Background: Facial symmetry is intimately correlated with attractiveness. Perfect facial symmetry is disconcerting and a degree of facial asymmetry is considered normal. There is a lack of data on the limits of normality across facial subunits. Objectives: This systematic review aims to establish categories of facial asymmetry perception for facial aesthetic units by establishing a discriminative threshold of "deformity perception" across facial subunits and a threshold for intervention (unacceptable asymmetry). Methods: A review of the literature was performed across Medline and Embase databases using OvidSP. All prospective studies evaluating the perception of progressive facial asymmetry in laymen or clinicians using a two- or three-dimensional model were included. Studies that did not evaluate rates of perception at varying degrees of asymmetry were excluded as these did not allow for the identification of a perceptive threshold. Results: Each facial feature possesses a unique threshold of perception defined by an abrupt, statistically significant increase in detection. Asymmetry of the eyelid position at rest is the most sensitive facial feature (perceptive threshold, 2 mm) (P < 0.02). This is followed by deviations of the oral commissure (3 mm) (P < 0.001), brow position (3.5 mm) (P < 0.001), nasal tip deviation (4 mm) (P < 0.001), and chin deviation (6 mm) (P < 0.001). Desire for surgery for worsening deformities beyond the intervention threshold is characterized by an exponential, rather than linear, correlation. Conclusions: Categories of facial asymmetry perception establish a framework to counsel patients with facial asymmetries, and are a valuable adjunct to clinical judgment in the management of static and dynamic facial deformities.
Background: Facial symmetry is intimately correlated with attractiveness. Perfect facial symmetry is disconcerting and a degree of facial asymmetry is considered normal. There is a lack of data on the limits of normality across facial subunits. Objectives: This systematic review aims to establish categories of facial asymmetry perception for facial aesthetic units by establishing a discriminative threshold of "deformity perception" across facial subunits and a threshold for intervention (unacceptable asymmetry). Methods: A review of the literature was performed across Medline and Embase databases using OvidSP. All prospective studies evaluating the perception of progressive facial asymmetry in laymen or clinicians using a two- or three-dimensional model were included. Studies that did not evaluate rates of perception at varying degrees of asymmetry were excluded as these did not allow for the identification of a perceptive threshold. Results: Each facial feature possesses a unique threshold of perception defined by an abrupt, statistically significant increase in detection. Asymmetry of the eyelid position at rest is the most sensitive facial feature (perceptive threshold, 2 mm) (P < 0.02). This is followed by deviations of the oral commissure (3 mm) (P < 0.001), brow position (3.5 mm) (P < 0.001), nasal tip deviation (4 mm) (P < 0.001), and chin deviation (6 mm) (P < 0.001). Desire for surgery for worsening deformities beyond the intervention threshold is characterized by an exponential, rather than linear, correlation. Conclusions: Categories of facial asymmetry perception establish a framework to counsel patients with facial asymmetries, and are a valuable adjunct to clinical judgment in the management of static and dynamic facial deformities.
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
Authors: Diego Fernando López; Valentina Ríos Borrás; Juan Manuel Muñoz; Rodrigo Cardenas-Perilla; Luis Eduardo Almeida Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-03-08
Authors: Joana Meneses Martins; Liliana Gavinha Costa; Ana Lidia Carvalho; Maria Conceição Manso; Sandra Gavinha; Mariano Herrero-Climent; Blanca Ríos-Carrasco; Carlos Falcão; Paulo Ribeiro Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-07 Impact factor: 3.390