Identifying Ideal Brow Vector Position: Empirical Analysis of Three Brow Archetypes
20 February 2013 (online)
Background Surgical browlifts counteract the effects of aging, correct ptosis, and optimize forehead aesthetics. While surgeons have control over brow shape, the metrics defining ideal brow shape are subjective.
Objectives This study aims to empirically determine whether three expert brow design strategies are aesthetically equivalent by using expert focus group analysis and relating these findings to brow surgery.
Methods Comprehensive literature search identified three dominant brow design methods (Westmore, Lamas and Anastasia) that are heavily cited, referenced or internationally recognized in either medical literature or by the lay media. Using their respective guidelines, brow shape was modified for 10 synthetic female faces, yielding 30 images. A focus group of 50 professional makeup artists ranked the three images for each of the 10 faces to generate ordinal attractiveness scores.
Results The contemporary methods employed by Anastasia and Lamas produce a brow arch more lateral than Westmore's classic method. Although the more laterally located brow arch is considered the current trend in facial aesthetics, this style was not empirically supported. No single method was consistently rated most or least attractive by the focus group, and no significant difference in attractiveness score for the different methods was observed (p = 0.2454).
Conclusion Although each method of brow placement has been promoted as the “best” approach, no single brow design method achieved statistical significance in optimizing attractiveness. Each can be used effectively as a guide in designing eyebrow shape during browlift procedures, making it possible to use the three methods interchangeably.
- 1 Sadr J, Jarudi I, Sinha P. The role of eyebrows in face recognition. Perception 2003; 32: 285-293
- 2 Baker SB, Dayan JH, Crane A, Kim S. The influence of brow shape on the perception of facial form and brow aesthetics. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 119: 2240-2247
- 3 Gunter JP, Antrobus SD. Aesthetic analysis of the eyebrows. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997; 99: 1808-1816
- 4 Brennan HG. Correction of the ptotic brow. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1980; 13: 265-273
- 5 Roth JM, Metzinger SE. Quantifying the arch position of the female eyebrow. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2003; 5: 235-239
- 6 Cook TA, Brownrigg PJ, Wang TD, Quatela VC. The versatile midforehead browlift. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1989; 115: 163-168
- 7 Lamas P, Pemberton C. Eyebrows 101. 2007. Available at: http://www.lamasbeauty.com/beauty/november00/eyebrows-101.htm
- 8 Soare A. Anastasia. 1997. Available at: http://www.anastasia.net
- 9 Sclafani AP, Jung M. Desired position, shape, and dynamic range of the normal adult eyebrow. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2010; 12: 123-127
- 10 Biller JA, Kim DW. A contemporary assessment of facial aesthetic preferences. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2009; 11: 91-97
- 11 Wong BJ, Karimi K, Devcic Z, McLaren CE, Chen WP. Evolving attractive faces using morphing technology and a genetic algorithm: a new approach to determining ideal facial aesthetics. Laryngoscope 2008; 118: 962-974