4.7 Article

Simplification of fused deposition modeling 3D-printing paradigm: Feasibility of 1-step direct powder printing for immediate release dosage form production

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2020.119124

关键词

3D-printing; Tablet; Immediate release; Direct powder printing; Personalized dosage form

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Direct powder three-dimensional (3D)-printing (DPP) of tablets to simplify fused deposition modelling (FDM) was explored. The FDM paradigm involving hot-melt extrusion for making 3D-printable drug-loaded filaments as intermediate products for tablet manufacturing has been gaining attention for the decentralized on-site production of personalized dosage forms. For direct 3D-printing, powder blends were loaded into a cartridge-like head and were successfully printed with honeycomb design following heating of the extrusion cartridge. This 1-step DPP with incorporation of in-built porosity providing higher surface area served as proof of concept for manufacture of rapid release dosage forms. Water soluble hydroxypropylcellulose SSL was chosen as matrix former and caffeine as model drug. The effect of PEG4000 as plasticizer/pore former and Kollidon VA64 as rapidly dissolving polymer on DPP processability and dissolution rate was investigated. Directly 3D-printed tablets with low (30%) infill density showed rapid dissolution independently of the formulation, whereas for high (80%) infill density a combination of PEG4000 and Kollidon VA64 was required to achieve rapid release. The obtained tablets demonstrated good uniformity of percent drug content but had variable weight. Caffeine was present in crystalline state and in the stable polymorph in the tablets. Hence, DPP feasibility for immediate release dosage form manufacture was demonstrated. This technique might create an opportunity to avoid hotmelt extrusion allowing 3D-printing independently of mechanical properties of a filament and potentially prolonging product shelf life by reducing thermal stress.

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

4.7
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