CC BY 4.0 · Arch Plast Surg 2023; 50(04): 340-347
DOI: 10.1055/a-2091-6820
Cosmetic
Original Article

Ideal Nasal Preferences: A Quantitative Investigation with 3D Imaging in the Iranian Population

Kiarash Tavakoli 
1   Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Otorhinolaryngology Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
,
Amir K. Sazgar 
1   Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Otorhinolaryngology Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
,
Arman Hasanzade 
2   School of Medicine, Medical School, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
,
Amir A. Sazgar 
1   Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Otorhinolaryngology Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Though in facial plastic surgery, the ideal nasal characteristics are defined by average European-American facial features known as neoclassical cannons, many ethnicities do not perceive these characteristics as suitable.

Methods To investigate the preferences for nasofrontal angle, nasolabial angle, dorsal height, alar width, and nasal tip projection, manipulated pictures of one male and one female model were shown to 203 volunteer patients from a tertiary university hospital's facial plastic clinic.

Results The most esthetically preferred nasofrontal angles were 137.64 ± 4.20 degrees for males and 133.55 ± 4.53 degrees for females. Acute nasofrontal angles were more desirable in participants aged 25 to 44. The most preferred nasolabial angles were 107.56 ± 5.20 degrees and 98.92 ± 4.88 degrees, respectively. Volunteers aged 19 to 24 preferred more acute male nasolabial angles. A straight dorsum was the most desirable in both genders (0.03 ± 0.78 and 0.26 ± 0.75 mm, respectively). The ideal male and female alar widths were –0.51 ± 2.26 and –1.09 ± 2.18 mm, respectively. More 45- to 64-year-old volunteers preferred alar widths equal to intercanthal distance. The ideal female and male tip projections were 0.57 ± 0.01 and 0.56 ± 0.01, respectively.

Conclusion Results indicate that the general Iranian patients prefer thinner female noses with wider nasofrontal angles for both genders. However, the ideal nasolabial angles, dorsal heights, and tip projections were consistent with the neoclassical cannons. Besides ethnic differences, the trend of nasal beauty is also affected by gender, age, and prior history of esthetic surgery.

Keywords

esthetics - nose - image processing - computer-assisted - photography

Authors' Contributions

K.T.: Methodology, investigation, writing - original draft, project administration.

A.K.S.: Conceptualization, methodology, investigation, writing - original draft, formal analysis.

A.H.: Investigation, writing - original draft.

A.A.S.: Resources, writing - original draft, writing – review & editing, supervision.


Ethical Approval

The related ethical approval number is “IR.TUMS.AMIRALAM.REC.1400.026.”


Patient Consent

Written and informed patient consent was obtained for publication and academic purposes.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 10 December 2022

Accepted: 15 April 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
11 May 2023

Article published online:
02 August 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Pearson DC, Adamson PA. The ideal nasal profile: rhinoplasty patients vs the general public. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2004; 6 (04) 257-262
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Broer PN. Reply: nasal aesthetics: a cross-cultural analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132 (04) 665e-666e
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Naini FB, Cobourne MT, Garagiola U, McDonald F, Wertheim D. Nasofrontal angle and nasal dorsal aesthetics: a quantitative investigation of idealized and normative values. Facial Plast Surg 2016; 32 (04) 444-451
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Farkas LG, Hreczko TA, Kolar JC, Munro IR. Vertical and horizontal proportions of the face in young adult North American Caucasians: revision of neoclassical canons. Plast Reconstr Surg 1985; 75 (03) 328-338
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Polk Jr MS, Farman AG, Yancey JA, Gholston LR, Johnson BE, Regennitter FJ. Soft tissue profile: a survey of African-American preference. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995; 108 (01) 90-101
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Sinno HH, Markarian MK, Ibrahim AMS, Lin SJ. The ideal nasolabial angle in rhinoplasty: a preference analysis of the general population. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 134 (02) 201-210
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Ahmed O, Dhinsa A, Popenko N, Osann K, Crumley RL, Wong BJ. Population-based assessment of currently proposed ideals of nasal tip projection and rotation in young women. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2014; 16 (05) 310-318
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Verhulst A, Hol M, Vreeken R, Becking A, Ulrich D, Maal T. Three-dimensional imaging of the face: a comparison between three different imaging modalities. Aesthet Surg J 2018; 38 (06) 579-585
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Devcic Z, Rayikanti BA, Hevia JP, Popenko NA, Karimi K, Wong BJ. Nasal tip projection and facial attractiveness. Laryngoscope 2011; 121 (07) 1388-1394
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Armijo BS, Brown M, Guyuron B. Defining the ideal nasolabial angle. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129 (03) 759-764
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Broer PN, Buonocore S, Morillas A. et al. Nasal aesthetics: a cross-cultural analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130 (06) 843e-850e
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Mafi AA, Shahverdiani R, Mafi P. Ideal soft tissue facial profile in Iranian males and females: clinical implications. World J Plast Surg 2018; 7 (02) 179-185
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Henderson JL, Larrabee Jr WF, Krieger BD. Photographic standards for facial plastic surgery. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2005; 7 (05) 331-333
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Da Silveira AC, Daw Jr JL, Kusnoto B, Evans C, Cohen M. Craniofacial applications of three-dimensional laser surface scanning. J Craniofac Surg 2003; 14 (04) 449-456
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Guyuron B. Discussion: the ideal nasolabial angle in rhinoplasty: a preference analysis of the general population. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 134 (02) 211-213
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Powell N, Humphreys B. Proportions of the Aesthetic Face. New York, NY: Thieme-Stratton; 1984
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 17 Yu MS, Jang YJ. Preoperative computer simulation for Asian rhinoplasty patients: analysis of accuracy and patient preference. Aesthet Surg J 2014; 34 (08) 1162-1171
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Patel SM, Daniel RK. Indian American rhinoplasty: an emerging ethnic group. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129 (03) 519e-527e
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Kim DW, Egan KK. Metrics of nasal tip rotation: a comparative analysis. Laryngoscope 2006; 116 (06) 872-877
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Nandini S, Prashanth CS, Somiah SK, Reddy SR. An evaluation of nasolabial angle and the relative inclinations of the nose and upper lip. J Contemp Dent Pract 2011; 12 (03) 152-157
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Biller JA, Kim DW. A contemporary assessment of facial aesthetic preferences. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2009; 11 (02) 91-97
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Alharethy S. Preferred nasolabial angle in Middle Eastern population. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2017; 274 (05) 2339-2341
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Leach J. Aesthetics and the Hispanic rhinoplasty. Laryngoscope 2002; 112 (11) 1903-1916
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Harris R, Nagarkar P, Amirlak B. Varied definitions of nasolabial angle: searching for consensus among rhinoplasty surgeons and an algorithm for selecting the ideal method. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2016; 4 (06) e752
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Alharethy SE. The ideal aesthetic nasal dorsum in the Saudi population. Saudi Med J 2013; 34 (09) 920-922
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Leong SC, White PS. A comparison of aesthetic proportions between the Oriental and Caucasian nose. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2004; 29 (06) 672-676
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Crumley RL, Lanser M. Quantitative analysis of nasal tip projection. Laryngoscope 1988; 98 (02) 202-208
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Simons RL. Nasal tip projection, ptosis, and supratip thickening. Ear Nose Throat J 1982; 61: 452-455
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 29 Mohebbi A, Jahandideh H, Faham Z, Jafari M. Defining the best nasal tip projection among Iranian women. Plast Surg Int 2016; 2016: 8549276
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar