Unlocking nasal angle anthropometry and nasolabial angle preferences: a key to achieve the perfect rhinoplasty

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 17 Sayı: 2, 70 - 81, 31.08.2023

Niymet Pelin Cavdar Yilmaz Ceren Bay Irem Nur Yılmaz Orhun Kelsaka Fatma Nur Ok Aslı Ateş Ebubekir Demirtas İbrahim Tekdemır

Öz

Objectives: Determining the ideal nasolabial angle is very important for setting aesthetic goals in rhinoplasty. By knowing the demographic data of the three main nasal angles, which are the key to facial balance, indications, planning and peroperative evaluations of surgery can be better applied. The aim of this study was not only to measure nasal angles but also to find out the nasolabial angle preferences of the Anatolian population.
Methods: 142 participants had their nasal angles (nasolabial, nasofrontal, nasofacial angles) measured both digitally and manually and a questionnaire was administered. Each participant was asked about their ideal nasolabial angle preferences and their propensity for rhinoplasty. The results were then compared between each other, age and gender.
Results: According to digital measurements, the mean nasolabial angle was 99.51±9.51° in men and 100.49±9.37° in women. The mean nasofacial angle was 32.35±3.44° mm in men and 32.54±3.17° in women. The mean nasofrontal angle was 138.49± 9.29° in men and 141.64±8.10° in women. Manual measurements were similar. The mean ideal nasolabial angle in women (91.32±6.11°) was lower than the mean ideal nasolabial angle in men (94.78±4.47°). It was observed that the aesthetic perception of the participants was similar whether they had rhinoplasty or not. Participants aged less than 24 years were more likely to prefer higher nasolabial angles.
Conclusion: The nasal angles and preferred nasolabial angle results presented in this study may be useful in planning and evaluating rhinoplasty operations.

Anahtar Kelimeler

ideal nasolabial angle, nasofacial angle, nasofrontal angle, nasolabial angle, photogrammetry, rhinoplasty

Kaynakça

• Ozdemir F, Uzun A. Anthropometric analysis of the nose in young Turkish men and women. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015;43:1244–7.
• Uzun A, Ozdemir F. Morphometric analysis of nasal shapes and angles in young adults. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2014;80:397–402.
• Patel PN, Most SP. Concepts of facial aesthetics when considering ethnic rhinoplasty. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2020;53:195–208.
• Bahşi I, Orhan M, Kervancioğlu P, Karatepe Ş, Sayin S. External nose anthropometry of healthy Turkish young adults. J Craniofac Surg 2021;32:2226–9.
• Piombino P, Zace P, Grassia MG, Cataldo R, Marino M, De Riu G, Testa D, Bonavolontà P, Califano L. Anthropometric parameters for nose evaluation and nasal surgery planning. J Craniofac Surg 2020; 31:1620–4.
• Toriumi DM. Commentary on: facial surface anthropometric features and measurements with an emphasis on rhinoplasty. Aesthet Surg J 2022;42:149–50.
• Mulafikh D, Assiri H, Alfallaj R, Alqabbani AA, Bafaqeeh S. Facial angles in Arabian women seeking rhinoplasty. J Craniofac Surg 2023; 34:1001–3.
• Maral F. Üç boyutlu görüntüleme cihazı ile genç yetişkin Türk toplumunda nasolabial alanın kapsamlı morfometrik analizi. İstanbul Medipol Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü 2020.
• Topsakal KG, Nisa G. Doğal baş pozisyonu ve belirleme yöntemleri: literatür derlemesi. Selcuk Dental Journal 2018;5:103–10.
• Farkas LG, Kolar JC, Munro IR. Geography of the nose: a morphometric study. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1986;10:191–223.
• Alharethy S. Preferred nasolabial angle in Middle Eastern population. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2017;274:2339–41.
• Alshawaf SM, McGuire C, ElAbd R, Fakih-Gomez N, Williams J, AlYouha S, Samargandi OA. Preferred nasolabial angle in rhinoplasty: a cross-sectional analysis. Aesthet Surg J 2023;20:sjad309. Online ahead of print.
• Armijo BS, Brown M, Guyuron B. Defining the ideal nasolabial angle. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012;129:759–64.
• Brown M, Guyuron B. Redefining the ideal nasolabial angle: Part 2. Expert analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013;132:221–5.
• Sinno HH, Markarian MK, Ibrahim AM, Lin SJ. The ideal nasolabial angle in rhinoplasty: a preference analysis of the general population. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014;134:201–10.
• Leong SC, White PS. A comparison of aesthetic proportions between the healthy Caucasian nose and the aesthetic ideal. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2006;59:248–52.
• Patel AA, Gordon AR, Townsend AN, Shah J, Garfein ES, Tepper OM. Current trends in ıdeal nasal aesthetics show younger patients have a preference toward longer augmented noses. Aesthet Surg J Open Forum 2023;ojad069.
• Patel SM, Daniel RK. Indian American rhinoplasty: an emerging ethnic group. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012;29:519–27.
• Tavakoli K, Sazgar AK, Hasanzade A, Sazgar AA. Ideal nasal preferences: a quantitative investigation with 3d imaging in the Iranian population. Arch Plast Surg 2023;50:340–47.
• Al-Qattan MM, Alsaeed AA, Al-Madani OK, Al-Amri NA, Al-Dahian NA. Anthropometry of the Saudi Arabian nose. J Craniofac Surg 2012;23:821–4.
• Amini F, Mashayekhi Z, Rahimi H, Morad G. Craniofacial morphologic parameters in a Persian population: an antropometric study. J Craniofac Surg 2014;25:1874–81.
• Anibor E, Okumagba MT. Photometric facial analysis of the Urhobo ethnic group in Nigeria. Arch Appl Sci Res 2010;2:28–32.
• Aung SC, Liam FC, Teik LS. Three dimensional laser scan assessment of the oriental nose with a new classification of oriental nasal types. Br J Plast Surg 2000;53:109–16.
• 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;131:759–66.
• Ballin AC, Carvalho B, Dolci JEL, Becker R, Berger C, Mocellin M. Anthropometric study of the caucasian nose in the city of Curitiba: relevance of population evaluation. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2018;84:486–93.
• Borman H, Özgür F, Gürsu G. Evaluation of soft-tissue morphology of the face in 1,050 young adults. Ann Plast Surg 1999;42:280–8.
• Choe KS, Yalamanchili HR, Litner JA, Sclafani AP, Quatela VC. The Korean American woman’s nose. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2006;8:319–23.
• Elsamny TA, Rabie AN, Abdelhamid AN, Sobhi EA. Anthropometric analysis of the external nose of the Egyptian males. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2018;42:1343–56.
• Fariaby J, Hossini A, Saffari E. Photographic analysis of faces of 20-year-old students in Iran. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006;44:393–6.
• Gode S, Tiris FS, Akyildiz S, Apaydin F. Photogrammetric analysis of soft tissue facial profile in Turkish rhinoplasty population. Aesthet Plast Surg 2011;35:1016–21.
• He SJ, Jian XC, Wu XS, Gao X, Zhou SH, Zhong XH. Anthropometric measurement and analysis of the external nasal soft tissue in 119 young Han Chinese adults. J Craniofac Surg 2009;20:1347–51.
• Husein OF, Sepehr A, Garg R, Sina-Khadiv M, Gattu S, Waltzman J, Wu EC, Shieh M, Heitmann GM, Galle SE. Anthropometric and aesthetic analysis of the Indian American woman’s face. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2010;63:1825–31.
• Leong S, White P. A comparison of aesthetic proportions between the Oriental and Caucasian nose. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2004; 29:672–6.
• Li KZ, Guo S, Sun Q, Jin SF, Zhang X, Xiao M, Wang CC, Sun X, Lv MZ. Anthropometric nasal analysis of Han Chinese young adults. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2014;42:153–8.
• Mohammed Ali MH. External nasal parameters in Egyptians: an in-depth nasal photogrammatic analysis. Surg Radiol Anat 2014;36:633–41.
• Ofodile FA, Bokhari F. The African-American nose: part II. Ann Plast Surg 1995;34:123–9.
• Oghenemavwe E, Osunwoke A, Ordu S, Omovigho O. Photometric analysis of soft tissue facial profile of adult Urhobos. Asian Journal of Medical Sciences 2010;2:248–52.
• Springer IN, Zernial O, Nölke F, Warnke PH, Wiltfang J, Russo PA, Terheyden H, Wolfart S. Gender and nasal shape: measures for rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008;121:629–37.
• Tabrizi R, Rezaie P, Sadeghi HM, Malekigorji M, Dehghanpour M. Patients satisfaction and nasal morphologic change after orthognathic surgery. World J Plast Surg 2022;11:135–43.
• Uzun A, Akbas H, Bilgic S, Emirzeoglu M, Bostancı 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.
• Wang JH, Jang YJ, Park SK, Lee BJ. Measurement of aesthetic proportions in the profile view of Koreans. Ann Plast Surg 2009;62:109–13.
• Youn SH, Seo KK. Filler rhinoplasty evaluated by anthropometric analysis. Dermatol Surg 2016;42:1071–81.
• Suh MK, Atlas of Asian rhinoplasty. Singapoure: Springer Nature; 2018. p. 889.