Literature DB >> 25068320

The ideal nasolabial angle in rhinoplasty: a preference analysis of the general population.

Hani H Sinno1, Mark K Markarian, Ahmed M S Ibrahim, Samuel J Lin.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In aesthetic rhinoplasty, the described ideal nasolabial angle ranges from 90 to 120 degrees, with variable anthropologic differences. The authors sought to verify the most aesthetic nasolabial angle as specifically perceived by a random prospective sample of the general population and determine whether age, sex, race, and education were independent associated predictors.
METHODS: The authors prospectively recruited 98 random volunteers from the general population. They were asked to rank three different nasolabial angles for the female nose (100, 105, and 110 degrees) and the male nose (90, 100, and 105 degrees) as "most," "moderately," and "least aesthetic." Demographic data were used to determine correlations between aesthetic preferences. Pearson chi-square test and t test were used to determine statistical significance
RESULTS: The most aesthetic female nasolabial angle was 104.9±4.0 degrees. The most aesthetic male nasolabial angle was 97.0±6.3 degrees. Male subjects, younger volunteers, Native Americans, and African Americans preferred more acute male nasolabial angles (90 degrees). Female subjects, volunteers older than 50 years, college graduates, those with a previous rhinoplasty, and Caucasian and Asian subjects preferred more obtuse male nasolabial angles.
CONCLUSIONS: In the authors' sample of the general population, the ideal and most aesthetic nasolabial angle ranged from 100.9 to 108.9 degrees in the female nose and 90.7 to 103.3 degrees in the male nose. Age, sex, race, education, and having undergone a previous rhinoplasty were predictors of differences in the ideal male nasolabial angle but did not change preference of the female nasolabial angle.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25068320     DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000000385

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


  6 in total

1.  Soft tissue profile changes after Functional Mandibular Advancer or Herbst appliance treatment in class II patients.

Authors:  Jan Hourfar; Jörg Alexander Lisson; Ulrich Gross; Linda Frye; Gero Stefan Michael Kinzinger
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2017-07-18       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  Reconstruction of nasal tip support in primary, open approach septorhinoplasty : A retrospective analysis between the tongue-in-groove technique and the columellar strut.

Authors:  Periklis Karaiskakis; Michael Bromba; Andreas Dietz; Michael Sand; Andreas Dacho
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2016-02-04       Impact factor: 2.503

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.  Tip Droop Prevention in Rhinoplasty: Dynamic Effect of Strut Graft on Smiling versus Depressor Muscle Release.

Authors:  Chevonne Brady; Daniele Berwick; Rajan Uppal
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2021-04-15

Review 5.  Inter-Ethnic/Racial Facial Variations: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Meta-Analysis of Photogrammetric Studies.

Authors:  Yi Feng Wen; Hai Ming Wong; Ruitao Lin; Guosheng Yin; Colman McGrath
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-08-06       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  An Ideal Female Breast Shape in Balance with the Body Proportions of Asians.

Authors:  Hun Joo Lee; Jae Jin Ock
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2019-09-30
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.