Available online on 25.08.2022 at http://jddtonline.info

Journal of Drug Delivery and Therapeutics

Open Access to Pharmaceutical and Medical Research

Copyright  © 2011-2022 The  Author(s): This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC 4.0 which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium for non-commercial use provided the original author and source are credited

Open Access  Full Text Article                                                                                                                                                                         Review Article

A Comprehensive Review on Bio-Adhesive Microspheres

Chandra Prakash Pandey*¹, Archana², Abadhesh Kumar Niranjan ³

¹ Research Scholar, Department of Pharmaceutics, Saroj Institute of Technology and Management`, Lucknow (U.P.) 226002,       India

² Assistant Professor, Department of Pharmaceutics, Saroj Institute of Technology and Management, Lucknow (U.P.) 226002,       India

³ Associate Professor, Department of Pharmaceutics, Hygia Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, Lucknow (U.P.) 226020, India

Contact No. 7071665721 E-mail: pandeycpsln@gmail.com

1. Introduction:

Microspheres were included as a desirable drug delivery vehicle in recent years. The outstanding characteristic of MSs in clinical programs comes from their length and adequate carrier qualities, which make them ideal drug transporters in addition to regulated drug release. For this, MSs can transport medication to a specific location where it is needed, reducing undesired toxicity and medication removal ^1,2. However, their brief mucosal residence period restricts the absorption of drugs administered transmucosally ³.

The concept of "bio-adhesion" refers to the joining of artificial or natural large particles to the surface of organic tissue. The current mucoadhesive preparations typically handle transmucosal medication administration mediated by adhesion forces. The mucus layer or epithelial mobile layer generates adhesion forces. Mucoadhesive formulations come in a variety of forms, including tablet, film agent, powder, ointment, and gel. Numerous mucosal dermis cells, such as those on the vagina, ocular surface, nasal mucosa, and buccal mucosa, are their sites of absorption ^5,6.

Comparing bio-adhesive MSs to the competing existing MSs, they now provide clearer advantages. The adhesion influence among adhesive compounds and organic mucus or mucosal cells may occur when bio-adhesive MSs reach mucosal surfaces. Longer retention times, prolonged drug release times, and decline in the frequency of medicine management will eventually be implemented. As a result, bio-adhesive MSs can greatly improve patient compliance. In order to comprehend drug release, as well as the regional and overall effects of medication, bio-adhesive MSs may be directed attached to the majority of the mucosal tissue.

While most ocular mucoadhesive MSs are only used to treat oculopathy, In order to treat diseases systemically, certain MSs that adhere to the mucosa of the mouth or the nose may additionally wish to transfer tablets to the circulation ⁸. Similar to this, stimuli-responsive MSs are prospective methods for delivering medications on-site with good biodegradability and greater effect on bioavailability for treating both local and systemic disorders. Avoiding excessive first-pass metabolism and presystemic clearance inside the GIT, enhancing bioavailability by efficient absorption, and precisely directing medicine to the absorption site through the use of lectins or other ligands, among other things., are just a few of the additional advantages that those bio-adhesive MSs also provided ⁹.

Figure 1: Bio-adhesive Microspheres ^10,11

2. Bioadhesive / Mucoadhesive Microspheres ^10,11

The ideal delivery mechanism for mucosal administration routes may be mucoadhesive nanoparticulate systems. Both specific and non-specific interactions with mucosal surfaces can result in the acquisition of bio-adhesive characteristics. Non-precise interconnections are pushed utilizing the chemicals' physicochemical characteristics, whereas specific interconnections are often entirely reliant on their interactions with conjugate receptors. Additionally, comparative advantages of various treatment techniques, including administering through bladder and lung mucosa, have been assessed.

2.1 GIT medication delivery with bio-adhesive MSs- ^12,13

Typically, the following materials will affect oral management: 1) the delayed action's beginning, 2) Degradation occurring in the stomach's acidic area. 3) GIT, primarily the intestine, enzymatic breakdown. 4) First pass metabolism includes the liver and the intestines. Through the direct absorption of medication via mucosal epithelium, these problems may be successfully avoided. In order to control those issues, the use of MSs with precise bio-adhesive characteristics may potentially hold tremendous promise¹⁴.

2.1.1 MSs for mucosal drug delivery that are mucoadhesive ¹⁵

2.1.2 The oral mucosa may be divided in a variety of categories, including buccal, sublingual, and more. It is significantly more difficult to achieve optimal bioavailability and quick absorption through the lingual mucosal since it is wider and lesser porous than the sublingual mucosa. Oral transmucosal drug administration, however, making it a particularly excellent route for sustained delivery of medicine that is far less permeable. However, the mucosal floor's quick drug clearance and the buccal management path's low drug flux result in a high drug consumption rate. For instance, the most significant drawback due to chewing and salivation, mucosal films have a limited ability to load medications and quickly eliminate them, which leads to a subpar healing activity¹⁶.  So, it is appropriate to include the medication directly into a bio-adhesive MSs in order to improve drug awareness and extend the contact time with mucosal surfaces¹⁷.

2.1.2 MSs with GI mucoadhesive properties- ^{18, 19}

GI-retention is a common and well-known method in medical practise with medicines affect or are absorbed in the GIT is called a DDS. However, each system has its limits. First off, while several GI-retention transport structures, such as floating and swelling formulations, can maintain drugs in the stomach, they are unable to interaction with the specified mucus of the GIT^21,22. Additionally, relatively novel GI-retention structures such liposomes struggled to penetrate mucus due to their poor mucus penetrating abilities and enzymatic degradation^23,24. In treating gastric and intestinal illnesses, the appearance of gastrointestinal mucoadhesive MSs has overcome these obstacles²⁵. As shown in Table 2, a few commonplace bio-adhesive drug transport architectures have characteristics that have been characterized²⁶. CS mucoadhesive MSs loaded with ranitidine hydrochloride were organised using glutaraldehyde (Glu) as a cross-linking agent since the stomach is where ranitidine moves. It was discovered by the optimised MSs' results from the in vitro bioadhesion study showed an excessive amount of medication mucoadhesion (75 percent) after 1 hour. The final recommendation said that CS MSs should firmly attach to the mucous of the goat belly, extend drug neighborhood residency, and then effectively manage stomach ulcer^27,28.

2.2 Local mucoadhesive non-GIT MSs²⁹

Along with the mucosa in the GIT, there are a few neighboring mucosas in other body lumens, similar to the mucosas in the nostril and vagina. Each of them has unique advantages as a place for the transportation of pharmaceuticals.

2.2.1 MSs for ocular-specific adhesive³⁰

Some of the most difficult areas of pharmaceutics is the regulated administration of medications to the eyes. The main problems with conventional controlled eye preparations at the moment are precorneal loss and poor drug retention time. To address the aforementioned problems, mucoadhesive systems related to the precorneal mucin layer have advanced.  One of the suppliers, mucoadhesive MS, increased the bioavailability of the medication by extending the duration that it was retained by lowering the interval of doses enhanced patient compliance by protecting the ocular or keratitis mucosa.

3. Benefits of Microspheres³²

1. Microspheres have a long-lasting, healing impact.

2. Lowers the frequency of administration and, as a result, increases patient compliance.

3. Because of their small size and rounded shape, they would be delivered within the body.

4. More effective medicine administration will boost bioavailability and lessen the frequency or severity of adverse effects.

5. The degradation and drug release all owe a controllable changeability to microsphere morphology.

4. Limitations-

The following restrictions had been identified as some of them:

1. The modified release from the arrangements.

2. Other factors, including as meals and the velocity of transit through the stomach, may affect the liberation charge of the controlled release dosage form.

3. Variations in the rate of liberation between doses.

4. Managed liberation preparations frequently have a higher drug load, therefore any degradation of the dosage form's characteristics that affect how the drug is released might result in capacity toxicity.

5. This sort of dosage form no longer requires beating or chewing.

5. BIO-ADHESIVE MICROSPHERE PREPARATION-³³

Solvent evaporation:

It was initially established by Ogawa et al. and is the most widely utilized technique of microencapsulation (1988). Solvents like dichloromethane are used to introduce a buffered or simple liquid combination of the medications to a natural segment including the polymer mixture in order to create the main aqueous in oil emulsion, vigorous stirring is required. Then, in order to create a couple of emulsions (w/o/w), this emulsion is added to a significant amount of aqueous solution that contains an emulsifier like PVA or PVP. The resulting double emulsion is then stirred until the majority of the natural solvent has vapourised, leaving solid microspheres. The free flowing and dry microspheres can then be obtained by washing, centrifuging, and lyophilizing the microspheres.

2. Microencapsulation using hot melt

Mathiowitz and Langer (1987) were the first to use this process to assemble polyanhydride copolymer of poly[bis(p-carboxy phenoxy) propane anhydride to sebacic acid microcapsules The polymer is first liquid and then blended with sieved strong medicine residue under this technique.. The aggregate is warmed to 5 °C over the polymer's melting point while suspended in a non-miscible solvent (such as silicone oil) and agitated continuously. The emulsion is further chilled until the polymer debris solidifies once it has reached a stable state. The resulting microspheres are then cleaned by petroleum ether decantation. Changes in stirring rate allow for the easy management of the scale distribution and the acquisition of microspheres with diameters ranging from 1 to 1000 m. The modest temperature to which the medication is exposed is this method's most convenient flaw. 

3. Removal of solvent: 

It is a non-absorptive microencapsulation technology that works well with water-labile polymers like polyanhydrides. In this technique, the medication is mixed with the selected polymer and an unstable natural solvent, such methylene chloride, to disperse or dissolve it. Then, span 85 and methylene chloride-containing silicone oil is used to suspend this aggregate (Carino et al., 1999). Petroleum ether is mixed and agitated till the solvent has been removed from the oils mixture after the polymer mixture has been poured into silicone oil. The resulting microspheres can then be vacuum-dried.

4. Drying of Spray: 

In this technique, the medicine is liquified or distributed throughout the polymer mixture before being dried using a spray gun. Plasticizers like citrus fruits, which enhance polymer amalgamate at the medication debris and afterwards encourage the manufacture of round, clean-surfaced microspheres, can be used to advance the high-satisfaction of spray-dried microspheres. The rate of spraying, the feed rate of the polymer drug combination, the length of the nozzle, and the drying temperature may all be used to control the length of microspheres. This method of microencapsulation is straightforward, repeatable, and simple to expand since it depends less on the properties of  solubility the drug and polymer.

5. Microencapsulation based on phase inversion – 

This technique requires adding medication to a diluted polymer mixture (often 1 to 5 percent, weight-to-volume in methylene chloride). The mixture is immersed in a bath of a strong non-solvent (petroleum ether) at a solvent to non-solvent ratio of 1:100, resulting in the continuous generation of microspheres by section inversion. The microsphere can then be filtered, cleaned with petroleum ether, and dried with air for lengths between 0.5 and 5.0 meters. This quick and simple method of microencapsulation uses very small medication and polymer shortage.

6. ASSESSMENT OF THE BIO-ADHESIVE MICROSPHERES³⁴

In vitro experiments and adhesive strength measurement

A helpful indication for assessing the bio-adhesive power of microspheres is the evaluation of the bio-adhesive strengths between polymeric microspheres and mucosal tissue. The polymeric microspheres were tested using in vitro methods oppose a range of artificial and natural tissue samples, including synthetic and artificial mucus, chilled and fresh ingredients removed tissue, etc. The following are included in the distinctive in vitro techniques.

1. Tensile stress analysis

Wilhelmy plate method, paragraph 1. The Wilhelmy plate method, which traditionally uses a microtensiometer or a microbalance, is used to quantify dynamic touch angles. A modification has been made to the CAHN dynamic touch attitude analyzer (version DCA 322, CAHN instruments, Cerritos) to enable the measurement of adhesive microforces. The DCA 322 device has a microbalance assembly and a computer with IBM compatibility (Chickering et al., 1999). The microbalance device has a motor-powered translation degree, desk-bound pattern and tare loops, and other components. The tool measures the bio-adhesive pressure among mucous membrane and a singular microsphere embedded on a thin metallic cable dangling from the microtensiometer's pattern loop. The tissue is placed within a tissue chamber filled with Dulbecco's phosphate buffered saline that contains 100 mg/dl glucose and kept at physiologic temperature. The tissue used in these chambers is typically rat jejunum. A cell platform that supports the chamber is elevated till the tissue makes contact with the hanging microsphere. The contact is maintained for 7 minutes, during which time the cell degree is reduced. The pressure of adhesion that arises from the polymer adhering to the mucosal tissue is then recorded as a plot of the weight on microsphere rather than the distance or deformation of the cells. The CAHN software programme machine can examine three critical bio-adhesive parameters. These include adhesion paints, failure deformation, and fracture strength.

2. A novel electromagnetic force transducer (EMFT) is a far-off sensing device It makes use of a calibrated electromagnetic to separate a polymer microsphere loaded with magnetism from a tissue pattern. It possesses a one-of-a-kind talent to simultaneously and remotely provide tensile pressure data and high-magnification video images of bio-adhesive interconnections in almost physiological conditions. Through monitoring the magnetic pressure necessary to accurately counter the bio-adhesive pressure, the EMFT measures the strengths of tissue adhesives. First, a microsphere must be connected to the tissue pattern in order to establish magnetic pressure, which is later formed by an electromagnetic mounted erectically over the tissue chamber at the microscope. The video analysis continuously calculates the positioning of the microsphere as the tissue gently moves away from the magnet till the latter is perfectly torn free from the tissue. The main benefit of   EMFT is  the pressure transducer and the microsphere don't need to be physically attached to one another. This enables accurate bio-adhesive quantifications to be performed at the tiny microspheres that were placed in vivo and then removed (at the side of the host tissue) for quantification. 

3. Shear stress measurement: The shear pressure dimension consists of 2 polymer-covered glass slides and a mucus film. The study evaluates the pressure This causes a mucoadhesive to slide in a direction parallel to their plane of contact with the mucus layer by measuring the pressure that causes mucus to form a small layer of polymer between the two polymer-covered slides (Kamath and Park, 1994). Adhesion tests that are only dependent on shear force.

4. Establishing the residence period and in-vivo methods- The utility site's measurements of the mucoadhesives' residence times give quantitative data on their mucoadhesive characteristics. Numerous bio-adhesive formulations' GI transit times were testing by radioisotopes and fluorescence labeling methods. 

5. Surface characterisation of the bio-adhesive microspheres: SEM, electron microscopy, and scanning tunnelling microscopy are all techniques used, one may examine and document the morphological changes caused by polymer degradation (STM). The microsphere samples are lyophilized and analyzed beneath SEM at 150 and 1000 to determine the effect of floor shape on the bio-adhesive capabilities. The microsphere floor's smooth smoothness results in bio-adhesive characteristics that are vulnerable, but the floor's rougher roughness enhances adherence through more powerful mechanical bonding. 

7. APPLICATIONS OF BIOADHESIVE MICROSPHERES:³⁵

1. The use of microspheres in the delivery of vaccines

The need for a vaccination is protection against the microorganism or its toxic byproduct. A ideal vaccination must meet the criteria for effectiveness, protection, software comfort, and cost. The problem of safeguarding and minimizing adverse reactions is challenging64. The degree of antibody production and the factor of protection are closely related to the software approach. The incapability of conventional vaccinations may potentially be overcome by biodegradable transport devices for vaccines administered by parenteral route65. Parenteral (subcutaneous, intramuscular, and intradermal) services are attractive because they offer a number of advantages, including:

a. Adjuvant effect increases antigenicity

b. modifying the release of an antigen

c. Antigen stabilization

2. Using microparticulate carriers for targeting

Targeting, or site-specific pharmaceutical delivery, is a well-mounted concept that is attracting a lot of interest. The drug's ability to enter and specifically interact with its target receptors determines how well it can treat illness. The ability to remove water from the pool in a repeatable, environmentally friendly, and exact manner is crucial to medication transportation mediated by use of a provider system. When debris is placed in a separate anatomical compartment, they are retained either because of the physiological properties of the environment or because of the biophysical interaction between the debris and the target tissue's cell composition.

3. Microspheres With Mediated Monoclonal Antibodies Targeting: 

Immune microspheres are a concentration of monoclonal antibodies. This focused on approach is used to get a selective focus on to the special spots. The chemicals that make up monoclonal antibodies are incredibly distinct. Monoclonal antibodies (Mabs) with extreme specificity may be used to target microspheres that have bioactive chemicals loaded at particular places. The covalent interaction of Mabs with the microspheres allows for immediate connection. The antibodies may be connected to the free amino acids, hydroxyl groups, or aldehyde businesses near the bottom of the microspheres. Any of the aforementioned techniques may be used to attach the Mabs to the microspheres.

a. Non specific adsorption 

b. Specific adsorption 

c. Direct coupling 

d. Coupling via reagents.

4. Chemoembolization: 

Chemoembolization is an endovascular therapy that combines the simultaneous or subsequent delivery of a chemotherapeutic drug with selective arterial embolization of a tumor. Theoretically, such embolisations will now not only provide vascular blockage but also result in prolonged healing levels of chemotherapeutics inside the tumor sites. A variation on traditional percutaneous embolization techniques is chemotherapy.

5. Imagery:

The microspheres were extensively researched and used for the targeted goals. Radio-labeled microspheres can be used to scan a range of cells, cell lines, tissues, and organs. The range of microspheres' particle lengths has a crucial role in determining how to image unusual places. The material injected intravenously into a vein other than the portal vein becomes caught inside the pulmonary capillary bed. The use of tagged human serum albumin microspheres to image lung tumor burdens using scintigraphy takes advantage of this phenomena.

Table 1:  Marketed Formulations of Bio-adhesive Microspheres³⁶

8. CONCLUSION: 

In general, because of the advantages, significantly less side effects, and controlled medication release, bio-adhesive MSs have outstanding capabilities³⁷. The retention period at the movement site is now the focus of the majority of research on bio-adhesive MSs, however there have been sporadic efforts to shed light on the adhesion processes of diverse bio-adhesive MSs and the reacting procedure of various stimuli-responsive MSs. In reality, there are three main categories into which the adhesion processes of bio-adhesive MSs may be divided: Adherence origined by the interconnection of bio-adhesive substances with mucosal membrane. Adhesion is entirely dependent on interactions between conjugate and receptors. Topographically mixed populations of mucosal cells and MSs. For instance, commonly used bio-adhesive materials include carbopol, polyvinyl alcohol, starch, polysaccharide, CS, and CMC-Na. are important factors that influenced how drugs and mucosa interacted. These substances may have swelled being exposed to the mucosal surface's moistening state, which causes intimate interaction and interaction among molecular fragments and mucous. Polymers cling to mucosa by a combination of the van der Waals pressure, electrostatic interactions, and covalent bonding, H- bonds, etc. For example, the combination of receptors and ligands was linked to adherence to mucous tissues, allowing the drug provider to be protected to a particular area inside the frame for a long length of time. For type, the major effect on adhesion behavior is mechanical interlocking production. A chain of structure-controllable polymers serves as the foundation for the Stimulus-responsive MSs in big components, Mechanism. With even the slightest stimulus from environmental changes, stimuli-touchy polymers can extrude, changing their conformation, polarity, segment shape, composition, as well as other physical and chemical traits. Therefore, environment-sensitive MSs exhibit "intelligent" characteristics³⁸.

9. CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

The authors declare no conflict of interest. 

REFERENCES

1. Ahmady A, Samah NH. A review: Gelatine as a bioadhesive material for medical and pharmaceutical applications. International Journal of Pharmaceutics. 2021; 2(5):60-68.
2. Gurung BD, Kakar S. An overview on microspheres. Int J Health Clin Res. 2020; 3(1):11-24.
3. Mahale MM, Saudagar RB. Microsphere: a review. Journal of drug delivery and therapeutics. 2019; 9(3-s):854-6.
4. Nguyen TT et al., Engineering “cell-particle hybrids” of pancreatic islets and bioadhesive FK506-loaded polymeric microspheres for local immunomodulation in xenogeneic islet transplantation. Biomaterials. 2019; 1(2):119-123.
5.  Cleary J, Bromberg L, Magner E. Adhesion of polyether-modified poly (acrylic acid) to mucin. Langmuir. 2004;4(2):9755-62. 
6. Chen J, Pan P, Zhang Y, Zhong S, Zhang Q. Preparation of chitosan/nano hydroxyapatite organic-inorganic hybrid microspheres for bone repair. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2015; 3(4):401-7.
7. Zhou X, Kong M, Cheng X, Li J, Li J, Chen X. Investigation of acetylated chitosan microspheres as potential chemoembolic agents. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces.  2014; 12(3):387-94.
8. Patil SB, Sawant KK. Mucoadhesive microspheres: a promising tool in drug delivery. Curr Drug Deliv. 2008; 5: 312-18.
9. Ahuja A, Khar RK, Ali J. Mucoadhesive drug delivery systems. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 1997; 2(3):489-515.
10.  Lim JI, Lee WK. Enhanced biocompatibility and adhesive properties by aromatic amino acid-modified allyl 2-cyanoacrylate-based bio-glue. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2014; 12(2): 669-73.
11. Vasir JK, Tambwekar K, Garg S. Bioadhesive microspheres as a controlled drug delivery system. Int J Pharm. 2003; 6(4):13-32.
12. Vetchý D, Landová H, Gajdziok J, Doležel P, Daněk Z, Štembírek J. Determination of dependencies among in vitro and in vivo properties of prepared mucoadhesive buccal films using multivariate data analysis. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2014; 8(6):498-506.
13. Pliszczak D, Bourgeois S, Bordes C, Valour J-P, Mazoyer M-A, Orecchioni A, Nakache E, Lantéri P. Improvement of an encapsulation process for the preparation of pro-and prebiotics-loaded bioadhesive microparticles by using experimental design. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2011; 4(4):83-92.
14. Yadav A, Mote H. Development of biodegradable starch microspheres for intranasal delivery. Indian J Pharm Sci. 2008;7(3):170.
15.  Le Visage C, Rioux-Leclercq N, Haller M, Breton P, Malavaud B, Leong K. Efficacy of paclitaxel released from bio-adhesive polymer microspheres on model superficial bladder cancer. J Urol. 2004; 7(9):1324-9.
16. Panchal R, Patel H, Patel V, Joshi P, Parikh A. Formulation and evalution of montelukast sodium-chitosan based spray dried microspheres for pulmonary drug delivery. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2012; 4(2):110-12.
17. Sattar M, Sayed OM, Lane ME. Oral transmucosal drug delivery–Current status and future prospects. Int J Pharm. 2014;4(7):498-506.
18. Bahri-Najafi NT, Senemar M, M Peikanpour R. Preparation and pharmaceutical evaluation of glibenclamide slow release mucoadhesive buccal film. Res Pharm Sci. 2013; 9(3):213-23. 
19.  Martín MJ, Calpena AC, Fernández F, Mallandrich M, Gálvez P, Clares B. Development of alginate microspheres as nystatin carriers for oral mucosa drug delivery. Pharm Res. 2015; 11(7):140-9. 
20.  Sander C, Madsen KD, Hyrup B, Nielsen HM, Rantanen J, Jacobsen J. Characterization of spray dried bioadhesive metformin microparticles for oromucosal administration. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2013; 8(5):682-8.
21.  Jelvehgari M, Valizadeh H, Motlagh RJ, Montazam H. Formulation and Physicochemical Characterization of Buccoadhesive Microspheres Containing Diclofenac Sodium. Adv Pharm Bull. 2014; 11(1):295-8.
22.  Srikanth MV, Rao NS, Sunil SA, Ram BJ, Kolapalli VRM. Statistical design and evaluation of a propranolol HCl gastric floating tablet. Acta Pharm Sin B. 2012; 12(2):60-9. 
23.  Lalloo AK, McConnell EL, Jin L, Elkes R, Seiler C, Wu Y. Decoupling the role of image size and calorie intake on gastric retention of swelling-based gastric retentive formulations: Pre-screening in the dog model. Int J Pharm. 2012; 7(5):90-100.
24. Li X, Chen D, Le C, Zhu C, Gan Y, Hovgaard L, Yang M. Novel mucus-penetrating liposomes as a potential oral drug delivery system: preparation, in vitro characterization, and enhanced cellular uptake. Int J Nanomedicine. 2011; 6(8):3151-6.
25.  Melgar-Lesmes P, Morral-Ruiz G, Solans C, Garcia-Celma MJ. Quantifying the bioadhesive properties of surface-modified polyurethane-urea nanoparticles in the vascular network. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2014; 11(8):280-8.
26.  Andreani T, Kiill CP, de Souza AL, Fangueiro JF, Fernandes L, Doktorovova S, Santos DL, Garcia ML, Gremião MP, Souto EB, Silva AM. Surface engineering of silica nanoparticles for oral insulin delivery: characterization and cell toxicity studies. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2014; 12(3):916-23.
27.  Surassmo S, Saengkrit N, Ruktanonchai UR, Suktham K, Woramongkolchai N, Wutikhun T, Puttipipatkhachorn S. Surface modification of PLGA nanoparticles by carbopol to enhance mucoadhesion and cell internalization. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2015; 7(3) 229-36.
28. Awasthi R. Preparation, Characterization and Evaluation of Ranitidine Hydrochloride-Loaded Mucoadhesive Microspheres. Polim Med. 2014; 14(5):75-81.
29.  Xu J, Strandman S, Zhu JX, Barralet J, Cerruti M. Genipin-crosslinked catechol-chitosan mucoadhesive hydrogels for buccal drug delivery. Biomaterials. 2015; 14(4):395-404.
30. Pengpong T, Sangvanich P, Sirilertmukul K, Muangsin N. Design, synthesis and in vitro evaluation of mucoadhesive p-coumarate-thiolated-chitosan as a hydrophobic drug carriers. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2014; 11(8):487-97. 
31.  Gonçalves IC, Magalhães A, Fernandes M, Rodrigues IV, Reis CA, Martins MCL. Bacterial-binding chitosan microspheres for gastric infection treatment and prevention. Acta Biomater. 2013; 9(6):9370-8. 
32. Jalodiya S, Gupta MK, Jain NK. Formulation, development and evaluation of floating microspheres of acyclovir. J Drug Delivery Ther. 2019; 9(3):967-73.
33.  Kawatra M, Jain U, Jaspreet R. Recent Advances in Floating Microspheres as Gastro-Retentive Drug Delivery System, Int. JRA Pharmaceutical Research. 2012; 6(3): 5-13.
34. Garg R, Gupta GD. Progress in controlled gastro retentive delivery system Tropical Journal of Pharmaceutical Research, September 2008; 7(3):1055-1066.
35. Sharma D, Sharma A. Gastro retentive drug delivery system-a mini review, Asian Pacific Journal of Health Science, 2014;9(2):80-89.
36. Shaik T, Alagusundram M, Umashanker K. A review of Gastro retentive drug delivery system. International Journal of Research in Pharmaceutical and Nano Sciences. 2014; 8(3)177-185.
37. Pande AV, Vaidya PD, Arora A, Madhura V. Dhoka. In-vitro and In-vivo evaluation of ethyl cellulose based floating microspheres of Cefpodoxime proxetil, Int. J Pharm Biomed Res. 2010; 1(4):122-128.
38. Kumar A, Shubhendra JH. Development and Evaluation of Mucoadhesive Microsphere of Cefpodoxime Proxetil. IJRPS 2013; 4(1):47–59.