Archives of Plastic Surgery

Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (대한성형외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Photogrammetric Analysis of Attractiveness in Indian Faces

  • Duggal, Shveta (Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Kothiwal Dental College and Research Centre) ;
  • Kapoor, DN (Department of Orthodontics, Kothiwal Dental College and Former Dean of Dental Faculty, KGMU) ;
  • Verma, Santosh (Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Kothiwal Dental College and Research Centre) ;
  • Sagar, Mahesh (Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Kothiwal Dental College and Research Centre) ;
  • Lee, Yung-Seop (Department of Statistics, Dongguk University) ;
  • Moon, Hyoungjin (Moon's Aesthetic Surgery Clinic) ;
  • Rhee, Seung Chul (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Ilsan Hospital, Dongguk University Medical Center)
  • Received : 2015.09.08
  • Accepted : 2016.02.18
  • Published : 2016.03.18
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background The objective of this study was to assess the attractive facial features of the Indian population. We tried to evaluate subjective ratings of facial attractiveness and identify which facial aesthetic subunits were important for facial attractiveness. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted of 150 samples (referred to as candidates). Frontal photographs were analyzed. An orthodontist, a prosthodontist, an oral surgeon, a dentist, an artist, a photographer and two laymen (estimators) subjectively evaluated candidates' faces using visual analog scale (VAS) scores. As an objective method for facial analysis, we used balanced angular proportional analysis (BAPA). Using SAS 10.1 (SAS Institute Inc.), the Turkey's studentized range test and Pearson correlation analysis were performed to detect between-group differences in VAS scores (Experiment 1), to identify correlations between VAS scores and BAPA scores (Experiment 2), and to analyze the characteristic features of facial attractiveness and gender differences (Experiment 3); the significance level was set at P=0.05. Results Experiment 1 revealed some differences in VAS scores according to professional characteristics. In Experiment 2, BAPA scores were found to behave similarly to subjective ratings of facial beauty, but showed a relatively weak correlation coefficient with the VAS scores. Experiment 3 found that the decisive factors for facial attractiveness were different for men and women. Composite images of attractive Indian male and female faces were constructed. Conclusions Our photogrammetric study, statistical analysis, and average composite faces of an Indian population provide valuable information about subjective perceptions of facial beauty and attractive facial structures in the Indian population.

Keywords

References

  1. Bashour M. An objective system for measuring facial attractiveness. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;118:757-74. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000207382.60636.1c
  2. Valentine T, Darling S, Donnelly M. Why are average faces attractive? The effect of view and averageness on the attractiveness of female faces. Psychon Bull Rev 2004;11:482-7. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196599
  3. Perrett DI, Burt DM, Penton-Voak IS, et al. Symmetry human facial attractiveness. Evolution Human Behavior 1999; 20:295-307. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(99)00014-8
  4. Holland E. Marquardt’s Phi mask: pitfalls of relying on fashion models and the golden ratio to describe a beautiful face. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2008;32:200-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-007-9080-z
  5. Duggal S. The esthetic zone of smile. Virtual J Orthod [Internet]. 2012 Aug 26 [cited 2016 Feb 26]. Available from: http://www.vjo.it/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/zone.pdf.
  6. Rhee SC, Dhong ES, Yoon ES. Photogrammetric facial analysis of attractive Korean entertainers. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2009;33:167-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-008-9257-0
  7. Rhee SC, Lee SH. Attractive composite faces of different races. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2010;34:800-1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-010-9606-7
  8. Rhee SC. The average Korean attractive face. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2006;30:729-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-006-0157-x
  9. Naini FB. Facial aesthetics concepts & clinical diagnosis. Chichester, UK; Ames, Iowa: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011.
  10. Reyneke JP, Ferretti C. Clinical assessment of the face. Semin Orthod 2012;18:172-86. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2012.04.002
  11. Naini FB, Moss JP. Three-dimensional assessment of the relative contribution of genetics and environment to various facial parameters with the twin method. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126:655-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.08.034
  12. Lines PA, Lines RR, Lines CA. Profilemetrics and facial esthetics. Am J Orthod 1978;73:648-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(78)90225-7
  13. Farkas LG, Katic MJ, Forrest CR, et al. International anthropometric study of facial morphology in various ethnic groups/ races. J Craniofac Surg 2005;16:615-46. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.scs.0000171847.58031.9e
  14. Zhuang Z, Landsittel D, Benson S, et al. Facial anthropometric differences among gender, ethnicity, and age groups. Ann Occup Hyg 2010;54:391-402.
  15. Dobke M, Chung C, Takabe K. Facial aesthetic preferences among Asian women: are all oriental Asians the same? Aesthetic Plast Surg 2006;30:342-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-005-0091-3
  16. Arunkumar KV, Reddy VV, Tauro DP. Establishment of cephalometric norms for the South Indian (Karnataka) population based on Burstone's analysis. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2010;9:127-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-010-0039-2
  17. Gulati R, Jain S. Cephalometric norms for orthognathic surgery for North India (Eastern Uttar Pradesh). Natl J Maxillofac Surg 2011;2:33-7. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-5950.85851
  18. Oh HS, Korn EL, Zhang X, et al. Correlations between cephalometric and photographic measurements of facial attractiveness in Chinese and US patients after orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:762.e1-14.
  19. Knight H, Keith O. Ranking facial attractiveness. Eur J Orthod 2005;27:340-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cji042
  20. Borman H, Ozgur F, Gursu G. Evaluation of soft-tissue morphology of the face in 1,050 young adults. Ann Plast Surg 1999;42:280-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000637-199903000-00009
  21. Johnston DJ, Hunt O, Johnston CD, et al. The influence of lower face vertical proportion on facial attractiveness. Eur J Orthod 2005;27:349-54. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cji023
  22. Patil SB, Kale SM, Jaiswal S, et al. The average Indian female nose. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2011;35:1036-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-011-9729-5
  23. Gupta A, Garg J, Anand N, et al. Establishment of soft tissue norms for the north Indian population based on laymen perception. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2014;13:22-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-012-0456-5
  24. Jegal JJ, Kang SJ, Kim JW, et al. The utility of a three-dimensional approach with T-shaped osteotomy in osseous genioplasty. Arch Plast Surg 2013;40:433-9. https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2013.40.4.433

Cited by

  1. Can We Determine Sasang Constitutional Body Type Merely by Facial Inspection? vol.23, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2016.0325
  2. Contemporary Koreans' Perceptions of Facial Beauty vol.44, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2017.44.5.390
  3. What Do We Find Attractive about the Face?: Survey Study with Application to Aesthetic Surgery vol.33, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.23455