Face anthropometry of Turkish population

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 3, 279 - 287, 03.12.2020

Işık Tuncer

https://doi.org/10.30569/adiyamansaglik.746633

Cited By: 2

Öz

Aim: Analysis of facial anthropometry of modern Turkish population is important for cosmetic or reconstructive facial surgeries. In this study, it is aimed to make multiple measurements of the face in the Turkish population.
Materials and Methods: In this study, the measurements were performed on 93 Turkish adult individuals (54 males, 39 females). 13 direct facial anthropometric measurements were performed. A total set of anthropometric data was collected for each gender.
Results: Statistically significant differences were found between Turkish male and Turkish female individuals. All values except forehead height were found to be higher in males than females. Ear length was found to be higher than nose length in both males and females. Mouth width value was found to be greater than left eye fissure length and nose width values in both genders.
Conclusion: In the study, statistically significant differences were found in head and face regions between both genders when facial norms were applied for Turkish adults.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Face, Morphometry, Adult, Gender

Türk popülasyonunda yüz antropometrisi

Öz

Amaç: Modern Türk nüfusun yüz antropometrisinin analizi kozmetik veya rekonstrüktif yüz cerrahileri için önemlidir. Bu çalışmada, Türk populasyonunda, yüzün çoklu ölçümlerinin yapılması amaçlanmıştır.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu çalışmadaki ölçümler 93 yetişkin (54 erkek, 39 kadın) Türk üzerinde yapılmıştır. Her cinsiyet için tam bir set antropometrik data toplanmıştır.
Bulgular: Erkek ve kadın Türk bireyler arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olan farklılıklara rastlandı. Alın yüksekliği hariç tüm değerler erkeklerde kadınlardan daha yüksek olarak bulundu. Hem kadınlarda hem de erkeklerde kulak uzunluğu burun uzunluğundan daha yüksek bulundu. Hem erkeklerde hem de kadınlarda ağız genişliği sol göz fisür uzunluğu ve burun genişliğinden daha fazla bulundu.
Sonuç: Bu çalışma, Türk yetişkinlerin yüz normları da uygulandığında cinsiyetler arasında, kafa ve yüz bölgelerinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılıklar bulunduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yüz, Morfometri, Yetişkin, Cinsiyet

Kaynakça

• Zacharopoulos GV, Manıos A, Kau CH, Velagrakis G, Tzanakakis GN, Bree E. Anthropometric analysis of the face. JCraniofac Surg.2016;27(1):71-75.
• 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.
• Choe KS, Sclafani AP, Litner JA, et al.The Korean American woman s face:anthropometric measurements and quantitative analysis of facial aesthetics.Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2004;6:244-252.
• 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.
• Farkas LG, Katic MJ, Forrest CR, et al. International anthropometric study of facial morphology in various ethnic groups (races). Craniofac Surg. 2005;16:615-646.
• Vegter F, Hage JJ. Clinical anthropometry and canons of the face in historical perspective. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;106:1090-1096.
• Zacharopoulos GV, Manios A, Bree E, et al. Neoclassical facial canons in young adults. J Craniofac Surg. 2012;23:1693-1698.
• Song WC, Kim KI, Kim SH.et al. Female-to-male proporsions of the head and face in Koreans.J Craniofac Surg. 2009;20:356-361.
• Fang F, Clapham PJ, Chung KC. A systematic review of interethnic variability in facial dimensions. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:874-881.
• Farkas L. Anthropometry of the Head and Face.2nd ed. New York, NY:Raven Press;1994.
• Farkas LG. Anthropometry of the head and face. In medicine.Amsterdam:Elsevier;1981.
• Turner WN. Three-dimensional comparison of facial morphology of a Caucasian American population and a Native Brazilian population.Birmingham,AL:University of Alabama at Birmingham;2012.
• Direk FK, Deniz M, Uslu AI, Doğru S. Anthropometric analysis of orbital region and age-related changes in adult women. J Craniofac Surg. 2016;27 (6):1579-1582.
• Patil SB, Kale SM, Math M, et al. Anthropometry of the eyelid and palpebral fissure in an Indian population. Aesthet Surg J. 2011;31:290294.
• Bozkır MG, Karakaş P, Oğuz Ö. Vertical and horizontal neoclassical facial canons in Turkish young adults. Surg Radiol Anat. 2003; 1-14.
• Erden N. Anthropometric measrements and indexes of head of face in Turkish adult men and women (in Türkish) Uzmanlık tezi Edirne 2005.
• Öztürk F, Yavaş G, Inan UU. Normal periocular anthropometric measurements in the Turkish population.Opthalmic Epidemiol. 2006;13:145-149.
• Inan A. Anthropological characters and history of Turkish people (in Turkish). Ankara,Turkey:Turkish Historical Society Printing House;1947;4-155.
• Young WJ. Head and Face Anthropometry of adulth U.S. Civilians.Washington:Office of Aviation Medicine;1993:1-12.
• Popov M. Anthropology of the Bulgarian people. fizicçeski appearance Napoleans [in Turkish]. Sofya:BAN 1959.
• Evereklioğlu C, Doğanay S, Er H, Gündüz A, Tercan M, Balat A, et al.Craniofacial anthropometry in a Turkish population.Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2002:39:208-218.
• Pointer JS. The far interpupillary distance.A gender-specific variation with advancing age.Opthalmic Physiol Opt. 1999;19:317-326.
• Bosch WA, Leenders I, Mulder P. Topographic anatomy of the eyelids, and the effects of sex and age. Br J Opthalmol. 1999;83:347-352.
• Wei WT. Eyelid anthropometry of different races in Singapore. Thesis. Sim University School of Science and Technolgy 2009.
• Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Colombo A, Schmitz J, Serrao G. Morphometry of the orbital region:A soft-tissue study from adolescence to mid-adulthood.Plast Reconstruct Surg. 2001 Aug;108 (2):285-292.
• Farkas LG and Posnick JC. Growth and development of regional units in the head and face based on anthropometric measurements.Cleft Palate Craniofac. J 1992;29:301.
• Barretto RL and Mathog RH. Orbital measurement in black and white populations.Laryngoscope. 1999;109:1051.
• Farkas LG, Hreczko TA and Katic MJ. Craniofacial norms in North American Caucasians from birth (one year) to young adulthood.In L.G.Farkas (Ed),Anthropometry of the Head and Face,2ndEd,New York:Raven Press,1994.pp.241-335.
• Pryor HB. Objective measurement of interpupillary distance.Pediatrics. 1969;44:973.
• Stromland K, Chen Y, Norberg T, Wennerstrom K, Michael G. Reference values of facial features in Scandinavian children measured with a range camera technique. Scand J Plast Reconstruc Surg Hand Surg. 1999;33:59.
• Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Poggio CE, and Serrao G. Facial three- dimensional morphometry. Am Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996;109:86.
• Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Poggio CE andSchmitz JH. Craniofacial growth A three-dimensional soft tissue study from 6 years to adulthood.J Craniofac Genet Dev Biol. 1998;18:138.
• Alharethy S, Quniabut I, Jang YJ. Anthropometry of Arabian nose using computed tomography scanning.Ann Saudi Med. 2017;37(2):144-147.
• Al-Qattan MM,Alsaeed AA,Al-Madani OK,Al-Amri NA,Al-Dahian NA.Anthropometry of the Saudi Arabian nose.J Craniofac Surg. 2012 May;23(3):821-4.
• Moon KM, Cho G, Sung HM, Jung MS, Tak KS, Jung SW et al. Nasal anthropometry on facial computed tomography scans for rhinoplasty in Koreans.Arch Plast Surg. 2013;40:610-615.
• Porter JB, Olson KL. Anthropometric facial analysis of the African American woman. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2001 Jul Sep;3:191-195.
• Farkas LG, Bryson W, Tech B, Klotz J. Is photogrammetry of the face reliable?Plast Reconstr Surg. 1980;66:346-355.
• Jeffries JM, Bernardo B, Rauscher GE. Computer analysis of theAfrican American face.Ann Plast Surg. 1995;34:318-321.
• Leong SC, Eccles R. Race and ethnicity in nasal plastic surgery:a need for science.Facial Plast Surg. 2010;26:63-68.
• Springer IN, Zernial O, Warnke PH, Wiltfang J, Russo PA, Wolfart S. Nasal shape and gender of the observer:implications for rhinoplasty.J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2009;37:3-7.
• Rohrich RJ, Bolden K. Ethnic rhinoplasty. Clin Plast Surg. 2010;37:353-370.
• Raschke GF, Rieger UM, Bader RD, Kirschbaum M, Eckardt N, Schultze S. Evaluation of nasal reconstruction procedures results. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2012;40:743-749.
• Milutinovic J, Zelic K, Nedeljkovic.Evaluation of facial beauty using anthropometric proportions. The Scientific World Journal 2014;1-8.
• Bashour M. “History and current concepts in the analysis of facial attractiveness”. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2006; 118 (3):741-756.
• Bianchini AP, Guedes ZC, Vieira MM. A study on the relationship between mouth breathing and facial morphological pattern. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2007;73 (4) :500-5.
• Özşahin E, Kızılkanat E, Boyan N, Soames R, Oğuz Ö. Evaluation of face shape in Turkish individuals. Int J Morphol 2016; 34 (3): 904-908.