Download PDF
Facial Plast Surg 2024; 40(03): 348-362
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1770765
Original Research

Facial Anthropometric Measurements and Principles – Overview and Implications for Aesthetic Treatments

Xavier Armengou
1   Avoca Clinic - Private Practice, Wicklow, Ireland
,
Konstantin Frank
2   Centre for Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery, Ocean Clinic Marbella, Marbella, Spain
,
Kai Kaye
2   Centre for Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery, Ocean Clinic Marbella, Marbella, Spain
,
Vanessa Brébant
3   Department of Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Bayern, Germany
,
Nicholas Möllhoff
4   Division of Hand, Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery, University Hospital Munich, Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich, Germany
,
Sebastian Cotofana
5   Department of Dermatology, Erasmus Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
6   Centre for Cutaneous Research, Blizard Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
,
Michael Alfertshofer 
4   Division of Hand, Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery, University Hospital Munich, Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich, Germany
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Facial anatomy is highly individual in each patient. Anthropometric measurements can be a useful tool to objectively analyze individual facial anatomy to allow for better comparability before and after treatments to ultimately improve standardization of facial procedures, both nonsurgical and surgical. The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive overview over clinically relevant and feasible facial anthropometric measurements and principles for aesthetic medicine. A literature review was conducted to describe the most important and clinically relevant anthropometric measurements and principles for both the entire face and for three aesthetically relevant facial regions: the periorbital region, the nose, and the perioral region. A multitude of different anthropometric measurements and principles have been described in the literature for both the overall facial appearance and specific facial regions. Certain generally accepted anthropometric principles and proportions need to be respected to achieve aesthetic and harmonious results. For the overall facial appearance, a focus on symmetry, certain proportions, facial angles, and indices has been described. Principles and measurements were also described for the periorbital region, the nose, and the perioral region. Although attractiveness and aesthetic perception are subjective, objective evaluation of facial surface anatomy via anthropometric measurements can improve pre- and postinterventional analysis of the face and help the treating physician to individualize treatments, both nonsurgical and surgical.

Keywords

facial anthropometry - anthropometric measurements - aesthetic procedures - facial anatomy - facial landmarks


Publication History

Article published online:
24 July 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Etcoff NL. Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty. Doubleday; 1999
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 2 Sands NB, Adamson PA. Global facial beauty: approaching a unified aesthetic ideal. Facial Plast Surg 2014; 30 (02) 93-100
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 The Aesthetic Society. Aesthetic plastic surgery national databank statistics 2020. Published 2021. Accessed May 19, 2021 at: https://cdn.surgery.org/media/statistics/aestheticplasticsurgerynationaldatabank-2020stats.pdf
    PubMed
  • 4 Palermo EC, Anzai A, Jacomo AL. Three-dimensional approach of cosmetic patient: aging gracefully. In: Issa M, Tamura B. eds. Botulinum Toxins, Fillers and Related Substances. Clinical Approaches and Procedures in Cosmetic Dermatology. Springer International Publishing; 2018: 1-22
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 5 Cotofana S, Fratila AAMM, Schenck TL, Redka-Swoboda W, Zilinsky I, Pavicic T. The anatomy of the aging face: a review. Facial Plast Surg 2016; 32 (03) 253-260
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Swift A, Liew S, Weinkle S, Garcia JK, Silberberg MB. The facial aging process from the “inside out.”. Aesthet Surg J 2021; 41 (10) 1107-1119
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Ren H, Chen X, Zhang Y. Correlation between facial attractiveness and facial components assessed by laypersons and orthodontists. J Dent Sci 2021; 16 (01) 431-436
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Kashmar M, Alsufyani MA, Ghalamkarpour F. et al. Consensus opinions on facial beauty and implications for aesthetic treatment in Middle Eastern women. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2019; 7 (04) e2220
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Braz A, Eduardo CCP. Reshaping the lower face using injectable fillers. Indian J Plast Surg 2020; 53 (02) 207-218
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Tsikandilakis M, Bali P, Chapman P. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: the appraisal of facial attractiveness and its relation to conscious awareness. Perception 2019; 48 (01) 72-92
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Little AC, Jones BC, DeBruine LM. Facial attractiveness: evolutionary based research. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2011; 366 (1571): 1638-1659
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Little AC, Apicella CL, Marlowe FW. Preferences for symmetry in human faces in two cultures: data from the UK and the Hadza, an isolated group of hunter-gatherers. Proc Biol Sci 2007; 274 (1629): 3113-3117
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Casabona G, Frank K, Moellhoff N. et al. Full-face effects of temporal volumizing and temporal lifting techniques. J Cosmet Dermatol 2020; 19 (11) 2830-2837
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Hernandez CA, Schneider C, Gold D MH. et al. After the temporal lifting technique-what comes next?. J Cosmet Dermatol 2021; 20 (12) 3857-3862
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Iskra A, Gabrijelčič H. Eye-tracking analysis of face observing and face recognition. J Graph Eng Des 2016; 7: 5-11
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Przylipiak M, Przylipiak J, Terlikowski R, Lubowicka E, Chrostek L, Przylipiak A. Impact of face proportions on face attractiveness. J Cosmet Dermatol 2018; 17 (06) 954-959
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Hermens F, Golubickis M, Macrae CN. Eye movements while judging faces for trustworthiness and dominance. PeerJ 2018; 6: e5702
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Lasker G. (1994). The place of anthropometry in human biology. In S. Ulijaszek & C. Mascie-Taylor (Eds), Anthropometry: The Individual and the Population (Cambridge Studies in Biological and Evolutionary Anthropology, pp. 1–6). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
    PubMed
  • 19 Muralidhar NV, Ranjan A, Jayashankar Rao JS, Sreeshyla HS, Nitin P. Cephalic index, facial index and dental parameters: a correlative study to evaluate their significance in facial reconstruction. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol 2021; 25 (03) 537-542
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Jayaratne YSN, Zwahlen RA. Application of digital anthropometry for craniofacial assessment. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 2014; 7 (02) 101-107
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Jagadish Chandra H, Ravi MS, Sharma SM, Rajendra Prasad B. Standards of facial esthetics: an anthropometric study. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2012; 11 (04) 384-389
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Lim YC, Abdul Shakor AS, Shaharudin R. Reliability and accuracy of 2D photogrammetry: a comparison with direct measurement. Front Public Health 2022; 9: 813058
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Amornvit P, Sanohkan S. The accuracy of digital face scans obtained from 3D scanners: an in vitro study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019; 16 (24) 5061
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Dindaroğlu F, Kutlu P, Duran GS, Görgülü S, Aslan E. Accuracy and reliability of 3D stereophotogrammetry: a comparison to direct anthropometry and 2D photogrammetry. Angle Orthod 2016; 86 (03) 487-494
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Koban KC, Cotofana S, Frank K. et al. Precision in 3-dimensional surface imaging of the face: a handheld scanner comparison performed in a cadaveric model. Aesthet Surg J 2019; 39 (04) NP36-NP44
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Düppe K, Becker M, Schönmeyr B. Evaluation of facial anthropometry using three-dimensional photogrammetry and direct measuring techniques. J Craniofac Surg 2018; 29 (05) 1245-1251
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Koban KC, Perko P, Etzel L, Li Z, Schenck TL, Giunta RE. Validation of two handheld devices against a non-portable three-dimensional surface scanner and assessment of potential use for intraoperative facial imaging. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2020; 73 (01) 141-148
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Koban KC, Xu Y, Moellhoff N. et al. Accuracy assessment of three-dimensional surface imaging-based distance measurements of the face: comparison of a handheld facial scanner and a stationary whole-body surface imaging device. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2022; 30 (02) 159-166
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Lane C, Harrell Jr W. Completing the 3-dimensional picture. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133 (04) 612-620
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Mai H-N, Lee D-H. Accuracy of mobile device-compatible 3D scanners for facial digitization: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res 2020; 22 (10) e22228
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Koban KC, Härtnagl F, Titze V, Schenck TL, Giunta RE. Chances and limitations of a low-cost mobile 3D scanner for breast imaging in comparison to an established 3D photogrammetric system. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2018; 71 (10) 1417-1423
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Koban KC, Perko P, Li Z. et al. 3D anthropometric facial imaging - a comparison of different 3D scanners. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2022; 30 (02) 149-158
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Raschke GF, Rieger UM, Peisker A. et al. Morphologic outcome of bimaxillary surgery–an anthropometric appraisal. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2015; 20 (01) e103-e110
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Geramy A, Sheikhzade S, Nazarifar AM. Cephalometric and anthropometric changes and their relation to patients' satisfaction after orthognathic surgery. J Craniofac Surg 2020; 31 (04) 1022-1025
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Jayaratne YSN, McGrath CPJ, Zwahlen RA. How accurate are the fusion of cone-beam CT and 3-D stereophotographic images?. PLoS One 2012; 7 (11) e49585
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Gribel BF, Gribel MN, Frazäo DC, McNamara Jr JA, Manzi FR. Accuracy and reliability of craniometric measurements on lateral cephalometry and 3D measurements on CBCT scans. Angle Orthod 2011; 81 (01) 26-35
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Farkas LG, Deutsch CK. Anthropometric determination of craniofacial morphology. Am J Med Genet 1996; 65 (01) 1-4
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Milutinovic J, Zelic K, Nedeljkovic N. Evaluation of facial beauty using anthropometric proportions. ScientificWorldJournal 2014; 2014: 428250
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Niechajev I. Reduction genioplasty for mandibular prognathism and long chin. Oral Maxillofac Surg 2020; 24 (03) 333-341
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 George RM. Facial Geometry: Graphic Facial Analysis for Forensic Artists. Charles C. Thomas; 2007
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 41 Ramires RR, Ferreira LP, Marchesan IQ, Cattoni DM, Silva Mde AE. Proposal for facial type determination based on anthropometry. J Soc Bras Fonoaudiol 2011; 23 (03) 195-200
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Karad A. Cephalic and facial type. In: Clinical Orthodontics: Current Concepts, Goals and Mechanics. 2nd ed.. Elsevier; 2014: 15
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 43 Anić-Milosević S, Lapter-Varga M, Šlaj M. Analysis of the soft tissue facial profile by means of angular measurements. Eur J Orthod 2008; 30 (02) 135-140
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Godt A, Müller A, Kalwitzki M, Göz G. Angles of facial convexity in different skeletal classes. Eur J Orthod 2007; 29 (06) 648-653
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 Fernández-Riveiro P, Smyth-Chamosa E, Suárez-Quintanilla D, Suárez-Cunqueiro M. Angular photogrammetric analysis of the soft tissue facial profile. Eur J Orthod 2003; 25 (04) 393-399
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 46 Fortes Hda R, Guimarães TC, Belo IM, da Matta EN. Photometric analysis of esthetically pleasant and unpleasant facial profile. Dental Press J Orthod 2014; 19 (02) 66-75
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 47 Angle EH. Classification of malocclusion. Dent Cosmos 1899; 41: 350-375
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 48 Katz MI. Angle classification revisited. 1: is current use reliable?. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992; 102 (02) 173-179
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 49 Ritter DE. Class I malocclusion with anterior crossbite and severe crowding. Dental Press J Orthod 2014; 19 (02) 115-125
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 50 Janson G, Sathler R, Fernandes TMF, Zanda M, Pinzan A. Class II malocclusion occlusal severity description. J Appl Oral Sci 2010; 18 (04) 397-402
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 51 Dodda KK, Prasad SERV, Kanuru RK, Nalluri S, Mittapalli R. Raghavendra. Diagnostic features of Angle's Class II div 2 malocclusion. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2015; 5 (06) 513-517
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 52 Zere E, Chaudhari PK, Sharan J, Dhingra K, Tiwari N. Developing Class III malocclusions: challenges and solutions. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2018; 10: 99-116
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 53 Koka K, Patel BC. Ptosis Correction. StatPearls [Internet]; 2023
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 54 Putterman AM, Urist MJ. Müller muscle-conjunctiva resection. Technique for treatment of blepharoptosis. Arch Ophthalmol 1975; 93 (08) 619-623
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 55 Ural O, Mocan MC, Dolgun A, Erdener U. The utility of margin-reflex distance in determining the type of surgical intervention for congenital blepharoptosis. Indian J Ophthalmol 2016; 64 (10) 752-755
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 56 Shahzad B, Siccardi MA. Ptosis. StatPearls [Internet]; 2022
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 57 Putterman AM. Margin reflex distance (MRD) 1, 2, and 3. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 28 (04) 308-311
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 58 Cunningham MR. Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty. J Pers Soc Psychol 1986; 50 (05) 925-935
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 59 Vasanthakumar P, Kumar P, Rao M. Anthropometric analysis of palpebral fissure dimensions and its position in South Indian ethnic adults. Oman Med J 2013; 28 (01) 26-32
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 60 Cohen Jr MMJ. Syndromology: an updated conceptual overview. X. References. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1990; 19 (02) 89-96
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 61 Bukhari AA. The distinguishing anthropometric features of the Saudi Arabian eyes. Saudi J Ophthalmol 2011; 25 (04) 417-420
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 62 van den Bosch WA, Leenders I, Mulder P. Topographic anatomy of the eyelids, and the effects of sex and age. Br J Ophthalmol 1999; 83 (03) 347-352
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 63 Oztürk F, Yavas G, Inan UU. Normal periocular anthropometric measurements in the Turkish population. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2006; 13 (02) 145-149
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 64 Park DH. Anthropometric analysis of the slant of palpebral fissures. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 119 (05) 1624-1626
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 65 Nerad JA. Oculoplastic Surgery: The Requisites in Ophthalmology. Mosby; 2001
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 66 Mielke G, Dietz K, Franz H, Reiss I, Gembruch U. Sonographic assessment of the fetal palpebral fissure slant–an additional tool in the prenatal diagnosis of syndromes. Prenat Diagn 1997; 17 (04) 323-326
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 67 Odunze M, Rosenberg DS, Few JW. Periorbital aging and ethnic considerations: a focus on the lateral canthal complex. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 121 (03) 1002-1008
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 68 Beden U, Yalaz M, Güngör I, Süllü Y, Erkan D. Lateral canthal dynamics, correlation with periorbital anthropometric measurements, and effect of age and sleep preference side on eyelid metrics and lateral canthal tendon. Eur J Ophthalmol 2007; 17 (02) 143-150
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 69 Morley AMS, Malhotra R. Use of hyaluronic acid filler for tear-trough rejuvenation as an alternative to lower eyelid surgery. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 27 (02) 69-73
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 70 Westmore M. Facial cosmetics in conjunction with surgery. Paper presented at the Aesthetic Plastic Surgical Society Meeting; May 1974; Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
    PubMed
  • 71 Vaca EE, Bricker JT, Helenowski I, Park ED, Alghoul MS. Identifying aesthetically appealing upper eyelid topographic proportions. Aesthet Surg J 2019; 39 (08) 824-834
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 72 Lambros V. Observations on periorbital and midface aging. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 120 (05) 1367-1376
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 73 Farkas LG, Kolar JC, Munro IR. Geography of the nose: a morphometric study. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1986; 10 (04) 191-223
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 74 Rohrich RJ, Villanueva NL, Small KH, Pezeshk RA. Implications of facial asymmetry in rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 140 (03) 510-516
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 75 Brito ÍM, Avashia Y, Rohrich RJ. Evidence-based nasal analysis for rhinoplasty: the 10-7-5 method. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2020; 8 (02) e2632
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 76 Rohrich RJ, Janis JE, Kenkel JM. Male rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003; 112 (04) 1071-1085 , quiz 1086
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 77 Mojallal A, Ouyang D, Saint-Cyr M, Bui N, Brown SA, Rohrich RJ. Dorsal aesthetic lines in rhinoplasty: a quantitative outcome-based assessment of the component dorsal reduction technique. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128 (01) 280-288
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 78 Rohrich RJ, Muzaffar AR, Janis JE. Component dorsal hump reduction: the importance of maintaining dorsal aesthetic lines in rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 114 (05) 1298-1308 , discussion 1309–1312
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 79 Heidari Z, Mahmoudzadeh-Sagheb H, Khammar T, Khammar M. Anthropometric measurements of the external nose in 18-25-year-old Sistani and Baluch aborigine women in the southeast of Iran. Folia Morphol (Warsz) 2009; 68 (02) 88-92
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 80 Leong SC, Eccles R. A systematic review of the nasal index and the significance of the shape and size of the nose in rhinology. Clin Otolaryngol 2009; 34 (03) 191-198
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 81 Williams RI. The nasal index; anthropological and clinical. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1956; 65 (01) 171-189
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 82 Szychta P, Rykała J, Kruk-Jeromin J. Individual and ethnic aspects of preoperative planning for posttraumatic rhinoplasty. Eur J Plast Surg 2011; 34 (04) 245-249
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 83 Rohrich RJ, Bolden K. Ethnic rhinoplasty. Clin Plast Surg 2010; 37 (02) 353-370
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 84 Jankowska A, Janiszewska-Olszowska J, Grocholewicz K. Nasal morphology and its correlation to craniofacial morphology in lateral cephalometric analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18 (06) 3064
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 85 Powell N, Humphreys B. Proportions of the Aesthetic Face. Thieme-Stratton; 1984
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 86 Ghavami A, Janis JE, Acikel C, Rohrich RJ. Tip shaping in primary rhinoplasty: an algorithmic approach. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 122 (04) 1229-1241
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 87 Rohrich R, Adams Jr W, Ahmad J, Gunter J. Dallas Rhinoplasty: Nasal Surgery by the Masters. 3rd ed.. Thieme Medical Publishers; 2014. . ISBN: 9781626236776
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 88 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
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 89 Wen YF, Wong HM, Lin R, Yin G, McGrath C. Inter-ethnic/racial facial variations: a systematic review and bayesian meta-analysis of photogrammetric studies. PLoS One 2015; 10 (08) e0134525
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 90 Bravo BSF, Carvalho RM, Iggnacio CA, Bianco S, Bravo LG. Effect of the aging process on columella-labial, naso-mental and facial angles and how to apply it in clinical practice. J Cosmet Dermatol 2020; 19 (12) 3383-3388
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 91 Lines PA, Lines RR, Lines CA. Profilemetrics and facial esthetics. Am J Orthod 1978; 73 (06) 648-657
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 92 Raphael P, Harris R, Harris SW. Analysis and classification of the upper lip aesthetic unit. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132 (03) 543-551
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 93 Hsu BS. Comparisons of the five analytic reference lines of the horizontal lip position: their consistency and sensitivity. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993; 104 (04) 355-360
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 94 Denize ES, McDonald F, Sherriff M, Naini FB. Facial profile parameters and their relative influence on bilabial prominence and the perceptions of facial profile attractiveness: a novel approach. Korean J Orthod 2014; 44 (04) 184-194
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 95 Bokhari F, Asad S, Amin F. Cephalometric assessment of lips in skeletal class II patients by Steiner's line. Ann King Edw Med Univ 2013; 19 (01) 11-17
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 96 Steiner CC. The use of cephalometrics as an aid to planning and assessing orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 1960; 46: 721-735
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 97 Rickett RM. Planning treatment on the basis of the facial pattern and an estimate of its growth. Angle Orthod 1957; 27 (01) 14-37
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 98 Riedel RA. Diagnosis and treatment planning in orthodontics. Dent Clin North Am 1963; 7 (01) 175-187
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 99 Burstone CJ. Lip posture and its significance in treatment planning. Am J Orthod 1967; 53 (04) 262-284
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 100 Burstone CJ, James RB, Legan H, Murphy GA, Norton LA. Cephalometrics for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg 1978; 36 (04) 269-277
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 101 Joshi M, Wu LP, Maharjan S, Regmi MR. Sagittal lip positions in different skeletal malocclusions: a cephalometric analysis. Prog Orthod 2015; 16: 8
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 102 Pandey S, Kapoor S, Agarwal S, Shukla I. Evaluation of lip position in esthetically pleasing profiles using different reference lines: a photographic study. J Indian Orthod Soc 2020; 55 (03) 261-269
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 103 Merrifield LL. The profile line as an aid in critically evaluating facial esthetics. Am J Orthod 1966; 52 (11) 804-822
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 104 Holdaway RA. A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part II. Am J Orthod 1984; 85 (04) 279-293
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 105 Young PA. The circles of prominence, a new theory on beauty: ideal distances in the eyes, nose, ears, and lips. Am J Cosmet Surg 2016; 33 (04) 165-175
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 106 Goodman GJ. The oval female facial shape–a study in beauty. Dermatol Surg 2015; 41 (12) 1375-1383
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 107 Voegeli R, Schoop R, Prestat-Marquis E, Rawlings AV, Shackelford TK, Fink B. Cross-cultural perception of female facial appearance: a multi-ethnic and multi-centre study. PLoS One 2021; 16 (01) e0245998
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 108 Čuš Babič N, Ropert T, Musil B. Revealing faces: gender and cultural differences in facial prominence of selfies. PLoS One 2018; 13 (10) e0205893
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 109 Gao Y, Niddam J, Noel W, Hersant B, Meningaud JP. Comparison of aesthetic facial criteria between Caucasian and East Asian female populations: an esthetic surgeon's perspective. Asian J Surg 2018; 41 (01) 4-11
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 110 Tambone V, Barone M, Cogliandro A, Di Stefano N, Persichetti P. How you become who you are: a new concept of beauty for plastic surgery. Arch Plast Surg 2015; 42 (05) 517-520
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 111 Rohrich RJ. So you want to be better: the role of evidence-based medicine in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 126 (04) 1395-1398
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar