journal article·2025-10Open access

Antifungal Activity, Cytocompatibility, and Wound Healing Potential of Novel Mucoadhesive Formulations for Oral Drug Delivery

Carolina Yoshi Campos Sugio, Victor Martin, Lídia Maria Diogo Gonçalves, Priscileila Coleto Ferrari, Vanessa Migliorini Urban, Karin Hermana Neppelenbroek, Maria Helena Fernandes

Abstract

ABSTRACT Conventional treatments for oral candidiasis often fail due to the complexities of the oral environment and the increasing antifungal drug resistance. Therefore, there is a growing demand for new therapies that optimize drug bioavailability, allowing for lower therapeutic doses while enhancing cytocompatibility, maintaining antifungal, anti‐inflammatory, and wound healing efficacy. This study investigated the antifungal activity, cytocompatibility, wound healing potential, and mucosal adhesion of novel mucoadhesive formulations containing nystatin (NYS) or chlorhexidine (CHX) complexed with β‐cyclodextrin (βCD), compared with the drug‐free formulation (GEL) and the standard treatment with 2% miconazole gel (DK—Daktarin). Efficacy against Candida albicans was evaluated by measuring the metabolic activity, whereas cytocompatibility with human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs) was analyzed for viability, morphology, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) release, and apoptosis. Additionally, wound healing potential was investigated by assessing cell migration efficacy, anti‐inflammatory activity, and reactive oxygen species (ROS) scavenging activity. Mucoadhesion was evaluated using mucin discs and a texture analyzer. Mucoadhesive gels containing βCD‐complexed NYS or CHX exhibited significantly higher antifungal activity when compared to the GEL and DK groups ( p < 0.05). Compared to fibroblast control cultures, those exposed to drug‐complexed gels exhibited similar viability ( p > 0.05) and morphological parameters, lower LDH release ( p < 0.05), and similar apoptosis rates ( p > 0.05). Additionally, exposure to the βCD‐modified gels was associated with complete wound closure ( p > 0.05), significant anti‐inflammatory effect, with downregulation of pro‐inflammatory gene expression ( p < 0.05), and higher ROS scavenging activity ( p < 0.05). The developed formulations showed no difference in mucoadhesiveness ( p > 0.05), which was superior to that of DK ( p < 0.05). Therefore, the proposed drug‐complexed mucoadhesives are promising therapeutic options for oral candidiasis.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Advanced Drug Delivery Systems · Oral microbiology and periodontitis research · Proteoglycans and glycosaminoglycans research

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontics, Bauru School of Dentistry University of São Paulo (USP) Bauru São Paulo Brazil

Department of Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Materials, Dental School Federal University of Uberlândia (UFU) Uberlândia Minas Gerais Brazil

BoneLab, Faculdade de Medicina Dentária Universidade do Porto Porto Portugal

LAQV, REQUIMTE, Faculdade de Medicina Dentária Universidade do Porto Porto Portugal

Research Institute for Medicines (iMed.ULisboa), Faculty of Pharmacy University of Lisbon Lisbon Portugal

Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences State University of Ponta Grossa (UEPG) Ponta Grossa Paraná Brazil

Department of Dentistry State University of Ponta Grossa (UEPG) Ponta Grossa Paraná Brazil

Funding

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo · Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior · Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia · Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico

References (71)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.mib.2022.10223710.1016/j.mib.2022.102237 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.biopha.2017.11.12710.1016/j.biopha.2017.11.127 ↗
3. 10.1186/s12879‐024‐09442‐610.1186/s12879‐024‐09442‐6 ↗
4. 10.1007/s13346‐021‐00901‐010.1007/s13346‐021‐00901‐0 ↗
5. 10.1111/odi.1492810.1111/odi.14928 ↗
6. 10.1111/j.1365‐2842.2008.01874.x10.1111/j.1365‐2842.2008.01874.x ↗
7. 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.10429710.1016/j.jdent.2022.104297 ↗
8. 10.1111/odi.1238010.1111/odi.12380 ↗
9. 10.1002/cncr.2315210.1002/cncr.23152 ↗
10. 10.1007/978-1-4899-7558-4_210.1007/978-1-4899-7558-4_2 ↗
11. 10.1016/bs.aambs.2014.12.00210.1016/bs.aambs.2014.12.002 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2022.09.02410.1016/j.jconrel.2022.09.024 ↗
13. 10.1007/s13346‐020‐00798‐110.1007/s13346‐020‐00798‐1 ↗
14. 10.2147/IJN.S9310510.2147/IJN.S93105 ↗
15. 10.1016/S1773‐2247(11)50031‐010.1016/S1773‐2247(11)50031‐0 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2014.07.01010.1016/j.progpolymsci.2014.07.010 ↗
17. 10.1080/20415990.2025.246701810.1080/20415990.2025.2467018 ↗
18. 10.1063/5.012370910.1063/5.0123709 ↗
19. 10.4155/tde‐2022‐006810.4155/tde‐2022‐0068 ↗
20. 10.2174/156720182066622101710311910.2174/1567201820666221017103119 ↗
21. 10.1208/s12249‐019‐1346‐710.1208/s12249‐019‐1346‐7 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.msec.2020.11063510.1016/j.msec.2020.110635 ↗
23. 10.1080/21691401.2018.154319310.1080/21691401.2018.1543193 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2023.12339410.1016/j.ijpharm.2023.123394 ↗
25. 10.1155/2017/897174610.1155/2017/8971746 ↗
26. 10.1046/j.1439‐0507.2003.00884.x10.1046/j.1439‐0507.2003.00884.x ↗
27. 10.1016/j.ejps.2020.10537210.1016/j.ejps.2020.105372 ↗
28. International Organization for Standardization Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices—Part 5: Tests for In Vitro Cytotoxicity. ISO 10993‐5 2018.
29. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute Reference Method for Broth Dilution Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Yeasts; Approved Standard. CLSI Document M27‐S4 4th ed. 2017 Wayne PA.
30. 10.1111/odi.1220710.1111/odi.12207 ↗
31. 10.1590/0103‐644020170126610.1590/0103‐6440201701266 ↗
32. 10.1590/1678‐77572016009210.1590/1678‐775720160092 ↗
33. 10.1111/jopr.1266010.1111/jopr.12660 ↗
34. 10.4012/dmj.2014‐26910.4012/dmj.2014‐269 ↗
35. 10.1080/01480545.2020.177801910.1080/01480545.2020.1778019 ↗
36. 10.1002/jat.457510.1002/jat.4575 ↗
37. 10.1099/jmm.0.00189910.1099/jmm.0.001899 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.it.2016.04.00710.1016/j.it.2016.04.007 ↗
39. 10.3390/cells804036210.3390/cells8040362 ↗
40. 10.5483/bmbrep.2008.41.1.01110.5483/bmbrep.2008.41.1.011 ↗
41. 10.1534/genetics.117.30026210.1534/genetics.117.300262 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.addr.2023.11496910.1016/j.addr.2023.114969 ↗
43. Chlorhexidine—Pharmaco‐Biological Activity and Application
44. 10.1007/s11596‐016‐1556‐010.1007/s11596‐016‐1556‐0 ↗
45. 10.7150/jbji.2635510.7150/jbji.26355 ↗
46. 10.4103/ejd.ejd_149_1710.4103/ejd.ejd_149_17 ↗
47. 10.1039/C7RA03684J10.1039/C7RA03684J ↗
48. 10.2174/138945012166620061515003910.2174/1389450121666200615150039 ↗
49. 10.1016/j.pdpdt.2018.11.01610.1016/j.pdpdt.2018.11.016 ↗
50. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2014.11.06510.1016/j.carbpol.2014.11.065 ↗
51. 10.3109/0363904090345226010.3109/03639040903452260 ↗
52. 10.1007/s11095‐013‐1291‐110.1007/s11095‐013‐1291‐1 ↗
53. 10.1208/s12249‐016‐0478‐210.1208/s12249‐016‐0478‐2 ↗
54. 10.1590/1807‐3107bor‐2019.vol33.011210.1590/1807‐3107bor‐2019.vol33.0112 ↗
55. 10.1080/10717544.2018.149204610.1080/10717544.2018.1492046 ↗
56. 10.1111/jphp.1255210.1111/jphp.12552 ↗
57. 10.1590/S1517‐8382201200020004710.1590/S1517‐83822012000200047 ↗
58. 10.4103/jisp.jisp_173_1910.4103/jisp.jisp_173_19 ↗
59. 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2020.11984210.1016/j.ijpharm.2020.119842 ↗
60. 10.3390/ijms2315830810.3390/ijms23158308 ↗
61. 10.1208/s12249‐016‐0589‐910.1208/s12249‐016‐0589‐9 ↗
62. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.13167110.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.131671 ↗
63. 10.1016/j.intimp.2014.09.00710.1016/j.intimp.2014.09.007 ↗
64. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.08.15310.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.08.153 ↗
65. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2021.11897010.1016/j.carbpol.2021.118970 ↗
66. 10.1016/B978‐0‐12‐800268‐1.00002‐010.1016/B978‐0‐12‐800268‐1.00002‐0 ↗
67. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.05.07810.1016/j.foodchem.2018.05.078 ↗
68. 10.3390/pharmaceutics1410199510.3390/pharmaceutics14101995 ↗
69. 10.1016/j.ejps.2021.10572710.1016/j.ejps.2021.105727 ↗
70. 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2017.04.02510.1016/j.ijpharm.2017.04.025 ↗
71. 10.1208/s12249‐023‐02534‐710.1208/s12249‐023‐02534‐7 ↗