ArticleAAPS PharmSciTech2021
Design and Optimization of 3D-Printed Gastroretentive Floating Devices by Central Composite Design.
Article in AAPS PharmSciTech, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Innovative 3D-Printed Devices with Modified Prednisolone Release for Colon-Targeted Drug Delivery Systems.Pharmaceutics · 2026Article
- 3D printing processes in precise drug delivery for personalized medicine.Biofabrication · 2024Review
- Fused Deposition Modelling 3D-Printed Gastro-Retentive Floating Device for Propranolol Hcl Tablets.Polymers · 2023Article
- Gastroretentive Sustained-Release Tablets Combined with a Solid Self-Micro-Emulsifying Drug Delivery System Adsorbed onto Fujicalin®.AAPS PharmSciTech · 2022Article
- Ameliorated Stomach Specific Floating Microspheres for Emerging Health Pathologies Using Polymeric Konjac Glucomannan-Based Domperidone.BioMed research international · 2022Article
- 3D Printing of Thermo-Sensitive Drugs.Pharmaceutics · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to optimize the size of capsule-shaped 3D-printed devices (CPD) using an experimental design by the response surface methodology to provide a gastroretentive drug delivery system (GRDDS) with optimal floating time. The CPD was fabricated using a fused deposition modeling (FDM) 3D printer. The central composite design was employed for the optimization of the devices. The morphology of the CPD was observed using a digital microscope and scanning electron microscope (SEM). The in vitro floating time and drug release were evaluated using a USP dissolution apparatus II. Appropriate total floating time (TFT) of the devices (more than 3 h) was obtained with the device's body, cap, and bottom thickness of 1.2, 1.8, and 2.9 mm, respectively. The release kinetics of the drug from the devices fitted well with zero-order kinetics. In conclusion, the optimization of CPD for GRDDS using the experimental design provided the devices with desirable floating time and ideal drug release characteristics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34191172What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.