15 | P a g e International Standard Serial Number (ISSN ...ijupbs.com/Uploads/2....

15 | P a g e International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2319-8141

Full Text Available On www.ijupbs.com

International Journal of Universal Pharmacy and Bio Sciences 3(6): November-December 2014

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UNIVERSAL

PHARMACY AND BIO SCIENCES IMPACT FACTOR 2.093***

ICV 5.13*** Pharmaceutical Sciences RESEARCH ARTICLE……!!!

“DEVELOPMENT AND OPTIMIZATION OF MEDICATED CHEWING

GUM CONTAINING DIMENHYDRINATE” Abhijit V. Jadhav *, Shrinivas K. Mohite

Department of Pharmaceutics, Rajarambapu College of Pharmacy, Kasegaon-415 404, Sangli,

Maharashtra, India.

KEYWORDS:

Dimenhydrinate,

Medicated Chewing

Gum, Nausea, Patient

compliance.

For Correspondence:

Abhijit V. Jadhav*

Address: Department of

Pharmaceutics,

Rajarambapu College of

Pharmacy, Kasegaon-415

404, Sangli, Maharashtra,

India.

E-mail:

abhijit_jadhav26@rediff

mail.com

ABSTRACT

Oral route is most convenient for the patient therefore it is very popular

in the society. Chewing gum delivery system is convenient, easy to

administer anywhere, anytime and is pleasantly tasting, making it patient

acceptable. It is a novel drug delivery system containing masticatory gum

base with pharmacologically active ingredient and intended to use for

local treatment of mouth diseases or systemic absorption through oral

mucosa. Chewing gum is the convenient and effective means of rapidly

administering Dimenhydrinate, as it is readily soluble, permeable and

used to relieve symptoms of nausea, motion sickness and vomating. In

present study medicated chewing gum of Dimenhydrinate has been

formulated using gum base, sorbitol, mannitol, magnesium stearate, agar,

menthol. This medicated chewing gum was prepared by direct

compression method and formulated by using various compositions of

gum base and agar like 30-35-40 % and 10-15-20 % accordingly. In the

formulation Agar was used as an emulsifying agent and it was found that

it acted on the drug release to some extent. When concentration of Agar

was increased, drug release was also found to be increased.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



INTRODUCTION :

Medicated chewing gum is solid, single-dose preparations that have to be chewed & not swallowed;

chewing gums contain one or more active ingredient that is released by chewing. A medicated

chewing gum is intended to be chewed for a certain period of time, required to deliver the dose,

after which the remaining mass is discarded. During the chewing process the drug contained in the

gum product is released from the mass into saliva & could be absorbed through the oral mucosa or

swallowed reaching stomach for gastro-intestinal absorption. Medicated chewing gum is a novel

drug delivery system containing masticatory gum base with pharmacologically active ingredient

and intended to use for local treatment of mouth diseases or systemic absorption through oral

mucosa. Chewable tablets and chewing gum have been very well received by the parents for use in

children with full dentition. Children in particular may consider chewing gum as a more preferred

method of drug administration compared with oral liquids and tablets; hence attempt is made to

prepare medicated chewing gum to increase compliance. The use of medicated chewing gum is

feasible in local treatment of diseases of oral cavity as well as treatment of systemic conditions.

Chewing gum has been used for centuries to clean the mouth and freshen the breath. The first patent

for the production of chewing gum was filed in 1869 and was issued to WF Semple in Ohio under

US patent no. 98,304. A medicated chewing gum containing acetyl salicylic acid was commercially

introduced in 1928. In 1991, chewing gum was approved as a term for pharmaceutical dosage form

by the Commission of European Council.

Dimenhydrinate is a histamine H1 antagonist used in nausea, vomiting, dizziness, and vertigo. It

has also been used in veterinary applications. It generally causes less drowsiness and sedation than

Diphenhydramine. The mechanism of action of Dimenhydrinate is related to it’s central

anticholinergic actions. It diminish vestibular stimulation and depress labyrinthine function. An

action on the medullary chemoreceptive trigger zone may also be involved in the antiemetic effect.

Dimenhydrinate's anti-emetic effect is probably due to H1 antagonism in the vestibular system in

the brain. The half-life of Dimenhydrinate is 1-4 hr., the protein binding of drug is 99%.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Materials: The dimenhydrinate was obtained as a gift sample from S. S. Pharmachem Tarapur,

Thane. Agar was obtained as a gift sample from SD Fine lab Chemicals, Mumbai. Gum base was

obtained as a gift sample from Cafosa SPA, Spain. All other chemicals and solvents used were of

analytical grade.



Table 1: Ingredients of medicated chewing gum tablets.

Contents

(mg)

Formulation Batches

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9

Drug 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

Gum Base 300 300 300 350 350 350 400 400 400

Agar 100 150 200 100 150 200 100 150 200

Sorbitol 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Menthol 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Mannitol 225 175 125 175 125 75 125 75 25

Mg. Stearate* 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Aerosil 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Xylitol 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Total 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800

*All quantities were taken in mg, *Mg= Magnesium.

Preparation of the chewing gum tablet

Direct compression method was used to prepare the chewing gum tablet. Weighed quantity of gum

base powder and active ingredient were mixed well in morter. To it, accurately weighed agar,

sorbitol and menthol were added. The xylitol was added as sweetening agent. After thorough

mixing, the lubricant and glidant were also mixed. The powder was compressed into tablets using

flat faced punches of 13 mm diameter by keeping hardness between 1-2 kg/cm2

using KBr press,

Technosearch.

Characterization of Dimenhydrinate

Melting Point of Drug

Melting point of Dimenhydrinate was determined by open capillary method using Thiel’s tube. The

temperature at which the drug started melting was noted. Average of three results was noted as the

melting point of drug.

λmax Determination

UV-spectrum of pure Dimenhydrinate was taken in artificial saliva pH 7.4. Drug (10 mg) was

dissolved in 100 ml Artificial Saliva pH 7.4 to obtain the stock solution of concentration 100 µg/ml.

From this stock solution, 1 ml was withdrawn and diluted to 10 ml. Absorbance was checked using

UV-spectrophotometer. It should give 1 peak corresponding to its λmax at 277 nm.

Calibration curve of Dimenhydrinate in artificial saliva pH 7.4

Calibration curve of Dimenhydrinate has been carried out in artificial saliva pH 7.4. 10 mg of drug

was dissolved in 100 ml of dissolution medium to obtain stock solution of concentration 100 μg/ml.

From this 0.2 ml, 0.4 ml, 0.6 ml, 0.8 ml, 1.0 ml, 1.2 ml and 1.4 ml aliquots were withdrawn and

diluted to 10 ml to give the solutions of concentration 2-14 μg/ml. Absorbances were recorded at

277 nm using UV-Spectrophotometer (Jasco V630, Japan) and standard curve was plotted and

values of slope, intercept and coefficient of correlation were calculated.



Preparation of calibration curve of Dimenhydrinate by HPLC:

The solutions of concentration 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 μg/mL were prepared from Dimenhydrinate

stock solution in solvent mixture [Methanol: Acetonitrile] (85:15) and the same solvent mixture

was used as a mobile phase for performing HPLC analysis using C18 column.

Powder X - Ray diffraction (PXRD):

PXRD was performed busing a D/Max X-ray fluorescence spectrophotometer with a CuKa line as

the source of radiation. Standard runs were carried out using a voltage of 56 kV, a current of 182

mA and a scanning rate of 2⁰ min-1 over a 2-theta range of 5-50⁰C.

Infrared (IR) Spectroscopy:

IR study was carried out to check purity of drug. It was determined by Fourier Transform Infrared

spectrophotometer (FTIR Jasco 4100, Japan). The baseline correction was done by blank

background measurement. The scanning range was 400-4000 cm-1

.

Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC):

Thermograms of pure drug, physical mixture and optimized formulation were recorded using

Mettler-Toledo DSC 821e instrument equipped with an intracooler. Samples were sealed in

aluminum pans and heated at the rate of 10oC/min from 30

oC-300

oC under nitrogen atmosphere of

flow rate 10 ml/min.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Melting Point

Temperature was noted at which solid drug changes into liquid. It was found to be 1040C. (std. -

102-1070C)

max Determination

The standard solution of Dimenhydrinate of concentration 10 g/ml showed maximum absorbance

of 0.2743 at 277 nm wavelength in artificial Saliva pH 7.4.

Fig. 1: UV spectrum of Dimenhydrinate



Calibration curve of Dimenhydrinate

The data for the calibration curve of Dimenhydrinate in artificial Saliva pH 7.4 is shown in table

no.2 the calibration plot is as shown in the figure 2.The Beer’s Lambert’s law was found to be

obeyed over the range of 0-14 μg /ml.

Fig. 2: Calibration curve of Dimenhydrinate in artificial Saliva pH 7.4

Table 2: Data for standard Calibration curve

R2 0.9998

Slope 0.0325

Intercept 0.00136

Preparation of calibration curve of Dimenhydrinate by HPLC

Calibration curve of Dimenhydrinate by HPLC was determined, using C18 column equipped with

UV detector at 277 nm using Methanol: Acetonitrile (85:15) as mobile phase. Equation of this

calibration curve was utilized to determine the unknown plasma concentration of Dimenhydrinate.

Calibration curves and values of slope, intercept and R2 are shown in Fig.3 and table 3 respectively.

Fig. 3: HPLC overlain chromatogram of dimenhydrinate



Table 3: Various constants for calibration curves

Parameter Value for calibration curve in

Methanol : acetonitrile (85:15)

Slope 110375

Intercept 1681.85.

‘r2’ 0.9996

Powder X - Ray diffraction (PXRD)

X-ray diffraction analysis was performed (Fig.4). Existence of high intensity peaks at diffraction

angles 2-theta of 17.5⁰, 19.4⁰, 21.0⁰, 25.4⁰, 27.3⁰ and 28.8⁰ suggesting that dimenhydrinate is

purely crystalline in nature.

Fig.4: XRD of dimenhydrinate

FTIR Spectroscopy

IR spectra of Dimenhydrinate shows characteristic peak of C-Cl stretching at 750.174 cm-1

, C=O

stretching 1688.37 cm-1

, N-H Bend 1645.95cm-1

, C-C Stretch 1453.5cm-1

and Ter. amine 671.106

cm-1

. The FTIR spectra of optimized formulation showed same peak as that of pure drug. From

FTIR spectra it was observed that there was no any incompatibility between drug and carrier.

Fig. 5: IR spectra of Dimenhydrinate



Fig. 6: IR of optimized formulation (F6)

Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) The DSC curves obtained for pure drug and optimized

formulation were shown in figures. DSC analysis of crystalline drug showed single sharp

endothermic peak at 104.7 0C correspondence to its melting point. It is revealed from DSC

thermogram of optimized formulation showed sharp endothermic peak at 105.440C correspondence

to melting point of pure drug. From both of the DSC thermogram, it was concluded that there was

no any interaction between drug entity and excipients.

Fig. 7: DSC thermogram of Dimenhydrinate



Fig. 8: DSC thermogram of formulation F6.

Evaluation of Powder Blends

Bulk densities of powder blends were found between 0.5013-0.5541 g/cc. Tap densities of powder

blends were found between 0.5860- 0.6810 g/cc. The angle of repose values varied from 19.33 -

23.63. Carr’s Index values varied from 8.70 % to 18.35 %. From these values it was observed that

all these blends had good flow properties.

Table 4: Evaluation of powder blend (F1-F9)

Batch Bulk Density

(g/cc)

Tapped

Density (g/cc)

Carr’s Index

(%)

Hausner’s

Ratio

Angle of

Repose (ɵo)

F1 0.5230 ±0.004 0.6410 ± 0.026 18.35 ± 3.884 1.22 ± 0.06 20.20 ±0.56

F2 0.5540 ±0.0017 0.6403 ± 0.0011 13.36 ± 0.11 1.15 ±0.001 20.53 ±1.28

F3 0.5301 ±0.008 0.6810 ± 0.007 8.70 ± 1.778 1.09 ± 0.02 21.47 ± 0.07

F4 0.5330 ±0.011 0.5862 ± 0.007 9.09 ± 1.312 1.12 ± 0.05 20.10 ± 0.08

F5 0.5270 ±0.002 0.6230 ± 0.008 15.34 ± 0.754 1.18 ± 0.01 19.33 ± 0.12

F6 0.5013 ±0.0012 0.5901 ±0.0017 15.02 ± 0.05 1.17 ±0.0007 24.07 ±0.005

F7 0.5270 ±0.0017 0.5860 ±0.0034 10.06 ± 0.83 1.11 ±0.010 22.66 ±1.03

F8 0.5541 ±0.002 0.6590 ± 0.007 15.96 ± 0.955 1.19 ± 0.01 21.54 ± 0.05

F9 0.5496 ±0.0017 0.5866 ±0.0023 10.51 ± 0.05 1.11 ±0.0007 23.63 ±1.004

*All values are expressed as mean ± SD; n = 3

Evaluation of chewing gum tablet

All batches of prepared tablets were evaluated for the different parameters. Weight variation for

prepared tablets was found within specifications of Indian Pharmacopoeia. Average weight for

tablet was in the range of 800 –801 mg. Hardness values for tablets of all formulations were in the

range of 3.5-4.2 Kg/cm2. Thickness values for of all tablets were in the range of 3.8-4.3 mm.



Friability of all the formulations was in the range of 0.68-0.98 %. Drug contents for all the

formulations were found in the range of 94.53-99.04 %.

Table 5: Evaluation of dimenhydrinate Chewing gum tablet

Batch

Code

Color Weight

uniformity*

(mg)

Thickness

*

(mm)

Stickiness Hardness

*

(Kg/cm2)

Friability

*

(%)

Uniformity

Content*

(%)

F1 O. W 801.6 ± 1.15 4.1 ± 0.1 NS 3.8 ± 0.05 0.91 ±0.02 94.53± 0.33

F2 O. W 802 ± 1 3.8 ± 0.1 NS 4 ± 0.05 0.98 ±0.01 94.82± 0.40

F3 O. W 800.1 ± 1.52 4.3 ± 0.1 NS 3.9 ± 0.1 0.89 ±0.02 95.20± 0.45

F4 O. W 798.3± 1 4.1 ± 0.15 NS 3.8 ± 0.2 0.86± 0.06 98.06± 0.32

F5 O. W 800.1 ± 2.08 4.3 ± 0.15 NS 3.7 ± 0.15 0.74± 0.03 98.00± 0.22

F6 O. W 800 ± 1 3.8 ± 0.1 NS 3.5 ± 0.20 0.80 ±0.01 99.04± 0.42

F7 O. W 801.3 ± 1.52 4.3 ± 0.1 NS 4.1 ± 0.15 0.85± 0.02 96.96± 0.54

F8 O. W 800 ± 0.57 4.1 ± 0.15 NS 4.2 ± 0.15 0.68± 0.07 97.25± 0.38

F9 O. W 801.6 ± 0.57 3.9 ± 0.11 NS 4 ± 0.1 0.71± 0.06 97.42± 0.33

Mean ± SD (n=3) O.W: Off White * (n=20) N.S: Non sticky

In-vitro Drug Release

The medicated chewing gum tablet mainly consisted of gum base, active ingredient, emulsifying

agent, plasticizer, sweetening agent and flavoring agent. In the present formulations, we have varied

the concentrations of the Gum base and Agar which act as a base and emulsifier respectively. All

formulations were non sticky in nature. But, the formulation F6 released the drug more than 90 %.

This was due to the softness of the formulation F6 developed during the in-vitro dissolution study.

Formulation F6 contained highest amount of agar and less amount of base. The drug release from

various formulations was found to be in the range of 61.89 % - 96.88 %. It was found to be least for

F1 having the least concentration of both the base and the emulsifier, whereas it was found to be

maximum in F6 in which the concentration of both base and the emulsifier was found to be

optimum. From the in-vitro drug release data, it was observed that an increase in the concentration

of softener may reduce the hardness of the chewing gum tablet also it was observed that the

increase in the concentration of emulsifier and decrease in the concentration of base may increases

drug release from formulation.



Table 6: Cumulative % drug release of formulations F1-F9

Sr. No. Time

[min]

% Cumulative drug release*

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9

1 0 0 ±0.00 0 ±0.00 0 ±0.00 0 ±0.00 0 ±0.00 0 ±0.00 0 ±0.00 0 ±0.00 0 ±0.00

2 5 12.74

±0.025

22.06

±0.55

29.46

±0.44

15.84

±0.45

26.82

±0.34

27.51

±0.58

13.88

±0.40

23.19

±0.45

31.89

±0.16

3 10 25.05

±0.59

43.75

±0.34

45.18

±0.62

27.67

±0.70

35.31

±0.74

38.55

±0.63

25.92

±0.72

47.34

±0.53

55.03

±0.65

4 15 37.54

±0.55

57.79

±0.64

58.96

±0.35

44.05

±0.47

54.59

±0.96

67.19

±0.61

39.66

±0.23

56.33

±0.34

59.94

±0.86

5 20 50.11

±0.015

63.83

±0.21

67.34

±0.29

55.02

±0.31

69.37

±0.26

80.35

±0.72

49.88

±0.64

66.07

±0.69

67.59

±0.75

6 25 57.48

±0.56

67.16

±0.68

71.54

±0.74

58.29

±0.54

79.47

±0.42

88.07

±0.83

56.26

±0.54

68.33

±0.74

77.45

±0.46

7 30 61.89

±0.35

70.45

±0.45

75.96

±0.37

67.20

±0.49

84.63

±0.33

96.88

±0.78

62.62

±0.66

72.66

±0.48

82.57

±0.34

Fig. 9: Comparative % cumulative drug release profile of formulations F1-F9



Data Analysis of Formulations: Traditional designing of the pharmaceutical formulations are

based on time consuming approach of changing one variable at a time which does not take into

consideration the joint effect of independent variables. Thus, factorial design can serve as an

essential tool to understand the complexity of the pharmaceutical formulations. The results can be

expressed either as simple linear or second order polynomial equation to statistically evaluate the

responses obtained after experiments. A 32

full factorial design was selected and the 2 factors were

evaluated at 3 levels, (table). The amount of gumbase (X1) and agar (X2) were selected as

independent variables and the dependent variables were hardness and percent drug release at 30 min

(% DR). The data obtained was treated using Stat-Ease Design Expert 9.0.2.0 software and

analyzed statistically using analysis of variance (ANOVA).

Table 7: Design summary

Response Name Unit Observations Analysis Min. Max.

Y1 Hardness kg/cm2 9 Polynomial 3.5 4.2

Y2 %DR Percent (%) 9 Polynomial 61.89 96.88

Table 8: The responses of all formulations

Responses X1 X2 Hardness

(kg/cm2)

%DR

(%)

F1 -1 -1 3.8 61.89

F2 -1 0 4 70.45

F3 -1 +1 3.9 75.96

F4 0 -1 3.8 67.20

F5 0 0 3.7 86.63

F6 0 +1 3.5 96.88

F7 +1 -1 4.1 62.62

F8 +1 0 4.2 72.66

F9 +1 +1 4 82.57

The drug release for 9 batches (F1-F9) showed a wide variation in responses Y1 and Y2. The

hardness was found to be decreasing from 3.8 to 3.5 if the concentration of independent variables

i.e. agar was increased. But as the concentrations of these independent variables were increased,

eventually the drug release was found to be increased from 61.89 to 96.88. The data clearly

indicated that hardness and %DR were strongly dependant on the selected independent variables.

The equations related with responses of hardness and %DR to transformed factors is shown below.

Hardness (kg/cm2) = + 3.93 + 0.22X1 - 0.27X2 - 0.050X1X2 – 0.083X1

2 – 0.033 X2

2 –

0.050X1

2 X2 + 0.050 X1 X2

2 …..Equation 1

(R2= 0.87)

%Drug Release = + 84.51 + 2.60X1 + 14.84X2 + 1.47X1X2 - 11.39X12 - 2.40X2

2 -

6.33X12X2 – 0.77X1X2

2 …..Equation 2

(R2= 0.99)



In equation no. 1, positive sign for gum base (X1) and negative sign of agar (X2) indicates that the

hardness was increased with an increase in the concentration of gum and was decreased with an

increases in the concentration of agar.

In equation no. 2, the positive sign for gum base (X1) and positive sign of agar (X2) indicates that

percent drug release after 30 minutes increases as amount of gumbase and agar increases. The

information, the equation conveyed was the basis to study the effects of variables. The regression

coefficient values are the estimates of the model fitting. The R2 was high indicating the adequate

fitting of the quadratic model.

All the polynomial equations were found to be statistically significant (P˂0.05), as determined

using ANOVA, as per the provision of Design Expert software. The polynomial equation can be

used to draw conclusion after considering the magnitude of coefficient and the mathematical sign it

carries; i.e. positive or negative.

a. ANOVA Study:

Evaluation and interpretation of research findings are utmost important and P-value serves a

valuable purpose in these findings. ANOVA and Multiple regression analysis were done using Stat-

Ease Design Expert 9.0.2.0 software. Table 9 and 10 represents ANOVA for the dependent

variables hardness and %DR respectively. The coefficient of X1 and X2 were found to be significant

at P˂0.05 and thus confirmed significant effect of both the variables on the selected responses.

Increasing the amount of gum base resulted in the decrease in the hardness but drug release was

found to be increased and vice versa i.e. increasing the amount of agar resulted in the increase in the

drug release but hardness was found to be decreased.

Table 9: Analysis of variance for hardness (kg/cm2)

Source Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square

F Value P Value Model

Significant/Nonsignificant

Model 0.42 7 0.063 9.09 0.0251 Significant

X1 0.042 1 0.020 2.88 0.0339 Significant

X2 0.027 1 0.045 6.48 0.02383 Significant

X1X2 0.023 1 0.023 3.24 0.0322 Significant

(X1)2 0.029 1 0.29 42.32 0.0974 Significant

(X2)2 0.036 1 0.036 5.12 0.0264 Significant

X12X2 0.021 1 0.021 3.00 0.033 Significant

X1X2 2 0.083 1 0.083 0.12 0.7877 Significant

Residual 6.944 1 6.944 - - -

Core Total 0.45 8 - - - -



Table 10: Analysis of variance for percent drug release at 30 min (%DR)

Source Sum of

Squares

Degree of

Freedom

Mean

Square

F Value P Value Model

Significant/Nonsignificant

Model 1036.23 7 148.03 3356.76 0.0133 Significant

X1 13.57 1 13.57 307.76 0.01362 Significant

X2 440.45 1 440.45 9987.56 0.0064 Significant

X1X2 8.64 1 8.64 196.00 0.0454 Significant

(X1)2 259.24 1 259.24 5878.38 0.0083 Significant

(X2)2 11.52 1 11.52 261.22 0.0393 Significant

X12X2 53.51 1 53.51 1213.37 0.0183 Significant

X1X2 2 0.79 1 0.79 17.93 0.1477 Significant

Residual 0.044 1 0.044 - - -

Core

Total

1036.28 8 - - - -

b. Response Surface Plot: The quadratic surface model obtained from the regresion analysis was

used to build up contour and 3-D graphs in which the responses were represented by curvature

surface as a function of independent variables. The releationship between the response and

independent variables can be directly visualized from the response surface plots. The response

surface plots were generated using Design Expert 9.0.2.0 software and are presented in figure.

These were used to observe the effects of independent variables on the studied responses such as

hardness and % DR respectively. Graphical presentation of the data helped to show the relationship

between the response and the independent variables. The information given by graph was similar to

that of mathematical equation obtained from statistical analyses.



Fig. 10: Contour plot for hardness

Fig. 11: Response 3-D surface plot for hardness



Fig. 12: Contour plot for percent drug release at 30 min

Fig. 13: Response 3-D surface plot for percent drug release at 30 min

CONCLUSION

In present work chewing gum formulations were prepared in the tablet form by using agar and gum

base. This property is essential for the chewing gum base because it eliminates the possibility of

dissolution of gum base in saliva. From the results obtained in this work, it can be concluded that

synthetic gum base can be used as an excellent agent for formulation of chewing gum. For chewing

gum formulations all studies like stickiness, weight variation, friability and in-vitro release test

were performed. All the formulations were found to be complied for weight variation and



uniformity of active content tests. It was also found that the chewing gum tablets were not friable

which confirmed the integrity of the formulation. In-vitro release test was performed using

modified disintegration apparatus for tablet. From the in vitro drug release data it was concluded

that drug release from the chewing gum tablet was satisfactory. In the formulation agar was used as

a emulsifier and it was found that it acted on the drug release to some extent. When concentration of

agar was increased, drug release was also found to be increased.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

The authors are grateful to S. S. Pharmachem Tarapur, Thane and Cafosa, Spain for providing gift

sample of Dimenhydrinate and Gum base respectively. Authors are also thankful to Shivaji

University, Kolhapur and Rajarambapu College of Pharmacy, Kasegaon for providing facility for

DSC studies and all research work respectively.

REFERENCES:

1. Bumrela S, Kane RN, Medicated Chewing Gum: New Reformulation Technique. 2008.

www.pharmainfo.net.

2. Dong NH, Jabar F, Chewing Gum of Antimicrobial Decapeptides (KLS) as a Sustain

Antiplaque Agent: Preformulation Study. J Control Release, 2005; 107: 122-130.

3. Ezhumalai K, Ilavarasan P, Medicated Chewing Gum-A Novel Drug Delivery Technique

For Systemic and Targeted Drug Delivery. Int J Pharm & Techn, 2011, 3 (1): 725-744.

4. Florey K. Analytical profiles of drug substances. 7th edi. New York academic press,

Elsevier, 2005: 41.

5. Jain H, Shah M, Shah B, Pasha TY. Medicated Chewing Gum: A Novel Oral Drug

Delivery. Int J Drug Formulation Res, 2010; 1 (3): 80-96.

6. Jensen L.N., Damkier B, The Relative Bioavailability of Loratadine Administered As A

Chewing Gum Formulation In Healthy Volunteers, Eur J Clinical Pharmacol, 2006; 62 (6):

437-445.

7. Maggi L, Segale L, Preparation and Evaluation of Release Characteristic of 3TabGum, a

Novel Chewing Device, Eur J Pharma Sci, 2005; 244: 87-93.

8. Lee WW, Chewing gum as a delivery vehicle for pharmaceutical and nutraceutical

substances, Pharm Tech Online, 2001: 1-11.

9. Morjaria Y, Irwin WJ, In-Vitro Release of Nicotine from Chewing Gum Formulations.

Dissolution Tech, 2004: 12-15.

10. Pandey S, Goyani M, Development, In-Vitro Evaluation and Physical Characterization of

Medicated Chewing Gum: Chlorohexidine Gluconate, Der Pharmacia Lettre, 2009; 1(2):

286-292.



11. Potnis VV, Runwal AV, Chewing Gums Are Mobile Drug Delivery Systems. 2008.

www.pharmainfo.net.

12. Shojaei AH. Buccal mucosa as a route for systemic drug delivery: A review. J Pharm Sci.

1998; 1 (1): 15-30.

13. Madhav NV, Shakya AK, Shakya P, Singh K, Orotransmucosal Drug Delivery Systems: A

Review. J Control Rel, 2009; 140 (1): 2-11.

14. Maggi L, Segale L, Preparation and Evaluation of Release Characteristic of 3TabGum, a

Novel Chewing Device, Eur J Pharma Sci, 2005; 24: 487-493.

15. Kvist C, Andersson SB, Fors S, Wennergren B, Berglund J, Apparatus for studying in vitro

drug release from medicated chewing gums. Int J Pharm, 1999; 89: 57-65.

15 | P a g e International Standard Serial Number (ISSN ...ijupbs.com/Uploads/2....

Documents

Transcript of 15 | P a g e International Standard Serial Number (ISSN ...ijupbs.com/Uploads/2....