an identical MN patch with its needles laying flat in the plane of the patch (negative control). Adverse events were visually evaluated immediately after (0 h) and 24 h post MN application. The application device developed a consistent application force (10 N) and promoted perforation of all individual MNs on a patch. At all sites, insertion of the hypodermic needle promoted more pain when compared to the negative control (p < 0.001). Application of the MNs promoted less pain than the hypodermic needle (p < 0.05), but slightly more pain as compared to the negative control (p < 0.05) at all sites except the tongue, where the MN did not differ from the negative control (p > 0.05). Hypodermic needle caused bleeding at all insertion sites. In contrast, MNs did not cause bleeding at most sites except in some cases of insertion into the hard gingiva and the palatine alveolar process where tiny blood spots appeared immediately after MN application for few of the MNs on the patch. There were no cases of bleeding at 24 h post MN application. In conclusion, MNs can perforate different sites of the oral cavity in a safe and significantly less painful manner as compared to the 30G hypodermic needle. Thus, analogous to the skin, MN-based approaches could be an attractive approach for drug delivery in the oral cavity.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical trial; Drug delivery; Microneedles; Oral mucosa; Topical administration; Transmucosal

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33161036      PMCID: PMC7856577          DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2020.120050

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Pharm        ISSN: 0378-5173            Impact factor:   5.875


  31 in total

Review 1.  Recent developments in buccal and sublingual delivery systems.

Authors:  Sevda Şenel; Michael J Rathbone; Merve Cansız; Indiran Pather
Journal:  Expert Opin Drug Deliv       Date:  2012-04-19       Impact factor: 6.648

2.  Porcine buccal mucosa as an in vitro model: relative contribution of epithelium and connective tissue as permeability barriers.

Authors:  Upendra Kulkarni; Ravichandran Mahalingam; S Indiran Pather; Xiaoling Li; Bhaskara Jasti
Journal:  J Pharm Sci       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 3.534

3.  Kinetics of skin resealing after insertion of microneedles in human subjects.

Authors:  Jyoti Gupta; Harvinder S Gill; Samantha N Andrews; Mark R Prausnitz
Journal:  J Control Release       Date:  2011-05-26       Impact factor: 9.776

Review 4.  New developments and opportunities in oral mucosal drug delivery for local and systemic disease.

Authors:  Vanessa Hearnden; Vidya Sankar; Katrusha Hull; Danica Vidović Juras; Martin Greenberg; A Ross Kerr; Peter B Lockhart; Lauren L Patton; Stephen Porter; Martin H Thornhill
Journal:  Adv Drug Deliv Rev       Date:  2011-03-01       Impact factor: 15.470

5.  Measurement properties of gingival biotype evaluation methods.

Authors:  Patrick Henry Machado Alves; Thereza Cristina Lira Pacheco Alves; Thiago Amadei Pegoraro; Yuri Martins Costa; Estevam Augusto Bonfante; Ana Lúcia Pompéia Fraga de Almeida
Journal:  Clin Implant Dent Relat Res       Date:  2018-01-19       Impact factor: 3.932

6.  Effects of Experimental Pain and Lidocaine on Mechanical Somatosensory Profile and Face Perception.

Authors:  Yuri Martins Costa; Eduardo E Castrillon; Leonardo Rigoldi Bonjardim; Paulo César Rodrigues Conti; Lene Baad-Hansen; Peter Svensson
Journal:  J Oral Facial Pain Headache       Date:  2017 Spring

7.  Clinical administration of microneedles: skin puncture, pain and sensation.

Authors:  M I Haq; E Smith; D N John; M Kalavala; C Edwards; A Anstey; A Morrissey; J C Birchall
Journal:  Biomed Microdevices       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 2.838

Review 8.  Insulin delivery systems combined with microneedle technology.

Authors:  Xuan Jin; Dan Dan Zhu; Bo Zhi Chen; Mohammad Ashfaq; Xin Dong Guo
Journal:  Adv Drug Deliv Rev       Date:  2018-03-29       Impact factor: 15.470

9.  Microneedles permit transdermal delivery of a skin-impermeant medication to humans.

Authors:  Daniel P Wermeling; Stan L Banks; David A Hudson; Harvinder S Gill; Jyoti Gupta; Mark R Prausnitz; Audra L Stinchcomb
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2008-02-04       Impact factor: 11.205

10.  Effect of force of microneedle insertion on the permeability of insulin in skin.

Authors:  Karmen Cheung; Tao Han; Diganta Bhusan Das
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2014-01-21
View more
  1 in total

1.  Lidocaine-Loaded Hyaluronic Acid Adhesive Microneedle Patch for Oral Mucosal Topical Anesthesia.

Authors:  Tingting Zhu; Xixi Yu; Xin Yi; Xiaoli Guo; Longhao Li; Yuanping Hao; Wanchun Wang
Journal:  Pharmaceutics       Date:  2022-03-22       Impact factor: 6.525

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.