Buccal and sublingual gets vitamin D into the body about day faster then oral
and gets MORE vitamin D into the blood for those with poor guts
Table of contents
- Vitamin D3 Buccal Spray review of RCTs (not help much) - March 2020
- RCT buccal spray for poor gut - Oct 2015
- New buccal spray review proposed Dec 2018
- Vitamin D sprays and alternatives
- See also VitaminDWiki
- There have been
10610 visits to this page
Efficacy of Vitamin D3 Buccal Spray Supplementation Compared to Other Delivery Methods: A Systematic Review of Superiority Randomized Controlled Trials
Nutrients 2020, 12(3), 691; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12030691
Background: Vitamin D deficiency is an important public health concern and supplementation is common for this deficiency. Many different modes of delivering supplementation have been proposed in order to enhance absorption and utilization. The present review compared the efficacy of vitamin D3 buccal spray against other forms of supplementation delivery.
Methods: The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42019136146). Medline/PubMed, CENTRAL and clinicaltrials.gov were searched from their inception until September 2019, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compare vitamin D3 delivery via sublingual spray against other delivery methods. Eligible RCTs involved humans, of any age and health status, published in any language that evaluated changes in plasma 25(OH)D concentrations. Three reviewers independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias (RoB) and the quality of the trials.
Results: Out of 9759 RCTs, four matched the predefined criteria. Intervention duration ranged from 30 days to 3 months whereas vitamin D3 dosage ranged between 800 and 3000 IU/day. One RCT advocated for the superiority of buccal spray in increasing plasma 25(OH)D concentrations, although several limitations were recorded in that trial. The rest failed to report differences in post-intervention 25(OH)D concentrations between delivery methods. Considerable clinical heterogeneity was observed due to study design, intervention duration and dosage, assays and labs used to perform the assays, population age and health status, not allowing for synthesis of the results.
Conclusions: Based on the available evidence, delivery of vitamin D3 via buccal spray does not appear superior to the other modes of delivery. Future RCTs avoiding the existing methodological shortcomings are warranted.
Download the PDF from VitaminDWiki
Radomized two way cross over study for comparison of absorption of vitamin D3 buccal spray and soft gelatin capsule formulation in healthy subjects and in patients with intestinal malabsorption
Nutrition Journal 2015, 14:114 doi:10.1186/s12937-015-0105-1
MC Satia1 milansatia at ethicare-cro.com, AG Mukim2, KD Tibrewala3 and MS Bhavsar4
1 Ethicare Clinical Trial Services, Ahmedabad, India
2 Mukim Medical And Nursing Homes, Ahmedabad, India
3 Tibrewala’s Clinic, Ahmedabad, India
4 Bhavsar’s Clinic, Ahmedabad, IndiaVitaminDWiki Summary
1000 IU given daily for 30 days to: healthy gut, poor gut_
Buccal 10 ng Oral 5 ng
1000 IU ==> 5 ng ( has been 1000 IU ==> 10 ng)
Vitamin D as a pill: More response from powder than oil
Apparently: Buccal > Sublingual > Oral
Apparently:Topical > Oral
Apparently speed of response: Buccal > sublingual > oral
Strangely this study failed to mention
The type of gel cap liquid - perhaps oil
When the caps were taken - far better if take Vitamin D orally with the largest meal of the day
What the caps were taken with - gel caps much better if taken with a fatty meal
This was a crossover study
Vitamin D deficiency has been proposed to contribute to the development of malabsorption diseases. Despite this, the vitamin D status of these patients is often neglected. The objective of the present work was to compare the absorption of vitamin D 3 through the oral route by comparing a 1000 IU soft gelatin capsule and a 500 IU buccal spray (delivering 1000 IU in two spray shots) in healthy subjects and in patients with malabsorption disease.
An open label, randomized, two-periods, two-way cross over study was conducted, first in healthy subjects (n = 20) and then in patients with malabsorption syndrome (n = 20). The study participants were equally divided and received either of the treatments (buccal spray, n = 7; soft gelatin capsule, n = 7; control, n = 6) in Period I for 30 days. After washout of another 30 days, the treatments were changed in crossover fashion in Period II. Fasting blood samples were collected to measure baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] levels in all participants at day 0 (Screening visit), day 30 (completion of period I), day 60 (end of wash out and initiation of period II) and day 90 (completion of period II). Safety was evaluated by hematology and biochemistry analyses. Statistical analyses was performed using differences of mean and percentage change from baseline of 25(OH)D levels between two formulation by two tailed Paired t-test with 95 % confidence interval.
In healthy subjects, the mean increase in serum 25(OH)D concentration was 4.06 (95 % CI 3.41, 4.71) ng/ml in soft gelatin capsule group and 8.0 (95 % CI 6.86, 9.13) ng/ml in buccal spray group after 30 days treatment (p < 0.0001). In patients with malabsorption disease, the mean increase in serum 25(OH)D concentration was 3.96 (95 % CI 2.37, 5.56) ng/ml in soft gelatin capsule group and 10.46 (95 % CI 6.89, 14.03) ng/ml in buccal spray group (p < 0.0001).
It can be concluded from the results that the buccal spray produced a significantly higher mean serum 25(OH)D concentration as compared to the soft gelatin capsule, in both healthy subjects as well as in patients with malabsorption syndrome over a period of 30 days administration in a two way cross over study. Treatments were well tolerated by both subject groups
Comparative effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation via buccal spray versus oral supplements on serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations in humans: a systematic review protocol.
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2018 Dec 3. doi: 10.11124/JBISRIR-2017-003907Pritchard L1,2, Lewis S3, Hickson M2.
http://smile.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_i_1?rh=k%3A%22vitamin+d%22+spray+-liquid%2Ci%3Ahpc&keywords=%22vitamin+d%22+spray+-liquid&ie=UTF8&qid=1354821043&sa-no-redirect=1|Amazon sells 100 Vitamin D sprays as of Dec 2018]
Possible alternatives to spray:
Drops, water-soluable powder (Bio-Tech)
Which may provide as much response and as fast response as spray at much lower cost
- Sublingual vitamin D
- Sublingual vitamin D gave similar response as oral for most, and better for some – RCT Sept 2019
- Spray vitamin D inside cheek in case of emergency - Nov 2012
Time to reach half of the response to oral vitamin D is about 32 hours
Vs Time for spray on the cheek is about 4 hours, perhaps 8X faster!
- Topical vitamin D might be more bio-available than oral – Oct 2015
- Gut-Friendly Vitamin D
- Alternatives if not swallow pills or not absorb vitamin D
- Topical vitamin D raised blood level to 38 ng (used Aloe Vera gel) – RCT March 2014
- Pill taking is not a problem with vitamin D
- Vitamin D bioavailability: State of the art – Oct 2014
- How you might double your response to vitamin D
- Oil-based Vitamin D3 has the worst bioavailability – April 2014
- Getting Vitamin D into your body
- 200 IU needed to increase vitamin D levels by 1 ng (not 100 IU) – summary of 25 studies – Feb 2014 which has the following chart
There have been
10610 visits to this page
Vitamin D sprayed inside cheeks (buccal spray) - several studies
1103 visitors, last modified 10 Feb, 2023,This page is in the following categories (# of items in each category)
ID Name Comment Uploaded Size Downloads 19197 Buccal Spray review_CompressPdf.pdf PDF 2020 admin 10 Feb, 2023 19:47 364.58 Kb 63 6124 Buccal F1.jpg admin 31 Oct, 2015 08:43 64.48 Kb 2383 6123 Buccal F2.jpg admin 31 Oct, 2015 08:20 26.11 Kb 2388 6122 Buccal capsule.pdf PDF 2015 admin 31 Oct, 2015 08:20 882.63 Kb 1069
- There have been