INTRODUCTION:

The concept of mucoadhesion has acquired considerable interest in pharmaceutical technology in the early 1980’s. The American Society of Testing and Materials has defined adhesion as the state in which two surfaces are held together by interfacial forces, which may consist of valence forces, interlocking action or both. ^{1, 2}

Mucoadhesion describes the attractive forces between a biological material and mucus membrane. Mucoadhesive drug delivery systems prolong the residence time of the dosage form at the site of application or absorption.

They facilitate an intimate contact of the dosage form with the underlying absorption surface and thus improve the therapeutic performance of the drug. In recent years, many such Mucoadhesive drug delivery systems have been developed for oral, buccal, nasal, rectal and vaginal routes for both systemic and local effects. ^1,2

Buccal patches will be comprised of a drug containing reservoir layer which releases the drug in controlled manner, and a mucoadhesive surface for mucosal attachment. After the release of drug exhausted mucoadhesive surface should get dissolved in buccal cavity itself. ¹⁰

Ideal characteristics:

An ideal buccal adhesive system ought to have the accompanying attributes

1. Fast adherence to the buccal mucosa and sufficient mechanical strength.

2. Should deliver the medication in a controlled way.

3. Should assist with the rate and degree of drug absorption.

4. Should hold good patient compliance.

5. Should not ruin typical functions like talking eating and drinking.

6. Should achieve unidirectional discharge of drug towards the mucosa.

7. Should not guide in growth of optional infections like dental caries.

8. Should hold a wide margin of safety both locally and systemically.

9. Should not induce salivation

Types of buccal patches:

1. Matrix Type

2. Reservoir Type

DISEASE:

ULCER:

The exact cause of mouth ulcer is still not known and varies from person-to-person but Ulcers are painful sores that appear inside the mouth. They are usually red or yellow. They are different from cold sores, which appears on the outer lips and are caused by virus.

Types of Ulcer:

A. Minor Ulcer: This type can range in size from about 2 millimeters (mm) up to 8 mm across. These ulcers typically take up to 2 weeks to get better and will cause minor pain.

B. Major Ulcer: Bigger than minor ulcers, major ulcers are often irregular in shape, may be raised, and penetrate deeper into the tissue than minor ulcers. They can take several weeks to go away and are likely to leave scar tissue when they clear. ^[10]

POLYMERS:

The use of mucoadhesive polymers in buccal drug delivery has greater application. The recently developed buccal patch offer greater flexibility and comfort over various mucoadhesive devices including tablets, films, patches, disk stripes, ointments and gels. Buccal patch has been well known for its good accessibility to the membrane that lines the oral cavity. Buccal patch is a non-dissolving, thin, matrix-modified release dosage form developed for administration into unconscious and less co-operative patient Myrtle (Myrtus communis) is one of the most important medicinal plants belonging to the Myrtaceae. It is widely used in food, species, cosmetic, perfumes and pharmaceutical industries. There are many bioactive compounds in leaves and fruits of Myrtle that are beneficial in food and pharmaceutical industries.

The leaves of myrtle have been the subject of many studies due to antioxidant, antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, antidiabetics, antiulcer and anticancer properties. These properties are associated with active substances such as flavonoids, phenolic compound and essential oils. Polyphenols, as one of the most important sources of human health, play an important role in inhibiting and scavenging free radicals. Myrtle has wound healing properties and is effectively used for treatment of burn injuries. ²

Advantages of the Buccal drug delivery Process:

1. At the absorption site, the residence time of the dosage product is increased, thereby increasing the bioavailability.

2. Quick start of operation.

3. Rapid absorption is caused by high blood supply and good blood flow rate.

4. Protects against degradation in the acid medium of GIT drug.

5. Enhanced communication with the client.

6. Neither uncomfortable nor irritated ^3,
4

Disadvantages of Buccal Delivery System:

1. Long contact with the ulcerogenic property of the drug.

2. The oral mucosal delivery is lack of a good model for the in vitro screening of drugs. This is the biggest disadvantage of this drug delivery.

3. It is necessary to check the acceptability of the patient in terms of taste, irritation and mouth feeling.

4. The buccal membrane is low permeability compared to the sublingual membrane.

5. It also has a smaller area.

6. Drug dissolution due to continuous saliva secretion (0.5-2 l / day. ^{11,12, 14}

EXPERIMENTAL:

Analytical method development:

In order to generate standard curve, 0.1 ml of myrtle oil were dissolved in 10ml of methanol. This solution ere diluted to obtain standard solution. The absorbance of standard solutions was measured by UV Spectrophotometer (Shimadzu, 1800) at 316 nm and the standard curve was generated.

Fig no:1

PROCEDURE FOR PREPARTION OF MUCOADHESIVE HERBAL PATCHES:

For the preparation of Mucoadhesive Herbal Patches were prepared by Combining of requisite amount of myrtle oil (active ingredient) and clove oil added and dissolve in our formulation Suitable Solvent. The drug matrix was prepared by using various Polymers ie. HPMC, EC, HEC, Chitosan. These polymers are dissolved in suitable Solvent. Also added other ingredient to enhance the analgesic Property of patches such as glycerine (moisturing agent), Tween 80(surfactant), triethanolamine (pH).Now the formulation is poured in petridish /aluminium at room temp for 24hr.The drug films were removed and wrapped in aluminium foil and kept in desiccator until used. ¹

FORMULATION:

Table no 1. Formulation using HPMC (Hydroxy Propyl Methyl Cellulose)

Sr. no	Ingredients	Uses	F1	F2
1.	HPMC	Film forming polymer	0.5gm	1gm
2.	Distilled water	Vehicle	10gm	20ml
3.	Myrtle oil	Active ingredient	1ml	1.5ml
4.	Clove oil	Analgesic agent	3-4drops	3-4drops
5.	Tween 80	Surfactant	1ml	1ml
6.	Glycerine	Moisturizing agent	1ml	1ml
7.	Triethanolamine	pH	1ml	1ml

Table no 2. Formulation using HEC(Hydroxyethyl Cellulose)

Sr. no	Ingredients	Uses	F1	F2
1.	HEC	Film forming polymer	0.5gm	1gm
2.	Distilled water	Vehicle	10ml	20ml
3.	Myrtle oil	Active ingredient	1ml	1.5ml
4.	Clove oil	Analgesic agent	3-4 drops	3-4 drops
5.	Glycerine	Moisturizing agent	1ml	1ml
6.	Tween 80	Surfactant	1ml	1ml
7.	Triethanolamine	pH	1ml	1ml

Table no 3. Formulation using EC(Ethyl cellulose)

Sr. no	Ingredient	Uses	F1	F2
1.	EC	Film forming polymer	0.5gm	1gm
2.	Ethyl alcohol	Vehicle	10ml	20ml
3.	Myrtle oil	Active ingredient	1ml	1ml
4.	Clove oil	Analgesic agent	3-4 drops	3-4 drops
5.	Glycerine	Moisturising agent	1ml	1ml
6.	Tween 80	Surfactant	1ml	1ml
7.	Triethanolamine	pH	1ml	1ml

Table no 4. Formulation using Chitosan

Sr.no	Ingredient	Uses	F1	F2
1.	Chitosan	Film forming polymer	0.5	1gm
2.	Glycial acetic acid	Solvent	2%	2%
3.	Water	Vehicle	10ml	10ml
4.	Glycerine	Moisturising agent	1ml	1ml
5.	Tween 80	Surfactant	1ml	1ml
6.	Triethanolamine	pH	1ml	1ml
7.	Myrtle oil	Active ingredient	1ml	1ml
8.	Clove oil	Analgesic agent	3-4 drops	3-4 drops

Fig.no:2. Preparation of patches

Fig no: 3. Prepared patches

EVALUATION OF MUCOADHESIVE HERBAL PATCHES:

Physical appearance:

The formulated patches were found to be clear, smooth, uniform, flexible in their physical appearance and free from entrapment of air bubble.^7,8,9

Thickness of the patch:

The thickness of the drug loaded patch is calculated in different points by using a digital micrometer, or travelling microscope, dial gauge, screw gauge, and determines the average thickness and standard deviation for the same to ensure the thickness of the prepared patch. Patch will have an equal thickness at every point. The variation of thickness within the patch and patch to patch can be calculated.^7,8,9

Moisture content:

Individually weighed patches are kept in the desiccators having fused calcium-chloride at room temperature for 24 hours. After 24 Hours the patches are to be reweighed and percentage moisture content is calculated by the formula.^7,8,9

% Moisture content = (Initial weight -Final weight) X 100/initial weight

Moisture uptake:

The weighed films are to be kept in desiccators at room temperature for 24 hours containing saturated solution of potassium chloride in instruct to maintain 84% RH After 24 hrs. The films are to be reweighed and determined the percentage moisture uptake.^7,8,9

%Moisture uptake = (Final weight - Initial weight X 100)/Initial weight

Folding endurance:

This was determined by repeatedly folding the film at the same place until it broke. The number of period the films could be folded at the same place without breaking/cracking gave the value of folding endurance.^7,8,9

Weight uniformity:

A specified area of the patches was cut carefully in different parts and afterward weighed in a digital balance. The average weight and standard deviation values were calculated from the individual weight.^7,8,9

Drug content determination: Amount of drug entrapped in a patch was determined by completely dissolving patch of size 2×2 cm2 in 100ml phosphate buffer solution (PH 7.4). Complete dissolution was achieved by placing the solution containing patch on shaker for about 24 hours. Solution was then filtered and drug content was estimated spectrophotometrically at 210nm after suitable dilution.^7,8,9

Studies In-vitro permeation: Permeation studies are carried out in order to determine transition of drug from patch to skin microcirculation. In this study synthetic membrane like cellulose nitrate was placed between the donor and receptor compartment of Franz diffusion cell. Receptor compartment was filled with phosphate buffer of ph. 7.4. transdermal patch was placed upon the cellulose nitrate membrane was towards the receptor compartment having phosphate buffer. The receiver compartment was maintained at room temperature and was continuously stirred with the help of magnetic stirrer. Samples were withdrawn at specific time interval and equal amount of phosphate buffer was replaced each time to maintain volume of receptor compartment at a constant level. Samples withdrawn were then analyzed for their absorbance and concentration was then calculated.

pH of the patch: Apparatus baker, pH meter, stirrer, wash bottle.^7,8,9

The pH meter was calibrated using standard buffer solution. About 1 patch dissolve in buffer solution and dissolved in 50ml of phosphate buffer and its pH was measured.^7,8,9

Ex vivo studies: The modified Franz diffusion cell was used for permeation studies. It consists of two compartments, one is donor compartment and another is receptor compartment of 25 ml capacity. The receptor compartment was covered with water jacket to maintain temperature at 37°C. The separated buccal epithelium was mounted between the chamber, and the receptor compartment was filled with 23 ml of phosphate buffer of pH 6.6. A Teflon-coated magnetic bead was placed in the receptor compartment, and the whole assembly was placed on the magnetic stirrer, and buccal epithelium was allowed to stabilize for a while. After solubilization, samples of 1 ml were with- drawn at regular intervals, suitably diluted, and were analyzed Spectrophotometrically at 286 nm. ⁸

RESULT AND DISCUSSION:

1. Physical appearance: Physical characteristics were found by its appearance which are color, odour, clarity, texture of respective patches of respective polymers

2. Thickness of Patches: Thickness of each patch were measured of respective polymer by thickness gauge.

Table no 6. Thickness of patches:

Polymer	Batch code	Thickness	Average
HPMC	F1 F2	0.70mm 0.55mm	0.62mm
HEC	F3 F4	0.15mm 0.35mm	0.25mm
EC	F5 F6	0.55mm 0.25mm	0.65mm
CHITOSAN	F7 F8	0.45mm 0.59mm	0.52mm

The thickness of ideal batch F1 and F2(HPMC) was measured and found to 0.62mm.

3. Moisture Content: Films were kept in desiccators at room temperature for 24 hrs. After 24 hrs. the films are to be reweighed and determined the percentage moisture uptake from the mentioned %Moisture uptake = (Final weight - Initial weight X 100)/Initial weight.

Table no 7. Moisture content:

Polymers	Batch code	Initials	Final wt.	% Moisture Content
HPMC	F1 F2	2.08 2.03	1.83 1.79	±0.25
HEC	F3 F4	2.52 2.48	2.23 2.22	±0.26
EC	F5 F6	2.06 2.08	1.80 1.84	±0.26
CHITOSAN	F7 F8	2.05 2.00	1.90 1.87	±0.15

The moisture content of ideal batch was found to be were F1 and F2

4. Folding Endurance: Folding endurance was found by folding the respective patches of respective polymers upto 100 times or more than 100 times.

Table no 8. Folding Endurance:

Polymer	Batch code	Folding Endurance	Average
HPMC	F1 F2	96 97	96
HEC	F3 D4	85 87	86
EC	F5 F6	95 94	94
CHITOSAN	F7 F8	78 80	79

The folding endurance of F1andF2[HPMC] was measured and found to be

The folding endurance of all the patches were found satisfactory. Which indicates polymers were having optimum flexibility and not brittle.

5. Weight Uniformity: The average weight and standard deviation values were calculated from the individual weight.

Table no 9. Weight uniformity:

Polymer	Batch code	Weight uniformity	Average
HPMC	F1 F2	2.08 2.03	2.05
HEC	F3 F4	2.52 2.48	2.49
EC	F5 F6	2.06 2.08	2.07
CHITOSAN	F7 F8	2.05 2.00	2.02

The weight uniformity of ideal batch was measured and found to be F1and F2.

6. Drug Content Determination: Drug content was estimated spectrophotometrically at 210nm after suitable dilution.

Table no 10. Drug content determination:

Polymer

Batch code

Absorbance

%drug content

HPMC

0.225

1.024

17.77

29.36

HEC

0.232

1.041

11.17

20.9

0.292

1.036

13.71

29.19

7. Determination of pH: pH was measured by digital ph meter. About 1 patch dissolve in buffer solution and dissolved in 50ml of phosphate buffer and its pH was measured.

Table no 11. Determination of pH

Sr. no	Days	F1	F2	F3	F4	F5	F6	F7	F8
1.	Initial days	9.56	9.13	9.47	9.39	9.42	9.3	1.49	1.5
2.	7days	9.54	9.13	9.45	9.35	9.42	9.3	1.48	1.5
3.	15days	9.52	9.08	9.43	9.35	9.39	9.3	1.48	1.4
4.	22days	9.52	9.06	9.43	9.30	9.37	9.3	1.46	1.4
5.	30days	9.50	9.06	9.40	9.28	9.37	9.3	1.46	1.4

8. Drug Release: Determined by placing the patches on the buccal mucosa membrane of goat which is placed between the donor and receptor compartment of Franz diffusion cell. Receptor compartment was filled with phosphate buffer of ph. 7.4 the readings were calculated in the interval of 20mins.The % drug release of HPMC - 54.01%, EC is 46.80%, HEC is 62.04

Table no 12. Drug release of HPMC Patch

Time	Absorbance	Micro/ml	micro/20ml	c.f.	%drug release	drug retained	Log (%drug Release)	flux
20	0.225	0.1080	17.77	0	17.77	82.23	1.2496	0.5174
40	1.024	0.5184	29.25	0.1080	29.36	70.64	1.4677	0.5174
60	1.064	0.5108	37.58	0.5184	38.09	61.90	1.5808	0.5174
90	1.070	0.5136	46.16	0.5108	47.12	52.87	1.6732	0.5174
120	1.466	0.7037	43.49	0.5136	54.01	45.99	1.7324	0.5174

Table no 13. Drug release of Ethyl Cellulose Patch

Time	Absorbance	Micro/ml	Micro/ 20ml	C.f.	% drug release	Drug retained	Log (%drug Release)	Flux
20	0.232	0.111	11.17	0	11.17	88.83	1.048	0.3844
40	1.041	0.596	20.78	0.111	20.9	79.1	1.320	0.3844
60	1.058	0.420	29.52	0.596	30.02	69.98	1.477	0.3844
90	1.069	0.328	37.70	0.420	38.21	61.9	1.582	0.3844
120	1.302	0.267	46.28	0.328	46.80	54.2	1.670	0.3844

Table no 14. Drug release of HEC Patch

Time	Absorbance	Micro/ml	Micro/20ml	C.f.	% drug release	Drug retained	Log (%drug release	Flux
20	0.292	0.1401	13.71	0	13.71	86.29	1.9359	0.5296
40	1.036	0.4973	29.05	0.140	29.19	70.95	1.8509	0.5296
60	1.048	0.5031	40.56	0.497	41.06	59.44	1.7740	0.5296
90	1.077	0.5170	55.19	0.503	55.7	44.81	1.6513	0.5296
120	1.245	0.5976	61.52	0.517	62.04	38.48	1.5852	0.5296

Fig no 5. %Drug release graph of HPMC

Fig no 6. %Drug release graph of Ethyl Cellulose

Fig no 7. %Drug release graph of HEC

Fig no 8. % Drug release graph of HPMC, EC and HEC

SUMMARY:

Mucoadhesive herbal patches has been in existence for a long time. In this we used myrtle oil (active ingredient) and clove oil were used for its analgesic property. In the present investigation, herbal mucoadhesive patches were formulated using HPM, HEC, EC and Chitosan polymer. The developed formulation showed good physicochemical properties like thickness, weight variation, drug content, folding endurance, moisture content. As per the result of diffusion study we can conclude that the formulation exhibited significant analgesic activity and the promising analgesic effect may be attributed which seems to be responsible. The result indicates that maximum release shows satisfactory results. So it can be concluded that such a medicated adhesive type patches of herbal ingredient could be a good carrier in Buccal drug delivery.

CONCLUSION:

The developed formulation showed good physicochemical properties like thickness, weight variation, drug content, folding endurance, moisture content. As per the result of diffusion study we can conclude that the formulation exhibited significant analgesic and anti-ulcer activity and the promising analgesic and anti-ulcer effect may be attributed which seems to be responsible. The result indicates that maximum release shows satisfactory results. So it can be concluded that analgesic and anti- ulcer effect may be attributed will be shown by HPMC patches containing myrtle oil as Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient. Medicated adhesive type patches of herbal ingredient could be a good carrier in Buccal drug delivery.

REFERENCES:

1. Fathima, S.R., Kumar, S.N., Rao, B.N., Ruksana, S., Harish, P., Joy, S., Divya, S. and Ayesha, S. Mucoadhesive Buccal Patches-A Review.

2. Bhutkar, K.G. Formulation and evaluation of mucoadhesive herbal buccal patch of Psidium Guava L. Journal of Current Pharma Research. 2014; 5(1): 1372.

3. Boddupalli, B.M., Mohammed, Z.N., Nath, R.A. and Banji, D. Mucoadhesive drug delivery system: An overview. Journal of Advanced Pharmaceutical Technology and Research. 2010; 1(4): 381.

4. Choudhary, A., Tiwari, G., Pandey, M., Kymonil, K.M. and Saraf, S.A. Formulation and characterization of carvedilol buccal mucoadhesive patches. Int. J. Res. Pharm. Sci. 2010; 1(4): .396-401.

5. Figueiras, A., Vieira, A., Simões, S. and Veiga, F. Mucoadhesive buccal systems as a novel strategy for anti-inflammatory drugs administration. Anti-Inflammatory and Anti-Allergy Agents in Medicinal Chemistry (Formerly Current Medicinal Chemistry-Anti-Inflammatory and Anti-Allergy Agents). 2011; 10(3): .190-202.

6. Garg, A., Garg, S., Kumar, M., Kumar, S., Shukla, A.K. and Kaushik, S.P.C. Applications of natural polymers in mucoadhesive drug delivery: An overview. Adv. Pharm. J. 2018; 3(2): 38-42.

7. Hashemi, M., Ramezani, V., Seyedabadi, M., Ranjbar, A.M., Jafari, H., Honarvar, M. and Fanaei, H. Formulation and optimization of oral mucoadhesive patches of myrtus communis by box behnken design. Advanced Pharmaceutical Bulletin. 2017; 7(3): 441.

8. Singhal, P., Jadoun, G.S., Sinha, M. and Saraf, S.A. Formulation and evaluation of buccal patches of terbutaline sulphate. Int J Res Pharm Sci. 2010; 4: 440-9.

9. Bhattacharjee, S., Nagalakshmi, S. and Shanmuganathan, S. Design, development and evaluation of mucoadhesive film for water insoluble drug using different plasticizers. International Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2014; 6(3): 107-110.

10. Gilhotra, R.M., Ikram, M., Srivastava, S. and Gilhotra, N. A clinical perspective on mucoadhesive buccal drug delivery systems. Journal of Biomedical Research. 2014; 28(2): .81.

11. Teotia, D., 2020. A comprehensive review on buccal patches. GSC Biological and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 13(1), pp.130-135.

12. Mishra, S., Kumar, G. and Kothiyal, P. A review article: recent approaches in buccal patches. The Pharma Innovation. 2012; 1(7).

13. Javaid, M.U. and Shahid, S. Buccal Patches: An Advanced Route of Drug Dosage Delivery-A Review. Int. J. Pharm. Pharm. Res. 2017; 10(3): 206-216.

14. Koyi, P.K. and Khan, A.B. Buccal patches: a review. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research. 2013; 4(1): 83.

15. Peddapalli, H., Bakshi, V. and Boggula, N. Formulation, in vitro and ex vivo characterization of mucoadhesive buccal tablets for antihypertensive drug. Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research. 2018; 11(8): 402-411.

Received on 17.05.2024 Revised on 19.07.2024

Accepted on 10.09.2024 Published on 05.12.2024

Available online on December 28, 2024

Research J. Topical and Cosmetic Sci. 2024; 15(2):91-97.

DOI: 10.52711/2321-5844.2024.00016

Polymer Batch code	F1 (HPMC)	F2 (HPMC)	F3 (HEC)	F4 (HEC)	F5 (EC)	F6 (EC)
Colour	Pale yellow	Pale yellow	Pale yellow	Pale yellow	Pale Yellow	Pale yellow
Clarity	Transparent	Transparent	Transparent	Transparent	Transparent	Transparent
Texture	Smooth	Smooth	Smooth	Smooth	Smooth	Smooth

Rina G. Maskare¹*, Manisha U. Mishra², Harshita D. Bansod³, Ipsita I. Sahoo³,

Ishika M. Chure³, Shubhangi G. Thule³, Hrishika R. Agrawal³

Ideal characteristics:

Types of buccal patches:

DISEASE:

Types of Ulcer:

POLYMERS:

Advantages of the Buccal drug delivery Process:

Disadvantages of Buccal Delivery System:

EXPERIMENTAL:

PROCEDURE FOR PREPARTION OF MUCOADHESIVE HERBAL PATCHES:

FORMULATION:

EVALUATION OF MUCOADHESIVE HERBAL PATCHES:

RESULT AND DISCUSSION:

Table no 12. Drug release of HPMC Patch

Table no 14. Drug release of HEC Patch

Fig no 8. % Drug release graph of HPMC, EC and HEC

SUMMARY:

CONCLUSION:

REFERENCES:

1. Fathima, S.R., Kumar, S.N., Rao, B.N., Ruksana, S., Harish, P., Joy, S., Divya, S. and Ayesha, S. Mucoadhesive Buccal Patches-A Review.

2. Bhutkar, K.G. Formulation and evaluation of mucoadhesive herbal buccal patch of Psidium Guava L. Journal of Current Pharma Research. 2014; 5(1): 1372.

3. Boddupalli, B.M., Mohammed, Z.N., Nath, R.A. and Banji, D. Mucoadhesive drug delivery system: An overview. Journal of Advanced Pharmaceutical Technology and Research. 2010; 1(4): 381.

4. Choudhary, A., Tiwari, G., Pandey, M., Kymonil, K.M. and Saraf, S.A. Formulation and characterization of carvedilol buccal mucoadhesive patches. Int. J. Res. Pharm. Sci. 2010; 1(4): .396-401.

6. Garg, A., Garg, S., Kumar, M., Kumar, S., Shukla, A.K. and Kaushik, S.P.C. Applications of natural polymers in mucoadhesive drug delivery: An overview. Adv. Pharm. J. 2018; 3(2): 38-42.

7. Hashemi, M., Ramezani, V., Seyedabadi, M., Ranjbar, A.M., Jafari, H., Honarvar, M. and Fanaei, H. Formulation and optimization of oral mucoadhesive patches of myrtus communis by box behnken design. Advanced Pharmaceutical Bulletin. 2017; 7(3): 441.

8. Singhal, P., Jadoun, G.S., Sinha, M. and Saraf, S.A. Formulation and evaluation of buccal patches of terbutaline sulphate. Int J Res Pharm Sci. 2010; 4: 440-9.

9. Bhattacharjee, S., Nagalakshmi, S. and Shanmuganathan, S. Design, development and evaluation of mucoadhesive film for water insoluble drug using different plasticizers. International Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2014; 6(3): 107-110.

10. Gilhotra, R.M., Ikram, M., Srivastava, S. and Gilhotra, N. A clinical perspective on mucoadhesive buccal drug delivery systems. Journal of Biomedical Research. 2014; 28(2): .81.

11. Teotia, D., 2020. A comprehensive review on buccal patches. GSC Biological and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 13(1), pp.130-135.

12. Mishra, S., Kumar, G. and Kothiyal, P. A review article: recent approaches in buccal patches. The Pharma Innovation. 2012; 1(7).

13. Javaid, M.U. and Shahid, S. Buccal Patches: An Advanced Route of Drug Dosage Delivery-A Review. Int. J. Pharm. Pharm. Res. 2017; 10(3): 206-216.

14. Koyi, P.K. and Khan, A.B. Buccal patches: a review. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research. 2013; 4(1): 83.

15. Peddapalli, H., Bakshi, V. and Boggula, N. Formulation, in vitro and ex vivo characterization of mucoadhesive buccal tablets for antihypertensive drug. Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research. 2018; 11(8): 402-411.

Rina G. Maskare1*, Manisha U. Mishra2, Harshita D. Bansod3, Ipsita I. Sahoo3,

Ishika M. Chure3, Shubhangi G. Thule3, Hrishika R. Agrawal3

Ideal characteristics:

Types of buccal patches:

DISEASE:

Types of Ulcer:

POLYMERS:

Advantages of the Buccal drug delivery Process:

Disadvantages of Buccal Delivery System:

EXPERIMENTAL:

PROCEDURE FOR PREPARTION OF MUCOADHESIVE HERBAL PATCHES:

FORMULATION:

EVALUATION OF MUCOADHESIVE HERBAL PATCHES:

RESULT AND DISCUSSION:

Table no 12. Drug release of HPMC Patch

Table no 14. Drug release of HEC Patch

Fig no 8. % Drug release graph of HPMC, EC and HEC

SUMMARY:

CONCLUSION:

REFERENCES:

1. Fathima, S.R., Kumar, S.N., Rao, B.N., Ruksana, S., Harish, P., Joy, S., Divya, S. and Ayesha, S. Mucoadhesive Buccal Patches-A Review.

2. Bhutkar, K.G. Formulation and evaluation of mucoadhesive herbal buccal patch of Psidium Guava L. Journal of Current Pharma Research. 2014; 5(1): 1372.

3. Boddupalli, B.M., Mohammed, Z.N., Nath, R.A. and Banji, D. Mucoadhesive drug delivery system: An overview. Journal of Advanced Pharmaceutical Technology and Research. 2010; 1(4): 381.

4. Choudhary, A., Tiwari, G., Pandey, M., Kymonil, K.M. and Saraf, S.A. Formulation and characterization of carvedilol buccal mucoadhesive patches. Int. J. Res. Pharm. Sci. 2010; 1(4): .396-401.

6. Garg, A., Garg, S., Kumar, M., Kumar, S., Shukla, A.K. and Kaushik, S.P.C. Applications of natural polymers in mucoadhesive drug delivery: An overview. Adv. Pharm. J. 2018; 3(2): 38-42.

7. Hashemi, M., Ramezani, V., Seyedabadi, M., Ranjbar, A.M., Jafari, H., Honarvar, M. and Fanaei, H. Formulation and optimization of oral mucoadhesive patches of myrtus communis by box behnken design. Advanced Pharmaceutical Bulletin. 2017; 7(3): 441.

8. Singhal, P., Jadoun, G.S., Sinha, M. and Saraf, S.A. Formulation and evaluation of buccal patches of terbutaline sulphate. Int J Res Pharm Sci. 2010; 4: 440-9.

9. Bhattacharjee, S., Nagalakshmi, S. and Shanmuganathan, S. Design, development and evaluation of mucoadhesive film for water insoluble drug using different plasticizers. International Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2014; 6(3): 107-110.

10. Gilhotra, R.M., Ikram, M., Srivastava, S. and Gilhotra, N. A clinical perspective on mucoadhesive buccal drug delivery systems. Journal of Biomedical Research. 2014; 28(2): .81.

11. Teotia, D., 2020. A comprehensive review on buccal patches. GSC Biological and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 13(1), pp.130-135.

12. Mishra, S., Kumar, G. and Kothiyal, P. A review article: recent approaches in buccal patches. The Pharma Innovation. 2012; 1(7).

13. Javaid, M.U. and Shahid, S. Buccal Patches: An Advanced Route of Drug Dosage Delivery-A Review. Int. J. Pharm. Pharm. Res. 2017; 10(3): 206-216.

14. Koyi, P.K. and Khan, A.B. Buccal patches: a review. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research. 2013; 4(1): 83.

15. Peddapalli, H., Bakshi, V. and Boggula, N. Formulation, in vitro and ex vivo characterization of mucoadhesive buccal tablets for antihypertensive drug. Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research. 2018; 11(8): 402-411.

Rina G. Maskare¹*, Manisha U. Mishra², Harshita D. Bansod³, Ipsita I. Sahoo³,

Ishika M. Chure³, Shubhangi G. Thule³, Hrishika R. Agrawal³