External Nose Anthropometry of Healthy Turkish Young Adults.
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 Sep 2021
01 Sep 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
27
3
2021
medline:
16
9
2021
entrez:
26
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Although many studies in the literature examine distances and angles about the nose, there are no clear standard values for different races and ethnic groups. The aim of this study is to determine the anthropometric measurement standards related to the external nose in Turkish young adults between the ages of 18 and 25. The subjects participating in this study were 100 female and 100 male volunteers. Six landmarks (nasion, subnasale, pronasale, alar, subalar and maxillofrontale) on the nose were chosen, and these landmarks were identified on the photographs. Then, using these landmarks, a total of seven distances (nose height, dorsum of nose length, distance between the subnasale and pronasale, nose width, right nostril floor width, left nostril floor width and root of nose width) and four angles (nasofrontal, nasofacial, nasomental and nasolabial angles) measurements were made. There were statistically significant differences between gender in nine parameters. One parameter (nasofrontal angle) is higher in females, and seven parameters (nose height, dorsum of nose length, nose width, right nostril floor width, left nostril floor width, root of nose width and nasofacial angle) are higher in males. It is accepted that distances and angles about the nose differ according to race and ethnicity. The authors believe that the results obtained in this study will help determine the standard values that can be used for the Turkish population between the ages of 18 and 25.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33770024
doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000007488
pii: 00001665-900000000-92693
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
2226-2229Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 by Mutaz B. Habal, MD.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Références
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.
Dogru S, Deniz M, Uslu AI. Anthropometric analysis of nasolabial region and age-related changes in adult women. J Craniofac Surg 2020; 31:1161–1165.
Esenlik E, Kaya B, Gulsen A, et al. Evaluation of the nose profile after maxillary advancement with impaction surgeries. J Craniofac Surg 2011; 22:2072–2079.
Mohammed Ali MH. External nasal parameters in Egyptians: an in-depth nasal photogrammatic analysis. Surg Radiol Anat 2014; 36:633–641.
Farkas LG, Kolar JC, Munro IR. Geography of the nose: a morphometric study. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1986; 10:191–223.
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.
Oladipo G, Olabiyi A, Oremosu A, et al. Nasal indices among major ethnic groups in southern Nigeria. Sci Res Essays 2007; 2:20–22.
Suh MK. Atlas of Asian Rhinoplasty. Singapore: Springer; 2018.
Peleman JR, Chung MT, Johnson J, et al. Surgical adjuncts to rhinoplasty: an algorithmic approach. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2020; 44:1694–1704.
Bull TR. Rhinoplasty: aesthetics, ethics and airway. J Laryngol Otol 1983; 97:901–916.
Pearson DC, Adamson PA. The ideal nasal profile: rhinoplasty patients vs the general public. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2004; 6:257–262.
Bahşi I, Orhan M, Kervancioğlu P, et al. Craniofacial anthropometry of healthy turkish young adults: analysis of head and face. J Craniofac Surg 2020.
Nolst Trenite GJ. Considerations in ethnic rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg 2003; 19:239–245.
Yellin SA. Aesthetics for the next millennium. Facial Plast Surg 1997; 13:231–239.
Nagle E, Teibe U, Kaþoka D. Craniofacial anthropometry in a group of healthy Latvian residents. Acta Medica Lituanica 2005; 12:47–53.
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.
Jovanovic J, Jeremic D, Jovanovic B, et al. Nasal morphological characteristics of the Serbian population. Arch Biol Sci 2014; 66:227–232.
Oghenemavwe E, Osunwoke A, Ordu S, et al. Photometric analysis of soft tissue facial profile of adult Urhobos. Asian J Med Sci 2010; 2:248–252.
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.
Fazlioğlullari Z, Dedeoğlu H, Bakan T, et al. Tip Fakültesi öğrencilerinin kraniofasiyal ölçümlerinin antropometrik değerlendirilmesi. Genel Tip Derg 2016; 26:16–19.
Hegazy AA. Anthropometric study of nasal index of Egyptians. Int J Anat Res 2014; 2:761–767.
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.
Ngeow WC, Aljunid ST. Craniofacial anthropometric norms of Malays. Singapore Med J 2009; 50:525–528.
Bozkir MG, Karakas P, Oguz O. Vertical and horizontal neoclassical facial canons in Turkish young adults. Surg Radiol Anat 2004; 26:212–219.
Elsamny TA, Rabie AN, Abdelhamid AN, et al. Anthropometric analysis of the external nose of the Egyptian Males. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2018; 42:1343–1356.
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.
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.
Fariaby J, Hossini A, Saffari E. Photographic analysis of faces of 20-year-old students in Iran. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006; 44:393–396.
Leong S, White P. A comparison of aesthetic proportions between the Oriental and Caucasian nose. Clin Otolaryngol 2004; 29:672–676.
Al-Qattan MM, Alsaeed AA, Al-Madani OK, et al. Anthropometry of the Saudi Arabian nose. J Craniofac Surg 2012; 23:821–824.
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.
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.
Leong SC, White PS. A comparison of aesthetic proportions between the healthy Caucasian nose and the aesthetic ideal. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2006; 59:248–252.
Springer IN, Zernial O, Nolke F, et al. Gender and nasal shape: measures for rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 121:629–637.
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.
Özsoy U, Süzen LB. Nose asymmetry correlates with external nose volume and area: 3D analysis of nasal dimensions in a young Turkish population. Anatomy 2018; 12:7–12.
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.
Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Poggio CE, et al. Three-dimensional study of growth and development of the nose. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1997; 34:309–317.
He ZJ, Jian XC, Wu XS, et al. Anthropometric measurement and analysis of the external nasal soft tissue in 119 young Han Chinese adults. J Craniofac Surg 2009; 20:1347–1351.
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.
Isikay S, Bahsi I, Orhan M, et al. Craniofacial morphometric measurements of children with celiac disease. Iran J Pediatr 2020; 30:e92710.
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.
Tanrisever S, Orhan M, Bahşi I, et al. Anatomical evaluation of the craniovertebral junction on cone-beam computed tomography images. Surg Radiol Anat 2020; 42:797–815.
Ofodile FA, Bokhari F. The African-American nose: Part II. Ann Plast Surg 1995; 34:123–129.
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.
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.
Ozdemir F, Uzun A. Anthropometric analysis of the nose in young Turkish men and women. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015; 43:1244–1247.
Ngeow WC, Aljunid ST. Craniofacial anthropometric norms of Malaysian Indians. Indian J Dent Res 2009; 20:313–319.
Sforza C, Grandi G, De Menezes M, et al. Age- and sex-related changes in the normal human external nose. Forensic Sci Int 2011; 204:205 201–209.
Ukoha U, Egwu O, Ndukwe G, et al. Anthropometric study of the nose in a student population. Ann Bioanthropol 2016; 4:8–11.
Etoz BC, Etoz A, Ercan I. Nasal shapes and related differences in nostril forms: a morphometric analysis in young adults. J Craniofac Surg 2008; 19:1402–1408.