Literature DB >> 10096619

Evaluation of soft-tissue morphology of the face in 1,050 young adults.

H Borman1, F Ozgür, G Gürsu.   

Abstract

Anthropometry of the face has always been an interesting subject for artists and plastic surgeons. Since ancient times, many rules have been proposed for the ideal face. The authors measured directly vertical and horizontal proportions of the face and inclinations of the soft-tissue facial profile in 1050 young Turkish adults. Differences between the facial measurements of subjects from seven different geographic regions were analyzed. Some of the measurements were compared further with the measurements of other populations in the literature, and the validity of the neoclassical canons were tested. The special head height measure was shorter than the special face height in the majority of our study group (women/men: equal height, 13%/15%; longer special head height, 28%/30%; shorter special head height, 59%/55%). Faces with three equally high-profile sections were not seen in women or in men. When the forehead height was compared with the nose height, equality was present in a small percentage of the population (women/men: equal height, 17%/18%; longer forehead, 41%/ 42%; shorter forehead, 42%/40%). The nose height was equal to the lower face height in a minority of the population (women/men: equal height, 10%/11%; longer nose, 9%/11%; shorter nose (81%/78%). The forehead height was shorter than the lower face height in the majority of the population (women/ men: equal height, 8%/9%; longer forehead, 12%/13%; shorter forehead, 79%/78%). The intercanthal distance was shorter than the nose width in the majority of the population (women/men: equal width, 20%/19%; wider intercanthal distance, 35%/37%; narrower intercanthal width, 65%/68%). The population was distributed evenly in regard to the variations of the orbital proportion canon (women/men: equal intercanthal width and eye fissure length, 31%/36%; wider intercanthal distance, 34%/27%; narrower intercanthal width, 35%/37%). The mouth width was greater than 1.5 times the nose width in the majority of the population (women/men: equal width, 6%/5%; wider mouth, 53%/54%; narrower mouth, 41%/41%). The nose width was narrower than one quarter of the face width in the majority of the population (women/men: equal width, 4%/3%; wider nose, 30%/39%; narrower nose, 66%/58%). The nose inclination was equal to the ear inclination in a very small fraction of subjects (women/ men: equal inclination, 3%/3%; greater nose inclination, 88%/87%; less nose inclination, 9%/9%). To sketch an outline of the average facial profile in the population studied, a convex facial profile is revealed, with the forehead and the chin retrodisplaced minimally with respect to the midface. The neoclassical canons were found to be invalid for the majority of the population in this study, and different proportional analytic results were obtained.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10096619     DOI: 10.1097/00000637-199903000-00009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Plast Surg        ISSN: 0148-7043            Impact factor:   1.539


  10 in total

1.  Comparison of Nasal Index Between Northwestern Nigeria and Northern Iranian Populations: An Anthropometric Study.

Authors:  Akanji Omotosho Dhulqarnain; Tahmineh Mokhtari; Tayebeh Rastegar; Ibrahim Mohammed; Sahar Ijaz; Gholamreza Hassanzadeh
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2019-12-06

2.  The 3D Facial Norms Database: Part 1. A Web-Based Craniofacial Anthropometric and Image Repository for the Clinical and Research Community.

Authors:  Seth M Weinberg; Zachary D Raffensperger; Matthew J Kesterke; Carrie L Heike; Michael L Cunningham; Jacqueline T Hecht; Chung How Kau; Jeffrey C Murray; George L Wehby; Lina M Moreno; Mary L Marazita
Journal:  Cleft Palate Craniofac J       Date:  2015-10-22

3.  Assessment of Ideal Dimensions of the Ears, Nose, and Lip in the Circles of Prominence Theory on Facial Beauty.

Authors:  Philip Young
Journal:  JAMA Facial Plast Surg       Date:  2019-05-01       Impact factor: 4.611

4.  Expanding the Classic Facial Canons: Quantifying Intercanthal Distance in a Diverse Patient Population.

Authors:  Gabriel Bouhadana; Jordan Gornitsky; Eli Saleh; Nadia Oliveira Trabelsi; Daniel E Borsuk
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2022-04-22

5.  The validity of three neo-classical facial canons in young adults originating from the Arabian Peninsula.

Authors:  Maisa O Al-Sebaei
Journal:  Head Face Med       Date:  2015-03-13       Impact factor: 2.151

6.  Photogrammetric Analysis of Attractiveness in Indian Faces.

Authors:  Shveta Duggal; D N Kapoor; Santosh Verma; Mahesh Sagar; Yung-Seop Lee; Hyoungjin Moon; Seung Chul Rhee
Journal:  Arch Plast Surg       Date:  2016-03-18

7.  Facial Anthropometric Norms among Kosovo - Albanian Adults.

Authors:  Gloria Staka; Flurije Asllani-Hoxha; Venera Bimbashi
Journal:  Acta Stomatol Croat       Date:  2017-09

8.  Normative anthropometry and proportions of the Kenyan-African face and comparative anthropometry in relation to African Americans and North American Whites.

Authors:  Saurab S Virdi; David Wertheim; Farhad B Naini
Journal:  Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2019-02-22

9.  Are neoclassical canons valid for southern Chinese faces?

Authors:  Yasas S N Jayaratne; Curtis K Deutsch; Colman P J McGrath; Roger A Zwahlen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-12-28       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Using the 3D Facial Norms Database to investigate craniofacial sexual dimorphism in healthy children, adolescents, and adults.

Authors:  Matthew J Kesterke; Zachary D Raffensperger; Carrie L Heike; Michael L Cunningham; Jacqueline T Hecht; Chung How Kau; Nichole L Nidey; Lina M Moreno; George L Wehby; Mary L Marazita; Seth M Weinberg
Journal:  Biol Sex Differ       Date:  2016-04-22       Impact factor: 5.027

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.