Compares nanofiber and wafer systems for prolonged delivery of sulfacetamide, indicating nanofibers show superior effects.
Objective Aimed at developing and comparing wafer and nanofibers as biocompatible and prolong release ophthalmic delivery systems, we have prepared various formulations of sulfacetamide-a soluble drug- and evaluate them.Methodology Wafers were prepared using the casting and freeze-drying method, while nanofibers were fabricated via an electrospinning system. Various formulations containing polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) and sodium alginate (SA) were employed, with SA ratios ranging from 0 to 15%. Morphological characterization with SEM microscopy, thermal behavior, in vitro drug release, bio-adhesive strange, antibacterial activity and fibroblast cell cytotoxicity of various formulations of nanofiber and wafer were evaluated. Additionally, glutaraldehyde was used for cross-linking the formulations.Results Wafers exhibited a porous structure with nanosized walls. In addition, various formulations of nanofibers were prepared with nano-sized thicknesses ranging from 420.55 to 153.42 nm. Wafers showed a slow-release profile lasting more than six hours, similar to that of nanofibers in most cases with kinetic of Higuchi order. Cross-linking both systems further sustained drug release for more than 7 hours, particularly in formulations with higher sodium alginate content. The nanofiber exhibited higher antibacterial activity against E.coli and S.aureus, particularly when formulated 10% of SA. Additionally, nanofibers showed higher cell viability upon contact with fibroblast cells and higher bioadhesive strength ranging from 2.3 to 3.6 N/cm2 in compare with wafers (ranging from 1.6 to 2.5 N/cm2).Conclusion Formulations of pharmaceutical wafers and nanofibers are interchangeable, and are suitable for prolonged delivery of sulfacetamide, a water-soluble drug; however, nanofibers showed higher biocompatibility, antibacterial activity and bioadhessiveness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tavakoli et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: