Nose asymmetry correlates with external nose volume and area: 3D analysis of nasal dimensions in a young Turkish population

Abstract

Objectives: The nose is a critical facial feature from the cosmetic and functional point of view. The effect of size and symmetry

of the nose on beauty and function is a matter of concern for surgeons. In the present study, we performed 3D analysis

of nose dimensions and investigated the correlation among them.

Methods: Facial mask of 40 (20 males and 20 females) young Turkish adults aged between19 and 26 years were recorded with

a 3D scanner. Nose asymmetry, external nose volume, nose area, anatomical nasal index, nasal protrusion index, body height,

body weight and body mass index were measured. The correlations among these measurements were investigated.

Results: The external nose surface area was measured as 18.2±2.1 cm2 and external nose volume as 8.1±1.3 cm3. A significant

correlation was found between nose asymmetry value and external nose surface area (r=0.33, p=0.03), and also between nose

asymmetry value and external nose volume (p=0.34, r=0.03).

Conclusion: Our study presents 3D quantitative data regarding nasal dimensions and correlation between the nose size and

symmetry.

Keywords

• 3D analysis; external nose area; external nose volume; nose asymmetry

References

1. 1. Grammer K, Thornhill R. Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry and averageness. J Comp Psychol 1994;108:233–42.
2. 2. Perrett DI, Burt DM, Penton-Voak IS, Lee KJ, Rowland DA, Edwards R. Symmetry and human facial attractiveness. Evol Hum Behav 1999;20:295–307.
3. 3. Rhodes G. The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annu Rev Psychol 2006;57:199–226.
4. 4. Alsarraf R. Outcomes research in facial plastic surgery: a review and new directions. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2000;24:192–7.
5. 5. Ozsoy U, Demirel BM, Yildirim FB, Tosun O, Sarikcioglu L. Method selection in craniofacial measurements: advantages and disadvantages of 3D digitization method. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2009;37:285–90.
6. 6. Tzou CHJ, Frey M. Evolution of 3D surface imaging systems in facial plastic surgery. Facial Plast Surg Cl. 2011;19:591–602.
7. 7. Farkas LG. Anthropometry of the head and face. New York: Raven Press; 1994. p. 20–5; 103–11.
8. 8. Farkas LG. Accuracy of anthropometric measurements: past, present, and future. Cleft Palate-Cran J 1996;33:10–8.

9. 9. Sukno FM, Waddington JL, Whelan PF. Comparing 3D descriptors for local search of craniofacial landmarks. Adv Vis Comput 2012; 7432:92–103.
10. 10. Toma AM, Zhurov A, Playle R, Ong E, Richmond S. Reproducibility of facial soft tissue landmarks on 3D laser-scanned facial images. Orthod Craniofac Res 2009;12:33–42.
11. 11. Kornreich D, Mitchell AA, Webb BD, Cristian I, Jabs EW. Quantitative assessment of facial asymmetry using three-dimensional surface imaging in adults: validating the precision and repeatability of a global approach. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2016;53:126–31.
12. 12. Patel A, Islam SM, Murray K, Goonewardene MS. Facial asymmetry assessment in adults using three-dimensional surface imaging. Prog Orthod 2015;16:36.
13. 13. Taylor HO, Morrison CS, Linden O, Phillips B, Chang J, Byrne ME, Sullivan SR, Forrest CR. Quantitative facial asymmetry: using three-dimensional photogrammetry to measure baseline facial surface symmetry. J Craniofac Surg 2014;25:124–8.
14. 14. Ozsoy U. Comparison of different calculation methods used to analyze facial soft tissue asymmetry: global and partial 3-dimensional quantitative evaluation of healthy subjects. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016;74:1847 e1–9.
15. 15. de Menezes M, Rosati R, Ferrario VF, Sforza C. Accuracy and reproducibility of a 3-dimensional stereophotogrammetric imaging system. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;68:2129–35.
16. 16. Weinberg SM, Scott NM, Neiswanger K, Brandon CA, Marazita ML. Digital three-dimensional photogrammetry: evaluation of anthropometric precision and accuracy using a Genex 3D camera system. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2004;41:507–18.
17. 17. Uzun A, Akbas H, Bilgic S, Emirzeoglu M, Bostanci O, Sahin B, Bek Y. The average values of the nasal anthropometric measurements in 108 young Turkish males. Auris Nasus Larynx 2006;33:31–5.
18. 18. Mohammed Ali MH. External nasal parameters in Egyptians: an indepth nasal photogrammatic analysis. Surg Radiol Anat 2014;36:633– 41.
19. 19. Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Poggio CE, Schmitz JH. Three-dimensional study of growth and development of the nose. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1997;34:309–17.
20. 20. Heidari Z, Mahmoudzadeh-Sagheb H, Khammar T, Khammar M. Anthropometric measurements of the external nose in 18–25-yearold Sistani and Baluch aborigine women in the southeast of Iran. Folia Morphol (Warsz) 2009;68:88–92.
21. 21. Sforza C, Grandi G, De Menezes M, Tartaglia GM, Ferrario VF. Age- and sex-related changes in the normal human external nose. Forensic Sci Int 2011;204:1–3.
22. 22. Ozdemir ST, Sigirli D, Ercan I, Cankur NS. Photographic facial soft tissue analysis of healthy Turkish young adults: anthropometric measurements. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2009;33:175–84.
23. 23. Hall RL. Energetics of nose and mouth breathing, body size, body composition, and nose volume in young adult males and females. Am J Hum Biol 2005;17:321–30.
24. 24. Burke PH, Hughes-Lawson CA. Stereophotogrammetric study of growth and development of the nose. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;96:144–51.
25. 25. Thornhill R, Gangestad SW. Human facial beauty - averageness, symmetry, and parasite resistance. Hum Nature-Int Bios 1993;4:237– 69.
26. 26. Langlois JH, Roggman LA, Musselman L. What is average and what is not average about attractive faces. Psychol Sci 1994;5:214–20.
27. 27. Kowner R. Facial asymmetry and attractiveness judgment in developmental perspective. J Exp Psychol Human 1996;22:662–75.
28. 28. Rhodes G, Proffitt F, Grady JM, Sumich A. Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty. Psychon B Rev 1998;5:659–69.
29. 29. Zebrowitz LA, Voinescu L, Collins MA. Wide eyed and crooked faced: determinants of perceived and real honesty across the lifespan. Int J Psychol 1996;31:249.1.
30. 30. Eisenbarth H, Alpers GW. Eyes and mouth: competing for attention in emotional faces. J Psychophysiol 2006;20:130–1.
31. 31. Langlois JH, Roggman LA. Attractive faces are only average. Psychol Sci 1990;1:115–21.
32. 32. Symons D. The evolution of human-sexuality. Behav Brain Sci 1980;3:171–81.
33. 33. Cunningham MR, Barbee AP, Pike CL. What do women want? Facialmetric assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male facial physical attractiveness. J Pers Soc Psychol 1990;59:61–72.