4.6 Article

Monitoring the penetration process of single microneedles with varying tip diameters

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2014.09.015

关键词

Skin mechanics; Microneedle; Penetration force; Penetration depth

资金

  1. Dutch Technology Foundation STW, part of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO)
  2. Ministry of Economic Affairs [11259]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microneedles represent promising tools for delivery of drugs to the skin. However, before these microneedles can be used in clinical practice, it is essential to understand the process of skin penetration by these microneedles. The present study was designed monitor both penetration depth and force of single solid microneedles with various tip diameters ranging from 5 to 37 mu m to provide insight into the penetration process into the skin of these sharp microneedles. To determine the microneedles penetration depth, single microneedles were inserted in human ex vivo while monitoring the surface of the skin. Simultaneously, the force on the microneedles was measured. The average penetration depth at 1.5 mm displacement was similar for all tip diameters. However, the process of penetration depth was significantly different for the various microneedles. Microneedles with a tip diameter of 5 mu m were smoothly inserted into the skin, while the penetration depth of microneedles with a larger tip diameter suddenly increased after initial superficial penetration. In addition, the force at insertion (defined as the force at a sudden decrease in measured force) linearly increased with tip diameter ranging from 20 to 167 mN. The force drop at insertion was associated with a measured penetration depth of approximately 160 mu m for all tip diameter, suggesting that drop in force was due to the penetration of a deeper skin layer. This study showed that sharp microneedles are essential to insert microneedles in a well-controlled way to a desired depth. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据