I have and was sublingually using oil (without decarboxylating it) prior to toying with this method. It does work as stated. From my experiences it was less effective than tincture. Tincture provides better dispersal/surface area of active constituents and ethanol likely aids in permeability and thus efficacy.
Here's the idea. A lot of cannabinoids are degraded or not metabolized in a manner conducive to getting stoned via the process of ingestion. So that makes tincture favorable for some, but still a lot is lost by not passing through the broccial (s.p?) mucosa and into the blood.
I have found this method to give me greater effects than 'eating dabs' (sublingual). It still has a bodily focus as in tincture. So it's not aiken to donning a backwards baseball cap, heating up a titanium nail, and crashing at the gates of anandaland. Although, it does provide psychoactive effects and is therapeutic. Which is why I use cannabis when it rarely finds it's way into my life (once the past 2 years).
Potential benefits:
-Greater efficiency (This paper hints toward ~12x the serum concentration vs ethanol with rabbits :
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16266727 )
-Longer shelf life
-Low odor (may not be a benefit)
-Innocous appearance (no one is going to field test a white powder for cannabinoids)
I'll update with a quick experiment I just performed...
To ascertain whether or not oil was lost on the palms of my hand, I masticated the powder/oil on aluminum foil instead. It again went into a free-flowing solid appearance lending evidence to suggest that oil is not 'lost' in the process and is indeed complexing with the cyclodextrin. To what extent is unknown, but the method is appealing because it is incredibly simple.
A way of explaining how this technology works could go like this. The exterior of the cyclodextrin molecule is hydrophillic (water loving) and contains lots of OH groups (water likes those). The interior of the molecule is hydrophobic (nonpolar environment loving) due to the availability for interaction with of carbon-carbon bonds. So non-polar(especially aromatic) compounds happily dock inside of the ring. While the sugar being hydrophillic happily docks to the proteins and transport areas of enzymes made to digest linear/chain formed saccharides. So a non-polar compound of interest can then find it's way 'passing' through regions of the mouth inwhich it normally would not by using the cyclodextrin as a sort of direction-less 'vehicle'. I could speak at length behind cyclodextrin clathrates and stuff but for the uninitiated, that may aid in the understanding.