Top

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

Published in:

01-03-2008 | Original Article

Comparison of Facial Proportions and Anthropometric Norms Among Turkish Young Adults With Different Face Types

Authors: Seher Gündüz Arslan, Celal Genç, Bahadır Odabaş, Jalen Devecioğlu Kama

Published in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery | Issue 2/2008

Abstract

Background

This study aimed to determine the prevalence of three different face types among Turkish young adults based on facial indices, to assess and compare the vertical and horizontal dimensions for each type, and to establish anthropometric norms for Turkish adults.

Methods

A total of 173 healthy young adults (83 females and 90 males) 17 to 25 years of age were examined. Using anthropometric landmarks, 8 horizontal and 10 vertical direct measurements were made with a millimetric compass.

Results

Using facial indices, 59 of the 173 subjects were classified as euryprosopic, 49 as mesoprosopic, and 65 as leptoproposic. In the total evaluation of both groups, all the parameters were higher in the males except forehead heights 1 and 2. A comparison of face types in females and males separately showed no significant differences between the parameters.

Conclusions

The data presented in this study may help plastic surgeons and orthodontists objectively determine the relationships between facial structures for different face types. Additionally, the facial anthropometric norms derived from this study may be useful in the treatment of Turkish patients.

Tolleth H (1984) Observations on form and proportion. In: Hetter G (ed) Lipolysis: Theory and practice. Little Brown: Boston

Tolleth H (1987) Concepts for the plastic surgeon from art and sculpture. Clin Plast Surg 14:585–598PubMed

Vegter F, Hage JJ (2000) Clinical anthropometry and canons of the face in historical perspective. Plast Reconstr Surg 106:1090–1096PubMedCrossRef

Bergmüller JG (1723) Anthropometria. J.J. Lotter: Augsburg

Da Vinci L (1786) Trattario della pittura. Bologna. In (ref.): Boyd E (ed) (1980) Origins of the study human growth. University of Oregon Health Sciences Center Foundation: Portland, p 167

Dürer A (1557) Les quatre livres d’Albert Dürer, peintre et géomètre très excellent, de la proportion des parties portraits des corps humains. C Perier: Paris

Elsholtz JS (1663) Anthropometria. A. Becman: Frankfurt am Oder

Dawei W, Guozheng Q, Mingli Z, Farkas LG (1997) Differences in horizontal neoclassical facial canons in Chinese (Han) and North American Caucasian populations. Aesth Plast Surg 21:265–269CrossRef

Farkas LG, Hreczko TA, Kolar JC, Munro IR, Chir B (1985) Vertical and horizontal proportions of the face in young adult North American Caucasians: Revision of neoclassical canons. Plast Reconstr Surg 75:328–337PubMedCrossRef

10.

Kelen E (1974) Leonardo da Vinci’s advice to artists. Thomas Nelson, Inc: Nashville

11.

Lischer BE (1919) Variations and modifications of the facial features: An introductory study. Int J Orthod 5:495–507

12.

Wuerpel EH (1937) On facial balance and harmony. Angle Orthod 7:81–89

13.

Stoner MM (1955) A photometric analysis of the facial profile: A method of assessing facial change induced by orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 41:453–469CrossRef

14.

Burstone CJ (1958) The integumental profile. Am J Orthod 44:1–25CrossRef

15.

Neger M (1959) A quantitative method for the evaluation of the soft tissue facial profile. Am J Orthod 45:738–751CrossRef

16.

Bloom LA (1961) Perioral profile changes in orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 47:371–379CrossRef

17.

Case CS (1964) The question of extraction in orthodontia. Am J Orthod 50:659–691CrossRef

18.

Merrifield LL (1966) The profile line as an aid in critically evaluating facial esthetics. Am J Orthod 52:804–822PubMedCrossRef

19.

Ricketts RM (1968) Esthetics, environment, and the law of lip relation. Am J Orthod 54:272–289PubMedCrossRef

20.

Legan HL, Burstone CJ (1980) Soft tissue cephalometric analysis for orthognatic surgery. J Oral Surg 38:744–751PubMed

21.

Davenport CB (1939) Postnatal development of the human outer nose. Proc Am Philos Soc 80:175–256

22.

Meredith HV (1960) Changes in the form of the head and face during childhood. Growth 24:215–264

23.

Farkas LG (1981) Anthropometry of the head and face in medicine. Elsevier: New York

24.

Zingaro EA, Falces E (1987) Aesthetic anatomy of the non-Caucasian nose. Clin Plast Surg 14:749–765PubMed

25.

Mantzikos T (1998) Esthetic soft tissue profile preferences among the Japanese population. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 114:1–7CrossRef

26.

Miyajima K, McNamara JA, Kimura T, Murata S, Iizuka T (1996) Craniofacial structure of Japanese and European–American adults with normal occlusions and well-balanced faces. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 110:431–438CrossRef

27.

Farkas LG (1994) Anthropometry of the head and face. 2nd ed. Raven Press: New York

28.

Ulgen M (2000) Orthodontics: anomalies, etiology, growth and development, cephalometry, and diagnosis. Vol. 2. Yeditepe University Press House: Istanbul, p. 175

29.

Arman A, Toygar U, Abuhijleh E (2004) Profile changes associated with different orthopedic treatment approaches in class III malocclusions. Angle Orthod 74:733–740PubMed

30.

Frankel R, Frankel C (1988) Orthodontics in orofacial region with help of function regulators. Inf Orthod Kieferorthop 20:277–309PubMed

31.

McNamara JA Jr, Brust EW, Riolo ML (1993) Soft tissue evaluation of individuals with an ideal occlusion and a well-balanced face. In: McNamara JA Jr (ed) Esthetics and the treatment of facial form. Monograph 28. Craniofacial Growth Series, Center for Human Growth and Development, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pp. 115–146

32.

Lehmann JA (1987) Soft tissue manifestations of aesthetic defects of the jaws: Diagnosis and treatment. Clin Plast Surg 14:767–783

33.

Kasai K, Richards LC, Brown T (1993) Comparative study of craniofacial morphology in Japanese and Australian aboriginal populations. Hum Biol 65:821–834PubMed

34.

Porter JP, Olson KL (2001) Anthropometric facial analysis of the African American woman. Arch Facial Plast Surg 3:191–197PubMedCrossRef

35.

Sim RS, Smith JD, Chan AS (2000) Comparison of the aesthetic facial proportions of southern Chinese and white women. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2:113–120PubMedCrossRef

36.

Farkas LG, Munro IR, Chir B, Kolar JC (1985) Abnormal measurements and disproportions in the face of Down’s syndrome patients: Preliminary report of an anthropometric study. Plast Reconstr Surg 75:159–167PubMedCrossRef

37.

Farkas LG, Katic MJ, Forrest CR (2002) Surface anatomy of the face in Down’s syndrome: Age-related changes of anthropometric proportions in the craniofacial regions. J Craniofac Surg 13:368–374PubMedCrossRef

38.

Farkas LG (1987) Age and sex-related changes in facial proportions. In: Farkas LG, Munro IR (eds) Anthropometric facial proportions in medicine. CC Thomas: Springfield, pp. 29–56

39.

Bishara SE, Hession TJ, Peterson LC (1985) Longitudinal soft tissue profile changes: A study of three analyses. Am J Orthod 88:209–214PubMedCrossRef

40.

Farkas LG (1996) Accuracy of anthropometric measurements: Past, present, and future. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 33:10–18PubMedCrossRef

41.

Le TT, Farkas LG, Ngim RCK, Levin LS, Forrest CR (2002) Proportionality in Asian and North American Caucasian faces using neoclassical facial canons as criteria. Aesth Plast Surg 26:64–69CrossRef

42.

Farkas LG, Forrest CR, Litsas L (2000) Revision of neoclassical facial canons in young adult Afro-Americans. Aesth Plast Surg 24:179–184CrossRef

Title: Comparison of Facial Proportions and Anthropometric Norms Among Turkish Young Adults With Different Face Types
Authors: Seher Gündüz Arslan
Celal Genç
Bahadır Odabaş
Jalen Devecioğlu Kama
Publication date: 01-03-2008
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery / Issue 2/2008
Print ISSN: 0364-216X
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5241
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-007-9049-y

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Comparison of Facial Proportions and Anthropometric Norms Among Turkish Young Adults With Different Face Types

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2008

Risk of Seroma with Simultaneous Liposuction and Abdominoplasty and the Role of Progressive Tension Sutures

RETRACTED ARTICLE: New and Detailed Classification of Saddle Nose Deformities: Step-by-Step Surgical Approach Using the Current Techniques for Each Group

Allogenous Cartilage Graft Versus Autogenous Cartilage Graft in Augmentation Rhinoplasty: A Decade of Clinical Experience

Controlled Trials in Aesthetic Plastic Surgery: A 16-Year Analysis

The Safety of Pedicles in Breast Reduction and Mastopexy Procedures

A Nomogram for Predicting the Degree of Breast Augmentation According to Implant Size