Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37025187›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of pharmaceutics: X2023

3D printing of amorphous solid dispersions: A comparison of fused deposition modeling and drop-on-powder printing.

Nadine Gottschalk, Malte Bogdahn, Julian Quodbach

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of pharmaceutics: X, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Nadine GottschalkInstitute of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics, Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Malte BogdahnMerck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.
Julian QuodbachInstitute of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics, Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nowadays, a high number of pipeline drugs are poorly soluble and require solubility enhancement by e.g., manufacturing of amorphous solid dispersion. Pharmaceutical 3D printing has great potential in producing amorphous solid oral dosage forms. However, 3D printing techniques differ greatly in terms of processing as well as tablet properties. In this study, an amorphous formulation, which had been printed via Fused Deposition Modeling and drop-on-powder printing, also known as binder jetting, was characterized in terms of solid-state properties and physical stability. Solid state assessment was performed by differential scanning calorimetry, powder X-ray diffraction and polarized microscopy. The supersaturation performance of the amorphous solid dispersion was assessed via non-sink dissolution. We further evaluated both 3D printing techniques regarding their processability as well as tablet uniformity in terms of dimension, mass and content. Challenges and limitations of each 3D printing technique were discussed. Both techniques are feasible for the production of amorphous formulations. Results indicated that Fused Deposition Modeling is better suited for production, as the recrystallization tendency was lower. Still, filament production and printing presented a major challenge. Drop-on-powder printing can be a viable alternative for the production of amorphous tablets, when a formulation is not printable by Fused Deposition Modeling.

Indexed as

3D printingAdditive manufacturingAmorphous solid dispersionBinder jettingDrop-on-powderFused deposition modelingSolubility enhancement

Identifiers

PMID37025187
PMCPMC10070627

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.