ArticlePharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Numerical and Experimental Analysis of Drug Inhalation in Realistic Human Upper Airway Model.
Article in Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- CFD-Enabled Deep Insert Nasal Delivery for Precision Sinus Targeting.Pharmaceutical research · 2026Article
- Multiscale simulation of respiratory airflow using physiologically consistent geometry and boundary conditions in OpenFOAM.Computers in biology and medicine · 2025Article
- Computational Modeling of Nasal Cavity Aerodynamics: Implications for Surgical Outcomes and Targeted Drug Administration.Ear, nose, & throat journal · 2025Article
- Computational Rhinology: Unraveling Discrepancies between In Silico and In Vivo Nasal Airflow Assessments for Enhanced Clinical Decision Support.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Physical Conditions Prevailing in the Nasal and Maxillary Sinus Cavities Based on Numerical Simulation.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The demand for a more efficient and targeted method for intranasal drug delivery has led to sophisticated device design, delivery methods, and aerosol properties. Due to the complex nasal geometry and measurement limitations, numerical modeling is an appropriate approach to simulate the airflow, aerosol dispersion, and deposition for the initial assessment of novel methodologies for better drug delivery. In this study, a CT-based, 3D-printed model of a realistic nasal airway was reconstructed, and airflow pressure, velocity, turbulent kinetic energy (TKE), and aerosol deposition patterns were simultaneously investigated. Different inhalation flowrates (5, 10, 15, 30, and 45 L/min) and aerosol sizes (1, 1.5, 2.5, 3, 6, 15, and 30 µm) were simulated using laminar and SST viscous models, with the results compared and verified by experimental data. The results revealed that from the vestibule to the nasopharynx, the pressure drop was negligible for flow rates of 5, 10, and 15 L/min, while for flow rates of 30 and 40 L/min, a considerable pressure drop was observed by approximately 14 and 10%, respectively. However, from the nasopharynx and trachea, this reduction was approximately 70%. The aerosol deposition fraction alongside the nasal cavities and upper airway showed a significant difference in pattern, dependent on particle size. More than 90% of the initiated particles were deposited in the anterior region, while just under 20% of the injected ultrafine particles were deposited in this area. The turbulent and laminar models showed slightly different values for the deposition fraction and efficiency of drug delivery for ultrafine particles (about 5%); however, the deposition pattern for ultrafine particles was very different.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.