The validity of eight neoclassical facial canons in the Turkish adults

• Autorzy: Karaca Saygili O. , Cinar S. , Gulcen B. , Ozcan E. , Kus I.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The neoclassical canons were used to define the proportions between various areas of the head and face. Therefore, this study was done to establish the neoclassical canons of facial proportions in Turkish adults. A total of 200 healthy adults 20 to 35 years of age were examined. Using anthropometric landmarks, 5 horizontal and 9 vertical direct measurements were made on the faces with a sliding calliper. Results have been compared with 8 neoclassical facial canons. When comparing between sexes, a significant difference has been found in all measurements except the upper facial width, left eye-fissure width, forehead height I and II (p < 0.005). The nasofacial proportion has been found to include the most proportional subjects (33%) followed by the orbito-nasal (30%), the orbital proportion (25%) and the naso-oral proportion (17%) in the female. Considering the male, the orbital proportion has been found to include the most proportional subjects (23%) followed by the orbito-nasal proportion (21%), naso-facial proportion (19%) and the naso-oral proportion (17%). The neoclassical canons have been shown to rarely be applicable to Turkish adults and our results may contribute to determine the concepts of transcultural facial structures. (Folia Morphol 2016; 75, 4: 512–517)

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Folia Morphologica
• Rocznik: 2016
• Tom: 75
• Numer: 4
• Opis fizyczny: p.512-517,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Karaca Saygili O.

• Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Balikesir University, 10145, Balikesir, Turkey

autor

Cinar S.

• Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, KTO Karatay University, Konya, Turkey

autor

Gulcen B.

• Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Balikesir University, Balikesir, Turkey

autor

Ozcan E.

• Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Balikesir University, Balikesir, Turkey

autor

Kus I.

• Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Balikesir University, Balikesir, Turkey

Bibliografia

• 1. Arslan S, Genç C, Odabaş B, Kama J (2008) Comparison of facial proportions and anthropometric norms among Turkish young adults with different face types. Aesth Plast Surg, 32: 234–242.
• 2. Borman H, Ozgur F, Gursu G (1999) Evaluation of softtissue morphology of the face in 1,050 young adults. Ann Plast Surg, 42: 280–288.
• 3. Bozkir MG, Karakas P, Oguz O (2004) Vertical and horizontal neoclassical facial canons in Turkish young adults. Surg Radiol Anat, 26: 212–219.
• 4. Choe KS, Sclafani AP, Litner JA, Yu GP (2004) The Korean American woman’s face: anthropometric measurements and quantitative analysis of facial aesthetics. Arch Facial Plast Surg, 6: 244–252.
• 5. Farkas LG (1981) Anthropometry of the head and face in medicine. Elsevier. New York.
• 6. Farkas LG, Hreczko TA, Kolar JC, Munro IR (1985) Vertical and horizontal proportions of the face in young adult North American Caucasians: revision of neoclassical canons. Plast Reconstr Surg, 75: 328–338.
• 7. Farkas LG (1994) Anthropometry of the head and face. 2. Raven press, New York.
• 8. Farkas LG, Forrest CR, Litsas L (2000) Revision of neoclassical facial canons in young adult Afro-Americans. Aesth Plast Surg, 24: 179–184.
• 9. Farkas LG, Tompson BD, Katic MJ, Forrest CR (2002) Differences between direct (anthropometric) and indirect (cephalometric) measurements of the skull. J Craniofac Surg, 13: 105–108.
• 10. Farkas LG, Katic MJ, Forrest CR (2005) International anthropometric study of facial morphology in various ethnic groups/races. J Craniofac Surg, 16: 615–646.
• 11. Ghoddousi H, Edler R, Haers P, Wertheim D, Greenhill D (2007) Comparison of three methods of facial measurement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 36: 250–258.
• 12. Husein OF, Sepehr A, Garg R, Sina- Khadiv M, Gattu S, Waltzman J, Wu EC, Shieh M, Heitmann GM, Galle SE (2010) Anthropometric and aesthetic analysis of the Indian American woman’s face. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg, 63: 1825–1831.
• 13. Jayaratne YS, Deutsch CK, McGrath CP, Zwahlen RA (2012) Are Neoclassical Canons Valid for Southern Chinese Faces? PloS One, 7: 1–7.
• 14. Le TT, Farkas LG, Ngim RCK, Levin LS, Forrest CR (2002) Proportionality in Asian and North American Caucasian faces using neoclassical facial canons as criteria. Aesth Plast Surg, 26: 64–69.
• 15. Lehmann JA (1987) Soft tissue manifestations of aesthetic defects of the jaws: diagnosis and treatment. Clin Plast Surg, 14: 767–783.
• 16. Ngeow WC, Aljunid ST (2009) Craniofacial anthropometric norms of Malaysian Indians. Indian J Dent Res, 20: 313–319.
• 17. Ozdemir MB, Ilgaz A, Dilek A, Ayten H, Esat A (2007) Describing normal variations of head and face by using standard measurement and craniofacial variability index (CVI) in seven-year-old normal children. J Craniofac Surg, 18: 470–474.
• 18. Porter JP, Olson KL (2001) Anthropometric facial analysis of the African American woman. Arch Facial Plast Surg, 3: 191–197.
• 19. Porter JP (2004) The average African American male face an anthropometric analysis. Arch Facial Plast Surg, 6: 78–81.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.5603/FM.a2016.0028