Anzeige
Erschienen in:
22.12.2017 | Original Article
Ethnic Rhinoplasty in Female Patients: The Neoclassical Canons Revisited
Erschienen in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery | Ausgabe 2/2018
Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhaltenAbstract
Background
Despite the substantial amount of research devoted to objectively defining facial attractiveness, the canons have remained a paradigm of aesthetic facial analysis, yet their omnipresence in clinical assessments revealed their limitations outside of a subset of North American Caucasians, leading to criticism about their validity as a standard of facial beauty. In an effort to introduce more objective treatment planning into ethnic rhinoplasty, we compared neoclassical canons and other current standards pertaining to nasal proportions to anatomic proportions of attractive individuals from seven different ethnic backgrounds.
Methods
Beauty pageant winners (Miss Universe and Miss World nominees) between 2005 and 2015 were selected and assigned to one of seven regionally defined ethnic groups. Anteroposterior and lateral images were obtained through Google, Wikipedia, Miss Universe, and Miss World Web sites. Anthropometry of facial features was performed via Adobe Photoshop TM. Individual facial measurements were then standardized to proportions and compared to the neoclassical canons.
Results
Our data reflected an ethnic-dependent preference for the multiple fitness model. Wide-set eyes, larger mouth widths, and smaller noses were significantly relevant in Eastern Mediterranean and European ethnic groups. Exceptions lied within East African and Asian groups.
Conclusion
As in the attractive face, the concept of the ideal nasal anatomy varies between different ethnicities. Using objective criteria and proportions of beauty to plan and execute rhinoplasty in different ethnicities can help the surgeon plan and deliver results that are in harmony with patients’ individual background and facial anatomy.
Level of Evidence IV
This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.