Craniofacial Anthropometry of Healthy Turkish Young Adults: Analysis of Head and Face.
Journal
The Journal of craniofacial surgery
ISSN: 1536-3732
Titre abrégé: J Craniofac Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9010410
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Jun 2021
01 Jun 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
22
10
2020
medline:
24
6
2021
entrez:
21
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to evaluate the craniofacial anthropometric measurements of Turkish young adults between the ages of 18 and 25. Anterior view and side profile photographs were taken of 100 females and 100 males who volunteered to participate in the study and had no craniofacial anomalies, history of facial trauma, or history of orofacial surgery. Thirteen landmarks on the face and head were chosen, and these landmarks were identified on the photographs. Then, using these landmarks, a total of 19 distance measurements were made, 16 from the anterior view, and 3 from the side profile. There were statistically significant differences between the sexes in 13 parameters: 2 parameters (t-n and ft-ft) being higher in females and 11 parameters (v-n, v-t, t-gn, sn-gn, n-gn, st-gn, sl-gn, fz-fz, z-z, tr-tr and go-go) being higher in males. Also, 7 facial anthropometric ratios were calculated. There were statistically significant differences between the genders in all ratios. The literature reveals that craniofacial anthropometric measurements have been performed on many different populations and that there are numerous differences between the results of the studies conducted. We are of the opinion that the results obtained in this present study will contribute to the literature by helping to determine the standard values for the Turkish population between the ages of 18 and 25, which can be used in diagnosis, treatment and postoperative evaluation in areas such as forensic science, orthodontics, clinical genetics, maxillofacial surgery, and plastic surgery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33086301
pii: 00001665-202106000-00063
doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000007219
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1535-1539Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 by Mutaz B. Habal, MD.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Mane DR, Kale AD, Bhai MB, et al. Anthropometric and anthroposcopic analysis of different shapes of faces in group of Indian population: a pilot study. J Forensic Leg Med 2010; 17:421–425.
Ozdemir ST, Sigirli D, Ercan I, et al. Photographic facial soft tissue analysis of healthy Turkish young adults: anthropometric measurements. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2009; 33:175–184.
Bergman RT. Cephalometric soft tissue facial analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999; 116:373–389.
Milutinovic J, Zelic K, Nedeljkovic N. Evaluation of facial beauty using anthropometric proportions. ScientificWorldJournal 2014; 2014:428250.
Bahşi I. Atamaz Pinar Y. Kraniyofasiyal antropolojik noktalar. Ankara Nobel Tip Kitabevleri, Baş ve Boyun Anatomis. Ankara: 2019.
Fazlioğlullari Z, Dedeoğlu H, Bakan T, et al. Tip Fakültesi öğrencilerinin kraniofasiyal ölçümlerinin antropometrik değerlendirilmesi. Genel Tip Derg 2016; 26:16–19.
Leong S, White P. A comparison of aesthetic proportions between the Oriental and Caucasian nose. Clin Otolaryngol 2004; 29:672–676.
Arslan SG, Genc C, Odabas B, et al. Comparison of facial proportions and anthropometric norms among Turkish young adults with different face types. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2008; 32:234–242.
Mantzikos T. Esthetic soft tissue profile preferences among the Japanese population. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998; 114:1–7.
Vegter F, Hage JJ. Clinical anthropometry and canons of the face in historical perspective. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 106:1090–1096.
Naini FB, Moss JP, Gill DS. The enigma of facial beauty: esthetics, proportions, deformity, and controversy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130:277–282.
Moorrees CF, Kean MR. Natural head position, a basic consideration in the interpretation of cephalometric radiographs. Am J Phys Anthrop 1958; 16:213–234.
Sirinturk S, Bagheri H, Govsa F, et al. Study of frontal hairline patterns for natural design and restoration. Surg Radiol Anat 2017; 39:679–684.
Bagheri H, Sirinturk S, Govsa F, et al. Computer-assisted analysis contour lines of aesthetic unit for the assessment of lip augmentation. Eur J Plast Surg 2016; 39:265–272.
Aung SC, Foo CL, Lee ST. Three dimensional laser scan assessment of the Oriental nose with a new classification of Oriental nasal types. Br J Plast Surg 2000; 53:109–116.
Amini F, Mashayekhi Z, Rahimi H, et al. Craniofacial morphologic parameters in a Persian population: an anthropometric study. J Craniofac Surg 2014; 25:1874–1881.
Kountakis SE. Encyclopedia of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery. Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2013.
Meneghini F, Biondi P. Clinical Facial Analysis: Elements, Principles, and Techniques. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media; 2012.
Isikay S, Bahsi I, Orhan M, et al. Craniofacial morphometric measurements of children with celiac disease. Iran J Pediatr 2020; 30:e92710.
Bansal N, Singla J, Gera G, et al. Reliability of natural head position in orthodontic diagnosis: a cephalometric study. Contemp Clin Dent 2012; 3:180–183.
Park JY, Hwang SW, Hwang K. Anthropometric comparison of painting portraits of beautiful women, femme fatales, and artists’ mothers. J Craniofac Surg 2013; 24:2110–2114.
Szymańska J. The relationship between facial skeleton morphology and bite force in people with a normal relation of the bases of jaws and skull. Folia Morphol 2015; 74:508–512.
Bozkir MG, Karakas P, Oguz O. Vertical and horizontal neoclassical facial canons in Turkish young adults. Surg Radiol Anat 2004; 26:212–219.
Bagić I, Verzak Ž. Craniofacial anthropometric analysis in Down's syndrome patients. Coll Antropol 2003; 27:23–30.
Selimoglu MA, Kelles M, Erdem T, et al. Craniofacial features of children with celiac disease. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 25:1206–1211.
Allanson JE, Greenberg F, Smith AC. The face of Smith-Magenis syndrome: a subjective and objective study. J Med Genet 1999; 36:394–397.
Roelofse MM, Steyn M, Becker PJ. Photo identification: facial metrical and morphological features in South African males. Forensic Sci Int 2008; 177:168–175.
Karaca Saygili O, Cinar S, Gulcen B, et al. The validity of eight neoclassical facial canons in the Turkish adults. Folia Morphol (Warsz) 2016; 75:512–517.
Heidari Z, Mahmoudzadeh-Sagheb H, Khammar T, et al. Anthropometric measurements of the external nose in 18-25-year-old Sistani and Baluch aborigine women in the southeast of Iran. Folia Morphol 2009; 68:88–92.
Aksu M, Kaya D, Kocadereli I. Reliability of reference distances used in photogrammetry. Angle Orthod 2010; 80:482–489.
Jagadish Chandra H, Ravi MS, Sharma SM, et al. Standards of facial esthetics: an anthropometric study. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2012; 11:384–389.
Zhang X, Wang S, Zhang W, et al. Measurement and study of the nose and face and their correlations in the young adult of Han nationality. Plast Reconstr Surg 1990; 85:532–536.
Nagle E, Teibe U, Kaþoka D. Craniofacial anthropometry in a group of healthy Latvian residents. Acta Medica Lituanica 2005; 12:47–53.
Han K, Kwon HJ, Choi TH, et al. Comparison of anthropometry with photogrammetry based on a standardized clinical photographic technique using a cephalostat and chair. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2010; 38:96–107.
Oguz O. The proportion of the face in younger adults using the thumb rule of Leonardo da Vinci. Surg Radiol Anat 1996; 18:111–114.
Choe KS, Yalamanchili HR, Litner JA, et al. The Korean American woman's nose: an in-depth nasal photogrammatic analysis. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2006; 8:319–323.
Husein OF, Sepehr A, Garg R, et al. Anthropometric and aesthetic analysis of the Indian American woman's face. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2010; 63:1825–1831.
Fernandez-Riveiro P, Suarez-Quintanilla D, Smyth-Chamosa E, et al. Linear photogrammetric analysis of the soft tissue facial profile. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002; 122:59–66.
Gode S, Tiris FS, Akyildiz S, et al. Photogrammetric analysis of soft tissue facial profile in Turkish rhinoplasty population. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2011; 35:1016–1021.
Miloševic SA, Varga ML, Šlaj M. Analysis of the soft tissue facial profile of Croatians using of linear measurements. J Craniofac Surg 2008; 19:251–258.
Salah M, Higzi MA, Ali RW, et al. The Sudanese female face: normative craniofacial measurements and comparison with African-American and North American White females. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2014; 42:1704–1709.
de Menezes M, Rosati R, Ferrario VF, et al. Accuracy and reproducibility of a 3-dimensional stereophotogrammetric imaging system. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010; 68:2129–2135.
Baik HS, Jeon JM, Lee HJ. Facial soft-tissue analysis of Korean adults with normal occlusion using a 3-dimensional laser scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 131:759–766.
Ozsoy U, Demirel BM, Yildirim FB, et al. Method selection in craniofacial measurements: advantages and disadvantages of 3D digitization method. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2009; 37:285–290.
Weinberg SM, Scott NM, Neiswanger K, et al. Digital three-dimensional photogrammetry: evaluation of anthropometric precision and accuracy using a Genex 3D camera system. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2004; 41:507–518.
Farkas LG, Katic MJ, Forrest CR. Comparison of craniofacial measurements of young adult African-American and North American white males and females. Ann Plast Surg 2007; 59:692–698.
Porter JP. The average African American male face: an anthropometric analysis. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2004; 6:78–81.
Porter JP, Olson KL. Anthropometric facial analysis of the African American woman. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2001; 3:191–197.
Al-Jassim NH, Fathallah ZF, Abdullah NM. Anthropometric measurements of human face in Basrah. Basr J Surg 2014; 20:29–40.
Le TT, Farkas LG, Ngim RC, et al. Proportionality in Asian and North American Caucasian faces using neoclassical facial canons as criteria. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2002; 26:64–69.
Ngeow WC, Aljunid ST. Craniofacial anthropometric norms of Malays. Singapore Med J 2009; 50:525–528.
Ngeow WC, Aljunid ST. Craniofacial anthropometric norms of Malaysian Indians. Indian J Dent Res 2009; 20:313–319.
Farkas LG, Kolar JC, Munro IR. Geography of the nose: a morphometric study. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1986; 10:191–223.
Karaca Ö, Gülcen B, Kuş MA, et al. Morphometric facial analysis of Turkish adults. Balikesir Sağlik Bilimleri Dergisi 2012; 1:7–11.
Borman H, Ozgur F, Gursu G. Evaluation of soft-tissue morphology of the face in 1,050 young adults. Ann Plast Surg 1999; 42:280–288.
Farkas LG, Katic MJ, Forrest CR. International anthropometric study of facial morphology in various ethnic groups/races. J Craniofac Surg 2005; 16:615–646.
Karacan K, Sabanciogullari V, Kosar MI, et al. The effect of the functional asymmetry of the brain on face morphometry in the university students of mathematics and painting department. Folia Morphol (Warsz) 2019; 78:508–516.
Sadacharan CM. Evaluation of various facial anthropometric proportions in Indian American women. Rev Arg de Anat Clin 2016; 8:10–17.
Sadacharan CM. Vertical and horizontal facial proportions of Indian American men. Anat Cell Biol 2016; 49:125–131.