Literature DB >> 26880014

Nasofacial angle and nasal prominence: A quantitative investigation of idealized and normative values.

Farhad B Naini1, Martyn T Cobourne2, Umberto Garagiola3, Fraser McDonald2, David Wertheim4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: A quantitative evaluation of the influence of the nasofacial angle on perceived attractiveness and threshold values of desire for rhinoplasty.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The nasofacial angle of an idealized silhouette male Caucasian/white profile image was altered incrementally between 21° and 48°. Images were rated on a Likert scale by pretreatment patients (n = 75), laypersons (n = 75), and clinicians (n = 35).
RESULTS: A nasofacial angle of approximately 30° was deemed to be ideal, with a range of 27°-36° deemed acceptable. Angles above or below this range were perceived as unattractive. Angles outside the range of 21°-42° were deemed very unattractive. Excessive nasal prominence (nasofrontal angle of 48°) was deemed the least attractive. In terms of threshold values of desire for surgery, for all groups a threshold value of ≥39° and ≤24° indicated a preference for surgery, with clinicians least likely to suggest surgery. The patient group assessments demonstrated the greatest variability, stressing the importance of using patients as observers, as well as laypersons and clinicians, in facial attractiveness research.
CONCLUSIONS: It is recommended that in rhinoplasty planning, the range of normal variability of the nasofrontal angle, in terms of observer acceptance, is taken into account, as well as threshold values of desire for surgery.
Copyright © 2016 European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Nasal tip prominence; Nasofacial angle; Profile aesthetics; Rhinoplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26880014     DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2016.01.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Craniomaxillofac Surg        ISSN: 1010-5182            Impact factor:   2.078


  4 in total

1.  Custom made onlay implants in peek in maxillofacial surgery: a volumetric study.

Authors:  G Saponaro; P Doneddu; G Gasparini; Edoardo Staderini; R Boniello; M Todaro; G D'Amato; S Pelo; A Moro
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2019-07-31       Impact factor: 1.475

2.  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

3.  Comparing reliability between 3D imaging and 2D photography for external nasal anthropometry.

Authors:  Yoon-Soo Seo; Ki-Hun Jo; Joo-Yeon Kim; Jae-Hwan Kwon
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-03-16       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Our problems and observations in 3D facial implant planning.

Authors:  Gianmarco Saponaro; Chiara Paolantonio; Giorgio Barbera; Enrico Foresta; Giulio Gasparini; Alessandro Moro
Journal:  Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2022-10-12
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.