View Article

  • Formulation Development and Characterization of Mouth Dissolving Tablet Containing Omeprazole

  • Department of Pharmaceutics, Loknete Dr. J.D. Pawar college of Pharmacy, Manur, Kalwan, Nashik- 423501.

Abstract

The present study focuses on the formulation and evaluation of omeprazole mouth dissolving tablets (MDTs) designed for rapid disintegration and enhanced patient compliance. Omeprazole, a proton pump inhibitor, faces challenges in conventional dosage forms due to its instability in acidic environments and delayed onset of action. Using a direct compression method, various super disintegrants crospovidone,, sodium starch glycolate, and croscarmellose sodium—were tested in different concentrations across eight formulations. Pre- and post-compression parameters such as hardness, friability, disintegration time, and drug content were evaluated. Among all formulations, F5 exhibited the most promising results, with a disintegration time of 12?±?1.90 seconds and maximum drug release of 99.24% within 15 minutes. Drug-excipient compatibility was confirmed via FTIR and DSC analysis, and stability studies indicated consistent performance over time. These findings suggest that the optimized omeprazole MDT formulation offers an effective alternative to conventional dosage forms, ensuring rapid onset of action and improved therapeutic efficacy.

Keywords

Omeprazole mouth dissolving tablet, Super disintegrants, Sodium Starch Glycolate, Crosprovidone

Introduction

Tablet formulations are preferred primarily because of their low Right now, pure formulations are the most important requirement, followed by increased stability, packaging, transportation, and manufacturing costs. Over the last ten years, there has been an increase in demand for evaporating tablets, and this area of the pharmaceutical industry is currently growing rapidly Super disintegrants such as croscarmellose sodium and sodium starch glycolate are used to deliver medications to living things. To get the desired result with the fewest possible side effects, the medication must be taken at work in a specific amount and concentration. Super disintegrants including sodium starch glycolate, croscarmellose sodium, and crospovidone1 are used in the two fundamental processes for making tablets for oral disintegration1. It is also possible to lyophilize and vacuum-dry tablets to enhance their pore structure. Direct compression is utilized for all techniques because to its dependability, effectiveness, and affordability. For up to 50–60% of all dosage types, oral administration is the most common form of administration. Due to their exceptional ease of use, accuracy in Particularly popular are solid dose forms for pain relief, self-medication friendliness, dosage, and above all patient compliance. The most widely used solid dosage forms are capsules and tablets. widely used; nonetheless, swallowing issues are a major disadvantage for some patients. Drinking water is essential to taking an oral dosage form well. When traditional dose forms, such as tablets, are taken without water, people often experience discomfort.2 A possible method for achieving a quick onset of action or better bioavailability for medications with a high first-pass metabolism is oral mucosal drug administration. Because a rapidly dissolving medication can enter the systemic circulation immediately through the oral mucosa, there is increasing interest in creating alternate dosage forms, such as oral fast disintegrating tablets.3

METHODS

Spectrometric analysis

In order to create a standard stock solution of 100 µg/ml, 10 mg of precisely weighed omeprazole was dissolved in 100 ml of water in a 100 ml volumetric flask. The volume was then increased to 100 ml with water. 2.5 milliliters of the standard stock solution were pipetted into a 10-milliliter volumetric flask. Water was added to get the volume up to 10 ml. Between 200 and 400 nm, the resultant solution, which contained 10 µg/ml, was scanned.5

Infrared spectroscopy

IR spectroscopy is helpful scientific method for determining how drugs interact chemically and polymer during storage. Therefore, infrared spectroscopy utilization to examine how additional excipients employed in the formulation interact chemically with the Omeprazole. The drug's IR spectra was compared to that physical mixture of drug and excipients to verify for any potential interactions between medicine excipients.4

Differential Calorimetry scanning (DSC)

The differential scanning calorimetric technique was used to do a thermal examination of omeprazole with all excipients. An device called the Shimadzu DSC-60plus was used to evaluate the samples. All excipients and a sample equal to around 8 mg of omeprazole were heated in aluminum pans from 25 to 300 °C at a rate of 10 °C per minute.6

Preparation of Omeprazole MDT

All materials, with the exception of Aerosil and magnesium sterate, were weighed precisely and mixed uniformly in a mortar and pestle for fifteen minutes. The prepared powder mixture was run through sieve number 60. After passing through filter number 30, Aerosil and magnesium sterate were added and combined for an additional ten minutes.7 200 mg of a precisely weighed, uniformly blended powder blend was manually fed into a Cadmach tablet compression machine, which used 8 mm, breakthrough, and flat-faced punches to crush the mixture with consistent compression force and hardness. Nine formulations in all were created. 8.

Experimental Design

A methodical and scientific way to investigate the connection and interplay between independent and dependent variables is through experimental design. 23 In order to optimise the formulas, a complete factorial design was suggested. A sufficient degree of flexibility is provided by the chosen design to ascertain the primary impacts of both individual variables and factor interactions.10

Table 1: Composition of independent variables and their levels for the preparation of Omeprazole mouth dissolving tablet.

Sr. No.

Independent factor

Unit

Low (-1)

High (+1)

1

Croscarmellose sodium

mg

4

8

2

sodium starch glycolate

mg

4

8

3

crospovidone

mg

4

8

Table 2: 23 full factorial design for formulation designed using Stat-Ease Design-Expert® soft-ware (Version 8.0.7.1)

Formulations

F1

F2

F3

F4

F5

F6

F7

F8

Omeorazole

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

sodium starch glycolate

4

8

4

4

8

4

8

8

Croscarmellose

4

4

8

8

8

4

8

4

Crospovidone

4

8

4

8

8

8

4

4

Mannitol

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

Microcrystalline cellulose

128

120

124

120

116

124

120

124

Sodium Saccharin

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

Aerosil

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

Magnesium stearate

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

Strawberry flavouring agent

qs

qs

qs

qs

qs

qs

qs

qs

Total

200 mg

200 mg

200 mg

200 mg

200 mg

200 mg

200 mg

200 mg

Evaluation of MDT

In order to evaluate omeprazole in mouth dissolving tablets, important factors such tablet hardness, friability, disintegration time, and drug content homogeneity were evaluated. Acceptable mechanical strength and quick breakdown in the oral cavity were verified. The formulation is suitable for quick and effective oral drug administration, as evidenced by in vitro dissolution experiments showing effective drug release and UV spectrophotometric measurement at 245 nm confirming constant drug content12-13.

In-vitro dissolution study

Dissolution studies were conducted under sink conditions using an 8-station USP Type II paddle apparatus with 900?mL of phosphate buffer (pH 6.8) as the medium. The temperature was maintained at 37?±?2?°C, with paddles rotating at 50?rpm. Samples of 5?mL were withdrawn at 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 hours, and an equal volume of fresh medium was added to maintain constant volume. The samples were diluted and analyzed using a UV spectrophotometer at 245?nm to determine drug release.14-15

Stability Studies

Appearance

The tablets were visually inspected at regular intervals for any changes in physical characteristics such as color, texture, or surface integrity. Any signs of discoloration, mottling, or cracking were carefully noted to assess the physical stability of the formulation during storage under accelerated conditions.

Disintegration Time

The disintegration time of the tablets was determined using a standard disintegration test apparatus as per pharmacopeial guidelines. One tablet was placed in each tube of the basket rack, and the assembly was immersed in a beaker containing phosphate buffer at 37 ± 2°C. The time taken for complete disintegration of the tablets without any palpable mass was recorded.

Dissolution

The dissolution studies were performed using a USP Type II (paddle) apparatus. The tablets were placed in 900 mL of phosphate buffer (pH 6.8) maintained at 37 ± 0.5°C with paddle rotation at 50 rpm. At predetermined time intervals, samples were withdrawn and replaced with fresh medium to maintain sink conditions. The collected samples were filtered and analyzed using a UV spectrophotometer at 245 nm to determine the percentage of drug released.

Drug Content

The drug content of the tablets was assessed by dissolving a known quantity of powdered tablet in a suitable solvent such as methanol. The resulting solution was diluted to a defined volume and filtered. An aliquot was then analyzed spectrophotometrically at the specific wavelength (245 nm) to determine the actual amount of drug present in the formulation.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Spectrometric analysis

The λmax of omeprazole was determined by preparing a standard solution in methanol. A 10?mg sample of omeprazole was dissolved in methanol and diluted to 100?mL to obtain a 100?µg/mL stock solution. From this, 2.5?mL was further diluted to 10?mL to obtain a 10?µg/mL solution, which was scanned in the UV range of 200–400?nm. The maximum absorbance (λmax) for omeprazole in methanol was found to be at 295?nm.

Figure No. 1: Spectrometric analysis of Omeprazole in Methanol

Standard Calibration curve

A precisely measured 10 mg dose of omeprazole was dissolved in a small amount of distilled water, and the volume was increased to 100 ml using the same solution (100 µg/ml). Subsequently, extract 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, and 2.5 milliliters from the aforementioned solution into distinct 10-milliliter volumetric flasks, and adjust the volume to 10 milliliters to yield 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 micrograms per milliliter, respectively. Additionally, absorbance measurements were made at 295 nm. In order to verify the calibration curve, this process was carried out three times.

Figure No. 2: Calibration Curve of Omeprazole

Drug- excipient compatibility study

Infrared Spectroscopy: The FTIR spectra of pure drug and pure drug + excipient was taken and shown in figure 3.

Figure No. 3: FTIR Spectrum of Pure Omeprazole

When comparing pure drug + excipient to pure drug, these spectra showed no discernible shift or alteration in the absorption peaks. It demonstrates that the medicine and excipients do not significantly interact.

Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC)

Figure 4 displays the results of the DSC thermograms of the pure medication and polymer, respectively

Figure No. 4: DSC Curve of Omeprazole

According to the DSC thermograms above, the melting point peak of the pure Omeprazole medication with all polymers is almost the same at 158.01 C. Consequently, it is discovered that the polymer blend does not exhibit a notable change in the DSC peak since there is no interaction with the medication, indicating satisfactory compatibility.

Figure No. 5: DSC Curve of Omeprazole – All Excipients

Table 3: Pre-Compression Parameters for the Formulations

Formulation Code

Bulk density (g/ml)

Tapped density (g/ml)

Angle of repose (?)

Compressibility index%

Hausner's ratio

F1

0.45±0.0125

0.50±0.0231

24.7±0.2645

13.72±0.00

1.15±0.0057

F2

0.44±0.0042

0.49±0.0099

20.3±0.3055

10±0.00

1.11±0.0115

F3

0.45±0.0090

0.50±0.0063

27.02±0.0723

13.46±0.07

1.15±0.0057

F4

0.47±0.0120

0.54±0.0217

28.3±0.2081

12.96±0.12

1.14±0.01

F5

0.45±0.0125

0.50±0.0107

20.8±0.2645

10±0.00

1.11±0.0115

F6

0.48±0.0134

0.55±0.0218

32.6±0.3464

16.36±0.00

1.19±0.0057

F7

0.46±0.0103

0.53±0.0214

24.2±0.4932

13.20±0.12

1.15±0.0057

F8

0.44±0.0043

0.52±0.0213

22.7±0.2081

10.20±0.00

1.11±0.0115

All values are expressed as mean± SE, n=3.

Table 4: Post-Compression Parameters for the Formulations

Formulation code

Weight variation

Diameter (mm)

Thickness (mm)

Hardness (kg/cm2)

Friability (%)

Drug content (%w/w)

F1

204.6±1.18

7.86±0.20

2.90±0.10

3.26±0.05

0.8±0.05

96.70±0.16

F2

205.15±1.59

7.73±0.32

2.9±0.17

3.36±0.11

0.8±0.15

98.52±0.26

F3

206.15±1.63

7.83±0.24

2.76±0.25

3.26±0.15

0.9±0.14

97.74±0.14

F4

207.10±1.61

7.96±0.20

2.80±0.10

3.36±0.15

0.9±0.13

98.78±0.25

F5

201.55±1.63

7.83±0.20

2.8±0.10

3.0±0.10

0.9±0.11

99.04±0.05

F6

205.10±1.48

7.80±0.45

3.0±0.10

3.4±0.10

0.8±0.09

97.48±0.16

F7

206.40±1.66

7.93±0.35

2.86±0.11

3.4±0.10

0.8±0.06

98.26±0.26

F8

207.15±1.53

7.76±0.30

2.96±0.05

3.4±0.10

0.9±0.10

98.78±0.25

Disintegration time

The in-vitro disintegration time of the tablets was evaluated using the USP disintegration test apparatus (Electro lab). All eight formulations showed disintegration times ranging from 12?±?1.8973 to 30?±?1.8973 seconds. Formulations containing Crospovidone and Croscarmellose sodium exhibited the fastest disintegration due to their swelling, burst effect, and rapid water absorption. An increase in sodium starch glycollate and Croscarmellose sodium content further reduced disintegration time. Wetting time, measured twice for each formulation, ranged from 11?±?1.4142 to 42?±?1.8973 seconds, correlating with water absorption efficiency.

Table 5: Post-Compression Parameters for the Formulations

Formulation code

Disintegration time (sec)

Wetting time (sec)

Water absorption ratio (%)

F1

20±2.000

25±3.2863

81.26±0.983

F2

15±1.4142

20±2.0000

90.28±3.982

F3

30±1.8973

17±1.4142

112.40±1.88

F4

19±1.4142

42±1.8973

78.45±5.92

F5

12±1.8973

11±1.4142

125.80±5.10

F6

25±3.2863

23±2.2803

96.66±1.41

F7

15±1.4142

26±2.0000

84.24±6.02

F8

22±1.4142

17±1.4142

96.66±5.40

All values are expressed as mean± SE, n=3

In Vitro Drug release study

The F8 formulation was used to conduct a follow-up drug release research in phosphate buffer PH6.8. For all formulations, the percent cumulative drug release ranged from 88.27±0.5352 to 99.24±0.1401%. The higher the concentration of super disintegrants, the higher the drug release. The maximum drug release, or 99.24%, was seen in the first 15 minutes with F5 formulations.

Table 6: Percentage of Drug Release of Omeprazole Formulations MDTs.

Time (min)

Formulation code (Drug Release %)

F1

F2

F3

F4

F5

F6

F7

F8

 

0

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

 

3

70.25±

1.0727

76.9±

1.2227

70.45±

1.1015

83.7±

0.0305

85.5±

0.1228

72.45±

0.1285

76.55±

0.3821

72.25±

1.1149

 

6

72.49±

0.1285

83.72±

0.0305

76.44±

1.3030

85.46±

0.1228

90.07±

0.1216

78.75±

1.1832

81.12±

1.4953

80.95±

1.2989

 

9

77.15±

1.1832

86.31±

0.8357

87.87±

0.6992

89.92±

1.3308

93.45±

0.2523

83.76±

0.2663

84.45±

1.0001

83.28±

0.5881

 

12

85.27±

0.5538

90.29±

0.1216

88.93±

0.8304

93.74±

0.1450

97.41±

1.1328

87.61±

0.2165

89.91±

1.2189

87.44±

0.4384

 

15

88.27±

0.5352

94.26±

0.4079

90.09±

0.7794

96.14±

1.1714

99.24±

0.1401

91.43±

2.0351

93.94±

1.9813

93.59±

0.2523

 

All values are expressed as mean± SE, n=3.

Figure 6: Cumulative % drug release profile of formulation F1-F4.

Figure 7: Cumulative % drug release profile of formulation F5-F8

Statistical Data

A polynomial equation was derived to examine the effects of independent variables on the responses, such as the percentage of drug release and the disintegration time, in order to examine the influence of three components using a complete factorial design. Regression equations are used to draw conclusions about the findings after taking into account the magnitude of the coefficient, and the sign of the coefficient shows the type of response. In a polynomial equation, a positive sign indicates that the reaction rises as the value does, whereas a negative sign indicates that the response falls as the value rises.

Figure No. 8: (A): Contour plot (B): 3D Response Surface (C): Contour plot (D): 3D Response Surface Plot

Effect of independent factors on % drug release (Y1)

+93.31+1.82*A+1.42*B+1.96*C- 0.21*A* B-0.34*A* C+1.00* B * C+0.28*A*B*C is the drug release. This polynomial equation showed that the independent variables crospovidone, SSG, and croscarmellose sodium—had a favourable impact on drug release.

3D Response Surface Plot:

Crospovidone, SSG, and Croscarmellose Sodium's effects on the drug release time of Omeprazole were verified using a 3D response surface plot. The figure-response curve of Y1 (drug release) shows that drug release increases considerably as the concentration of Croscarmellose sodium rises from 4 mg to 8 mg, SSG rises from 4 mg to 8 mg, and Crospovidone rises from 4 mg to 8 mg.

Effect of independent factors on disintegration time (Y2)

+19.75-3.75* A-0.75* B-2.00*C-1.75%A* B-0.50*A*C-1.50*B* C+2.50 * A*B*C is the disintegration time. The independent variables, crospovidone, SSG, and croscarmellose sodium, were found to have a negative impact on disintegration time based on this polynomial equation.

3D Response Surface Plot

Croscarmellose sodium concentration rises from 4 mg to 8 mg, SSG rises from 4 mg to 8       mg, and Crospovidone rises from 4 mg to 8 mg, according to the Curve of Y2 (Disintegration Time). Figure illustrates the considerable decrease in disintegration time.  The statistical model indicates that the eighth run is an optimal formulation.  The analysis of the optimised batch's reaction, or drug release rate of 99.24% and disintegration time of 12 seconds.

Stability Studies

Research for MDTs Omeprazole tablet formulation F5, which is optimised at 40°C ± 2°C/75% RH ± 5%.

Sr. No

Observation

Before Stability

15 Days

1 Month

1

Appearance

Pink

Pink

Pink

2

Disintegration Time (sec)

12 ±1.8973

11.80 ±1.632

11.65 ±0.632

3

Dissolution Time

99.24 ± 0.1401

99.20 ±0.1311

98.52 ±0.041

4

Drug Content

99.04 ± 0.032

99.02 ±0.011

98.95±0.080

The stability studies of Omeprazole Mouth Dissolving Tablets (formulation F5) conducted at 40°C ± 2°C / 75% RH ± 5% over 1 month demonstrated good physical and chemical stability. The tablet retained its pink appearance throughout the study, with only a slight decrease in disintegration time from 12 ± 1.8973 sec to 11.65 ± 0.632 sec. Dissolution remained high, slightly reducing from 99.24 ± 0.1401% to 98.52 ± 0.041%, while drug content showed minimal variation from 99.04 ± 0.032% to 98.95 ± 0.080%. These results indicate that the formulation remains stable and effective under accelerated conditions, ensuring its suitability for long-term storage.

CONCLUSION

Using a sensory approach and the Direct Compression method, omeprazole mouth dissolving tablets may be effectively made using a variety of superdisintegrants, diluents, and taste-inhibiting substances. A preformulation research using DSC and FTIR revealed no discernible differences between Omeprazole and the excipients. Formulation F5, which had high concentrations of sodium starch glycolate, croscarmellose sodium, and crosspovidone, showed encouraging results. With its maximum in-vitro drug release, lowest disintegration time, and best water absorption and hydration capacity, this formulation offers rapid beginning of action and instant relief from duodenal ulcers and heartburn. They also had a pleasing mouthfeel. All of the tablet assessment criteria for the mouth-dispersing drug delivery system were met by this formulation. As a result, the F5 Formulation was found to be optimal. formulating between F1 and F8.

REFERENCES

  1. Ashishmasih, Amar kumar,shivam Singh, Ajay kumartiwari (2012), Fast dissolving tablets: A Review. International Journal of current Pharmaceutic Research-0975-7066.
  2. Siddiqui N, Garg G, Sharma pk. (2010), Fast dissolving tablets:preparation characterization and evaluation: an overview. International journal of pharmacy science Rev Re; 2:87-96 .
  3. Garima Yadav, Anupriya kapoor and shilpi Bhargava (2012), fast dissolving Tablets Recent advantages: A Review. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research: 3 (3),728-736.
  4. kaur T, Gill B, Kumar S, Gupta GD, (2011), mouth dissolving tablets review as a Novel boon: a review, j pharm chem Bio sci 2.5-26.
  5. Patel TS, Senguptam (2013),Fast dissolving tablet technology. World J pharm sci; 2.485-508.
  6. BhowmitDebjit, B. Chiranjib, kantkrishna, pankaj, R. Margretchandira (2009), fast dissolving tablet: An Review Journal of chemical and pharmaceutical Research, 1 (1); 163 – 177.
  7. Saptarshidutta, pintukamar(2011), Formulation of fast disintegratingtablets. International Journal of drug formulation & Research, vol-2(1).
  8. Tariquekhan, sayyed Novim, siraj Shaikh,Afsarshaikh, Ashishkhairnar, Aejaz Ahmed(2011),An Approach for Rapiddisintegrating tablets A Review. International Journal of pharmaceutical research anddevelopment,( 1220- 183)
  9. kalindichauhan, Rakeshsolanki,Shivanisharma (2018), A Review on fast dissolving tablet. International Journalof applied pharmaceutics ISSN - 0975-7058.
  10. Harish VD,Valli G, Ramya MG(2014), A Review on fast dissolving tablets. International Journal ofuniverals pharmacy and bio sciences, 3:757- 81.
  11. Patil SL,Shivshankar MA (2011), formulation and technology of fast disintegrating tablet: a review. Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical science, 9:1-7.
  12. Nand p, vashist N, Anand A,Drabu s 2010), mouth dissolving tablets- a noveldrug delivery system. International journal of applied biology amd pharmaceutical technology ; 1:xx
  13. Khairnar D, Surawase R, Gangurde L, Wagh R, Aher A. A Review on Mouth Dissolving Tablet. Research Journal of Pharmaceutical Dosage Forms and Technology. 2025 May 12;17(2):102-6.
  14. Birari AE, Bhoya YK, Chinchore MV, Mahajan CP, Rajendra K. Devlopment and evaluation of atenolol fast dissolving films?. International journal of science innovations and discoveries. 2014;4(01):95-101.Ashishmasih, Amar kumar,shivam Singh, Ajay kumartiwari (2012), Fast dissolving tablets: A Review. International Journal of current Pharmaceutic Research-0975-7066.
  15. Siddiqui N, Garg G, Sharma pk. (2010), Fast dissolving tablets:preparation characterization and evaluation: an overview. International journal of pharmacy science Rev Re; 2:87-96 .
  16. Garima Yadav, Anupriya kapoor and shilpi Bhargava (2012), fast dissolving Tablets Recent advantages: A Review. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research: 3 (3),728-736.

Reference

  1. Ashishmasih, Amar kumar,shivam Singh, Ajay kumartiwari (2012), Fast dissolving tablets: A Review. International Journal of current Pharmaceutic Research-0975-7066.
  2. Siddiqui N, Garg G, Sharma pk. (2010), Fast dissolving tablets:preparation characterization and evaluation: an overview. International journal of pharmacy science Rev Re; 2:87-96 .
  3. Garima Yadav, Anupriya kapoor and shilpi Bhargava (2012), fast dissolving Tablets Recent advantages: A Review. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research: 3 (3),728-736.
  4. kaur T, Gill B, Kumar S, Gupta GD, (2011), mouth dissolving tablets review as a Novel boon: a review, j pharm chem Bio sci 2.5-26.
  5. Patel TS, Senguptam (2013),Fast dissolving tablet technology. World J pharm sci; 2.485-508.
  6. BhowmitDebjit, B. Chiranjib, kantkrishna, pankaj, R. Margretchandira (2009), fast dissolving tablet: An Review Journal of chemical and pharmaceutical Research, 1 (1); 163 – 177.
  7. Saptarshidutta, pintukamar(2011), Formulation of fast disintegratingtablets. International Journal of drug formulation & Research, vol-2(1).
  8. Tariquekhan, sayyed Novim, siraj Shaikh,Afsarshaikh, Ashishkhairnar, Aejaz Ahmed(2011),An Approach for Rapiddisintegrating tablets A Review. International Journal of pharmaceutical research anddevelopment,( 1220- 183)
  9. kalindichauhan, Rakeshsolanki,Shivanisharma (2018), A Review on fast dissolving tablet. International Journalof applied pharmaceutics ISSN - 0975-7058.
  10. Harish VD,Valli G, Ramya MG(2014), A Review on fast dissolving tablets. International Journal ofuniverals pharmacy and bio sciences, 3:757- 81.
  11. Patil SL,Shivshankar MA (2011), formulation and technology of fast disintegrating tablet: a review. Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical science, 9:1-7.
  12. Nand p, vashist N, Anand A,Drabu s 2010), mouth dissolving tablets- a noveldrug delivery system. International journal of applied biology amd pharmaceutical technology ; 1:xx
  13. Khairnar D, Surawase R, Gangurde L, Wagh R, Aher A. A Review on Mouth Dissolving Tablet. Research Journal of Pharmaceutical Dosage Forms and Technology. 2025 May 12;17(2):102-6.
  14. Birari AE, Bhoya YK, Chinchore MV, Mahajan CP, Rajendra K. Devlopment and evaluation of atenolol fast dissolving films?. International journal of science innovations and discoveries. 2014;4(01):95-101.Ashishmasih, Amar kumar,shivam Singh, Ajay kumartiwari (2012), Fast dissolving tablets: A Review. International Journal of current Pharmaceutic Research-0975-7066.
  15. Siddiqui N, Garg G, Sharma pk. (2010), Fast dissolving tablets:preparation characterization and evaluation: an overview. International journal of pharmacy science Rev Re; 2:87-96 .
  16. Garima Yadav, Anupriya kapoor and shilpi Bhargava (2012), fast dissolving Tablets Recent advantages: A Review. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research: 3 (3),728-736.

Photo
Khairnar Darshan
Corresponding author

Department of Pharmaceutics, Loknete Dr. J.D. Pawar college of Pharmacy, Manur, Kalwan, Nashik- 423501.

Photo
Dr. Surawase Rajendra
Co-author

Department of Pharmaceutics, Loknete Dr. J.D. Pawar college of Pharmacy, Manur, Kalwan, Nashik- 423501.

Khairnar Darshan*, Dr. Surawase Rajendra, Formulation Development and Characterization of Mouth Dissolving Tablet Containing Omeprazole, Int. J. of Pharm. Sci., 2025, Vol 3, Issue 7, 1747-1757. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15877943

More related articles
Evaluation Of Ethyl 4-(Chlorophenyl Amino)-5 Methy...
Vismaya Babu K. K., Roopesh P. T., Sivaranjini S., ...
Optimizing RTR (Refuse To Receive) Filing For Enha...
Zuki Patel, Manisha B. Divraniya, Maitreyi Zaveri, ...
A Case Report of Dexamethasone Associated Vision L...
Rahmathullah S. N., Raghuveer S. Prabhu, ...
Related Articles
A Review On Various Herbs Used As Anti-Fungal And Anti-Microbial Agents...
Pavithra Devi R, Shylesh K S, Praveen A, Punith S, Rakesh K P, ...
Method Development And Validation Of Propylthiouracil By UV Spectroscopy...
Shalu Bharti, Dev Prakash Dahiya, Palak , Chinu Kumari, ...
Evaluation Of Anti-Inflammatory and Anti-Bacterial Activity of Onion Peel (Alliu...
S. Dibenthiran, T. Sivakumar, S. Indrakumar, S Dineshkumar, C. Aravind, P. Tharani, ...