DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Ideal Nasal Preferences: A Quantitative Investigation with 3D Imaging in the Iranian Population

  • Kiarash Tavakoli (Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Otorhinolaryngology Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Amir K. Sazgar (Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Otorhinolaryngology Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Arman Hasanzade (School of Medicine, Medical School, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Amir A. Sazgar (Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Otorhinolaryngology Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences)
  • Received : 2022.12.10
  • Accepted : 2023.04.15
  • Published : 2023.07.15

Abstract

Background Though in facial plastic surgery, the ideal nasal characteristics are defined by average European-American facial features known as neoclassical cannons, many ethnicities do not perceive these characteristics as suitable. Methods To investigate the preferences for nasofrontal angle, nasolabial angle, dorsal height, alar width, and nasal tip projection, manipulated pictures of one male and one female model were shown to 203 volunteer patients from a tertiary university hospital's facial plastic clinic. Results The most aesthetically preferred nasofrontal angles were 137.64 ± 4.20 degrees for males and 133.55 ± 4.53 degrees for females. Acute nasofrontal angles were more desirable in participants aged 25 to 44. The most preferred nasolabial angles were 107.56 ± 5.20 degrees and 98.92 ± 4.88 degrees, respectively. Volunteers aged 19 to 24 preferred more acute male nasolabial angles. A straight dorsum was the most desirable in both genders (0.03 ± 0.78 and 0.26 ± 0.75 mm, respectively). The ideal male and female alar widths were -0.51 ± 2.26 and -1.09 ± 2.18 mm, respectively. More 45- to 64-year-old volunteers preferred alar widths equal to intercanthal distance. The ideal female and male tip projections were 0.57 ± 0.01 and 0.56 ± 0.01, respectively. Conclusion Results indicate that the general Iranian patients prefer thinner female noses with wider nasofrontal angles for both genders. However, the ideal nasolabial angles, dorsal heights, and tip projections were consistent with the neoclassical cannons. Besides ethnic differences, the trend of nasal beauty is also affected by gender, age, and prior history of aesthetic surgery.

Keywords

References

  1. Pearson DC, Adamson PA. The ideal nasal profile: rhinoplasty patients vs the general public. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2004;6(04):257-262  https://doi.org/10.1001/archfaci.6.4.257
  2. Broer PN. Reply: nasal aesthetics: a cross-cultural analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013;132(04):665e-666e  https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a05302
  3. Naini FB, Cobourne MT, Garagiola U, McDonald F, Wertheim D. Nasofrontal angle and nasal dorsal aesthetics: a quantitative investigation of idealized and normative values. Facial Plast Surg 2016;32(04):444-451  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1584234
  4. Farkas LG, Hreczko TA, Kolar JC, Munro IR. Vertical and horizontal proportions of the face in young adult North American Caucasians: revision of neoclassical canons. Plast Reconstr Surg 1985;75(03):328-338  https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-198503000-00005
  5. Polk MS Jr, Farman AG, Yancey JA, Gholston LR, Johnson BE, Regennitter FJ. Soft tissue profile: a survey of African-American preference. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108(01):90-101  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70071-4
  6. Sinno HH, Markarian MK, Ibrahim AMS, Lin SJ. The ideal nasolabial angle in rhinoplasty: a preference analysis of the general population. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014;134(02):201-210  https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000385
  7. Ahmed O, Dhinsa A, Popenko N, Osann K, Crumley RL, Wong BJ. Population-based assessment of currently proposed ideals of nasal tip projection and rotation in young women. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2014;16(05):310-318  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamafacial.2014.228
  8. Verhulst A, Hol M, Vreeken R, Becking A, Ulrich D, Maal T. Three-dimensional imaging of the face: a comparison between three different imaging modalities. Aesthet Surg J 2018;38(06):579-585  https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjx227
  9. Devcic Z, Rayikanti BA, Hevia JP, Popenko NA, Karimi K, Wong BJ. Nasal tip projection and facial attractiveness. Laryngoscope 2011;121(07):1388-1394  https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.21804
  10. Armijo BS, Brown M, Guyuron B. Defining the ideal nasolabial angle. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012;129(03):759-764  https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182402e12
  11. Broer PN, Buonocore S, Morillas A, et al. Nasal aesthetics: a cross-cultural analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012;130(06):843e-850e  https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31826da0c1
  12. Mafi AA, Shahverdiani R, Mafi P. Ideal soft tissue facial profile in Iranian males and females: clinical implications. World J Plast Surg 2018;7(02):179-185 
  13. Henderson JL, Larrabee WF Jr, Krieger BD. Photographic standards for facial plastic surgery. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2005;7(05):331-333  https://doi.org/10.1001/archfaci.7.5.331
  14. Da Silveira AC, Daw JL Jr, Kusnoto B, Evans C, Cohen M. Craniofacial applications of three-dimensional laser surface scanning. J Craniofac Surg 2003;14(04):449-456  https://doi.org/10.1097/00001665-200307000-00009
  15. Guyuron B. Discussion: the ideal nasolabial angle in rhinoplasty: a preference analysis of the general population. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014;134(02):211-213  https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000388
  16. Powell N, Humphreys B. Proportions of the Aesthetic Face. New York, NY: Thieme-Stratton; 1984 
  17. Yu MS, Jang YJ. Preoperative computer simulation for Asian rhinoplasty patients: analysis of accuracy and patient preference. Aesthet Surg J 2014;34(08):1162-1171  https://doi.org/10.1177/1090820X14547947
  18. Patel SM, Daniel RK. Indian American rhinoplasty: an emerging ethnic group. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012;129(03):519e-527e  https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182402d69
  19. Kim DW, Egan KK. Metrics of nasal tip rotation: a comparative analysis. Laryngoscope 2006;116(06):872-877  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlg.0000216796.63683.d3
  20. Nandini S, Prashanth CS, Somiah SK, Reddy SR. An evaluation of nasolabial angle and the relative inclinations of the nose and upper lip. J Contemp Dent Pract 2011;12(03):152-157  https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1026
  21. Biller JA, Kim DW. A contemporary assessment of facial aesthetic preferences. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2009;11(02):91-97  https://doi.org/10.1001/archfaci.2008.543
  22. Alharethy S. Preferred nasolabial angle in Middle Eastern population. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2017;274(05):2339-2341  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-017-4507-x
  23. Leach J. Aesthetics and the Hispanic rhinoplasty. Laryngoscope 2002;112(11):1903-1916  https://doi.org/10.1097/00005537-200211000-00001
  24. Harris R, Nagarkar P, Amirlak B. Varied definitions of nasolabial angle: searching for consensus among rhinoplasty surgeons and an algorithm for selecting the ideal method. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2016;4(06):e752 
  25. Alharethy SE. The ideal aesthetic nasal dorsum in the Saudi population. Saudi Med J 2013;34(09):920-922 
  26. Leong SC, White PS. A comparison of aesthetic proportions between the Oriental and Caucasian nose. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2004;29(06):672-676  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2273.2004.00891.x
  27. Crumley RL, Lanser M. Quantitative analysis of nasal tip projection. Laryngoscope 1988;98(02):202-208  https://doi.org/10.1288/00005537-198802000-00017
  28. Simons RL. Nasal tip projection, ptosis, and supratip thickening. Ear Nose Throat J 1982;61:452-455 
  29. Mohebbi A, Jahandideh H, Faham Z, Jafari M. Defining the best nasal tip projection among Iranian women. Plast Surg Int 2016;2016:8549276