Abstract
ABSTRACT
Objective: To determine whether PubMed or Scopus indexed a primary study of a micellar microneedle applied to oral mucosa through 28 February 2026 and to map the closest device and carrier evidence.
Methods: We searched and deduplicated PubMed and Scopus using a single publication cutoff of 28 February 2026. Three prespecified arms covered the target oral-mucosal combination (Arm A), non-oral micellar microneedles (Arm B), and oral-mucosal microneedles without a micellar carrier (Arm C). Supplementary searches and two independent checks comprised a blinded 105-record sample and an enriched 117-check recheck.
Results: The databases returned 830 records; 304 duplicates were removed and 526 records were screened. Reconciliation changed the initial flow to 388 title/abstract exclusions, 138 eligibility assessments, 12 eligibility exclusions or linked reports, and 126 database inclusions. Other methods added six Arm C reports. The final map contained 132 records: Arm A 0, Arm B 47, and Arm C 85. Agreement was 98/105 (93.3%; Cohen's kappa 0.809) in the random sample and 113/117 (96.6%) in the targeted recheck. The enriched audit retained 25/87 records (28.7%; Wilson 95% CI 20.3-39.0%); all were non-oral Arm B records. We obtained full text for 62 records and charted the remaining 70 from abstracts or source metadata. No post-cutoff record among the 38 met Arm A. The worked calculations returned upper nominal capacity between 1.29 and 20.58 mg, with a systemic-equivalent range for zavegepant of 0.36-0.59 mg.
Conclusions: based on the conducted search, direct studies that evaluate micelle-loaded active ingredient in dissolving microneedles for oral-mucosal delivery were not found in the data base researched through the specified period. Further investigation is supported by the current published data, through it does not establish the superiority of such dosage form, nor does it confirm the feasibility using standardized tests and acceptable test values. Experimental work should compare a free drug loaded in buccal micro-needle to micellization of the same drug loaded in buccal micro-needle, evaluating any added advantage in terms of speed of transport, tissue deposition, and clinical onset of action when possible.
Keywords: buccal delivery; oral mucosa; dissolving microneedle; polymeric micelle; zavegepant; scoping review; evidence map
| Intend to be published in the IJPS ? | Yes |
|---|---|
| Has the manuscript been published | not published |
