Literature DB >> 18300984

Gender and nasal shape: measures for rhinoplasty.

Ingo N Springer1, Oliver Zernial, Frederike Nölke, Patrick H Warnke, Jorg Wiltfang, Paul A J Russo, Hendrik Terheyden, Stefan Wolfart.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Gender-specific nasal shapes are recommended for rhinoplasty. This study was conducted to clarify whether there truly are gender-related differences and to determine optimal nasal shapes in a Caucasian population.
METHODS: The authors created female and male composite photographs of "average" (n = 128 each), "optimal" (n = 16 each), and "most unpleasant" (n = 8 each) noses stratified on the basis of each photographed subject's (n = 311) own evaluation of the attractiveness of her or his nose, using a visual analogue scale. These composites were also assessed by 308 independent judges.
RESULTS: Optimal female noses showed a horizontally and vertically lower nasion and were concave to straight in profile as compared with optimal male noses, which had a vertically and horizontally higher nasion and a straight profile. A supratip break was not found in any of the composites. At least half of the judges rated average and optimal male composite noses as female. A significant majority mistook the composite of the most unpleasant female noses as male (frontal view, 62.0 percent; lateral view, 72.4 percent; p < 0.001). Optimal and average female and male noses were found to be independently significantly more attractive than the most unpleasant ones (p < 0.001, n = 308 judges). Women and men with a straight or concave profile were significantly (p = 0.017 and p = 0.006, respectively) more satisfied with the appearance of their nose than those with nasal humps.
CONCLUSIONS: Gender-related differences in nasal shape appear to be subtle, with nasion position being one of the main factors. A nasal hump and a supratip break are not desirable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18300984     DOI: 10.1097/01.prs.0000298095.18943.72

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  7 in total

1.  First Steps to Develop and Validate a CFPD Model in Order to Support the Design of Nose-to-Brain Delivered Biopharmaceuticals.

Authors:  Lucas Engelhardt; Martina Röhm; Chrystelle Mavoungou; Katharina Schindowski; Annette Schafmeister; Ulrich Simon
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2016-02-17       Impact factor: 4.200

2.  Gender specific considerations in septorhinoplasty, a retrospective observational study and review of the literature.

Authors:  S L Gillanders; M Walsh; S Anderson; S Abdulrahman
Journal:  Ann Med Surg (Lond)       Date:  2022-05-18

3.  Social Perception of the Nasal Dorsal Contour in Male Rhinoplasty.

Authors:  Brian Nuyen; Cherian K Kandathil; Mikhail Saltychev; Sam P Most
Journal:  JAMA Facial Plast Surg       Date:  2019-09-01       Impact factor: 4.611

4.  Technical and Clinical Considerations for Facial Feminization Surgery With Rhinoplasty and Related Procedures.

Authors:  Raúl J Bellinga; Luis Capitán; Daniel Simon; Thiago Tenório
Journal:  JAMA Facial Plast Surg       Date:  2017-05-01       Impact factor: 4.611

5.  Perception of femininity and attractiveness in Facial Feminization Surgery.

Authors:  Ann Hui Ching; Allister Hirschman; Xiaona Lu; Seija Maniskas; Antonio J Forte; Michael Alperovich; John A Persing
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2021-04

6.  Individual and ethnic aspects of preoperative planning for posttraumatic rhinoplasty.

Authors:  Paweł Szychta; Jan Rykała; Julia Kruk-Jeromin
Journal:  Eur J Plast Surg       Date:  2010-08-27

7.  Rhinoplasty Combined With Centrofacial Lipofilling to Optimize Facial Proportions.

Authors:  Marcelo Carvas; Patrick Tonnard; Alexis Verpaele
Journal:  Aesthet Surg J Open Forum       Date:  2020-07-11
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.