| Literature DB >> 29313062 |
Harpal Harrar1, Simon Myers1, Ali M Ghanem2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients often seek guidance from the aesthetic practitioners regarding treatments to enhance their 'beauty'. Is there a science behind the art of assessment and if so is it measurable? Through the centuries, this question has challenged scholars, artists and surgeons. AIMS ANDEntities:
Keywords: Aesthetic; Anthropometry; Beauty; Facial beauty; Facial measurements; Quantitative analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29313062 PMCID: PMC5786654 DOI: 10.1007/s00266-017-1032-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Aesthetic Plast Surg ISSN: 0364-216X Impact factor: 2.326
Reasons for exclusion of full text articles
| Reason for exclusions | Number |
|---|---|
| Dentofacial surgical correction/Le fort osteotomy orthognathic | 14 |
| Psychological effects of beauty/personality and beauty/brain effects on beauty | 12 |
| Inappropriate for other reasons | 8 |
| Orbital surgery/ear placement in reconstruction | 6 |
| Skeletal analysis | 5 |
| Cleft lip palate and surgery | 3 |
| Adolescent or child after manual records reviewed | 3 |
| Cancer surgery | 3 |
| Cosmetic or cosmeceuticals | 3 |
| Comparison of different fillers | 2 |
| Endoscopic lifting surgery | 2 |
| Burns victims/trauma victims | 2 |
| Qualitative measurements of facial aesthetic outcomes | 2 |
| DNA forensic analysis | 2 |
| Portrait painting theories | 2 |
| Cadaver | 1 |
| Total | 70 |
Fig. 1Study protocol flow diagram
Summary of trials [12–41]
| Article | Year of study | Sample size | Measures rating beauty | Type of study/level of evidence | Outcome | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liu et al. [ | 2017 | 360 | Distances and angles | Computation based on photographs level III | Measurements do not have a normal distribution, no constant relationship of proportionality | An in-depth mathematical analysis of distances and angles |
| Heidekrueger [ | 2017 | 1011 | Lip ratio preference | Survey level IV | Lip ratio of 1.0:1.0 was most attractive | Survey of surgeons’ preference |
| Koidou et al. [ | 2017 | 193 | Angulation of smile | Case control level III | Smaller mean angulation of smile more aesthetically pleasing | |
| Jang et al. [ | 2017 | 93 | Measurements from three-dimensional sampling | Case control level III | Longer face smaller lower lip and chin preferred. deviation from golden ratio | Korean population |
| Popenko et al. [ | 2017 | 20 digital images altered to create 100 faces | Lip surface area and lower/upper lip ratio | Survey level IV | 53.5% increase in surface area and 2:1 ratio of lower to upper lip more attractive | Age 18–25 white female faces |
| Benslimane et al. [ | 2017 | 450 photos 1000 portraits 339 patient photos | Eye fissure frame ratio or ‘Frame concept’ | Cross-sectional level IV | Frame height is inversely proportional to attractiveness and narrower eye fissure frame more attractive | Novel idea of ‘Frame concept’ |
| Melo et al. [ | 2017 | 30 | Harmony of features | Cross-sectional level IV | Subjective influence on assessment of attractiveness | Subjective facial analysis criteria used. photographs rated by 50 evaluators |
| Kaipainen et al. [ | 2016 | 59 | Effect of regional facial asymmetry on attractiveness | Observational level IV | Attractiveness not influenced by asymmetry | Age group 16–25 |
| Hwang et al. [ | 2016 | 120 | Relative eyebrow width/relative medial midpupilary and lateral heights of eyebrows to length of palpebral fissure measure over last century from photographs in Vogue magazine | Observational level IV | REW unchanged RLH greater than REW over time | Cross cultural difficult to compare |
| Galantucci et al. [ | 2016 | 66 | 25 anatomical landmarks total of 5610 data items | Cross-sectional level IV | Greatest influences on attractiveness are facial width, upper facial convexity; distance between nasion and midpoint of tragi; nasolabial angles and mouth width | Three-dimensional anthropometric analysis to set up a database statistically significant differences only in some measurements. |
| Heidekrueger et al. [ | 2016 | 1011 | Lip shape preference | Survey level IV | Non-caucasian surgeon prefer larger lips and caucasian surgeons prefer smaller lips | 14% response rate |
| Murakami et al. [ | 2016 | 9 morphed facial types | Lip position | Observational level IV | Favoured lip position differed between lay person and clinician | Japanese population—limited to specific ethnicity |
| Bagheri et al. [ | 2016 | 200 | Lip morphology | Case control level III | Medium and full lip preference in males and medium and thin preference in females | Anatolian females computer-assisted redesign solution for lip augmentation |
| Tauk et al. [ | 2016 | 18 | Visual Analogue Scale | Cross-sectional level IV | Entire face profile used to assess beauty | |
| Forte et al. [ | 2015 | 66 | Attractiveness and tiredness on a 0–10 scale with digital alteration of facial subunits | Survey level IV | Neck ptosis, jowels, vertical lip rhytids, crows’ feet lower lid herniation influenced perception of age | Perception of tiredness and attractiveness extrapolated from impact on age |
| Alam et al. [ | 2015 | 286 | Comparison to golden ration | Cross-sectional level IV | Only 17.1% conform to the ratio. 54% have shorter face. No association between golden ratio and facial evaluation scores | Malaysian population |
| Gibelli et al. [ | 2015 | 40 | Lip measurements and differences in gender and age | Cross-sectional level IV | Male lips larger than female. Younger people have larger lips than older. Lower lip thickness highest percentage if correct for age | Three-dimensional technology used for morphological and metrical analysis |
| Penna et al. [ | 2015 | 176 | Lip morphology | Cross-sectional level IV | High ratio of upper vermillion height to mouth–nose distance and chin–nose distance in and wider vermillion height/chin–mouth distance in attractive females | 250 voluntary judges through an Internet presentation |
| Wu et al. [ | 2015 | 80 patients 50 landmarks | Facial characteristics | Case control level III | Attractive men had large forehead reduced mandible round baby face characteristics | Consider individual faces—Chinese population |
| Farrera et al. [ | 2015 | 565 patients | Asymmetry | Cross-sectional level IV | Attractiveness and asymmetry are not correlated | Use two-dimensional digital photographs and geometric morphometric methods Mexican population |
| Bronfman et al. [ | 2015 | 13 studies | Facial distances, angles and features | Systematic review of level III trials level III | Japanese adults have less bilabial protrusion, less prominent nose. Japanese adults prefer a more retruded profile | Used some skeletal measurements |
| Hwang et al. [ | 2015 | 37 | Eye measurements | Cross-sectional level IV | Beautiful women and femme fatales have same inter-pupillary distance | Western society |
| Hwang et al. [ | 2014 | 31 | 43 distances and angles in young and old Leonardo’s profile drawings | Cross-sectional level IV | 39 anthropometric items did not differ. Upper lip height, upper face height and nasolabial angle greater in young. | Comparing old and ‘ugly’ with young and beautiful |
| Park et al. [ | 2013 | 52 | 17 anthropometric ratios | Observational level IV | Femme fatales had narrow noses and attractive midface | Comparison of portrait paintings |
| Rosetti et al. [ | 2013 | 400 | Facial distances | Observational level IV | Eye–mouth distance/height of mandible ratio influenced by attractiveness. Most facial ratios differ from golden ratio | Three-dimensional facial distances used |
| Wong et al. [ | 2010 | 197 | Lip measurements and subjective assessment of attractiveness in different ethnicities | Observational level IV | Smaller than average in midline upper lip rated more attractive. Ethnic differences | Three-dimensional facial distances used. Lips did not contribute to attractiveness as much as previously thought |
| Pancherz et al. [ | 2010 | 158 | 5 transverse and 7 vertical measures compared with PHI | Observational level IV | Attractive individuals have proportions close to PHI | Testing Ricketts’ hypothesis |
| Pallett et al. [ | 2010 | 122 raters | Eye mouth distance intraocular distance | Survey level IV | Vertical distance between eyes and mouth = 36% of length horizontal distance between eyes is = 46% of width | Attempt to redefine ‘new’ golden ratio |
| Komori et al. [ | 2009 | 114 | Averageness and symmetry | Observational level IV | Males and females both averageness and symmetry rate positive, whereas in female only averageness does | |
| Jahanbin et al. [ | 2008 | 50 | 5 landmarks 5 ratios | Cross-sectional level IV | Only some measures conform to the divine proportion | Use two-diemensional digital photographs |
| Holland [ | 2008 | 0 | Analysis of the Marquardt’s mask | Observational level IV | Marquardt’s mask described as ‘not ideal’ | |
| Medici et al. [ | 2007 | 20 digital images | Ratios of facial features rated by 12 individuals | Survey level IV | A relationship exists between divine proportion and aesthetic face | Manipulation of ratios by morphing from 2.0 to the divine ratio |
| Danel et al. [ | 2007 | 77 | Eye mouth angle | Observational level IV | Attractiveness negative correlation to EME | |
| Kim et al. [ | 2007 | 40 | Rating of pre and post-operative photographs with the Marquardt mask | Observational level IV | Results not statistically significant but mask a ‘useful’ tool | |
| Costa et al. [ | 2006 | 1065 | Eye lip size and roundness | Case Control level III | Eye and lip roundness, eye height and width and lip height are enhanced in artistic portraits compared to photographic | One part of three studies |
| Milutinovic et al. [ | 2014 | 107 | Facial distances and proportions | Observational level IV | Smaller face/uniformity of thirds and fifths and most parameters meet the ‘ideal proportions’ in aesthetically pleasing faces | |
| Gan et al. [ | 2014 | 307 | Self-taught learning computer based | Cohort level III | Facial beauty can be recognised at a rate 87.3% of face | |
| Xie et al. [ | 2015 | 500 | Benchmarking the SCUT-FBP dataset | Case control level III | Confirming the SCUT-FBP dataset is reliable for predicting attractiveness |