WORLD JOURNAL OF PLASTIC SURGERY
Mon, Jul 7, 2025
[Archive]
Volume 8, Issue 1 (2019)
WJPS 2019, 8(1): 78-84 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Shahbazi Z, Ardalan H, Maleki M. Aesthetics of Numerical Proportions in Human Cosmetic Surgery. WJPS 2019; 8 (1) :78-84
URL: http://wjps.ir/article-1-364-en.html
URL: http://wjps.ir/article-1-364-en.html
1- PHD student philosophy of Art, Department of Art and Architecture, Hamedan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Iran.
2- Assistant professor, Department of Art and Architecture, Hamedan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Iran.
3- Department of Art and Architecture, Hamedan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Hamedan, Iran
2- Assistant professor, Department of Art and Architecture, Hamedan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Iran.
3- Department of Art and Architecture, Hamedan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Hamedan, Iran
Abstract: (6250 Views)
BACKGROUND
Beauty is a universal phenomenon and debate over what constitutes beauty particularly beauty to human body, has raged since philosophy began. The beauty of individual features depends on “ideal” proportions, and it is suggested that expressing beauty in terms of geometry is possible. Assessment of some used parameters in facial surgeries and harmony of various facial features are essential to surgeon, who requires facial analysis. One of these parameters, is nasolabial angle, in patients undergoing rhinoplasty. This study based on theoretical definitions of beauty and proportions performed the search for the application of this numerical proportions in modern cosmetic surgery.
METHODS
Twenty-three samples [16 (69.5%) female and 7 (30.5%)] male] were enrolled from patients who underwent rhinoplasty, by a single surgeon. The nasolabial angle was measured in these patients from their lateral profile photographs with adobe Photoshop, before and after surgery.
RESULTS
Ideal post-operative angle was 111.54±26.5 degrees from this study and 18.8◦ increase in male and 14.68◦ increase in female were seen. There was no significant difference between men and women.
CONCLUSION
Our results showed that an ideal proportion can be very useful and practical to assess patient’s preoperative expectations and to evaluate the results after surgery and satisfaction of cosmetic surgery process.
Beauty is a universal phenomenon and debate over what constitutes beauty particularly beauty to human body, has raged since philosophy began. The beauty of individual features depends on “ideal” proportions, and it is suggested that expressing beauty in terms of geometry is possible. Assessment of some used parameters in facial surgeries and harmony of various facial features are essential to surgeon, who requires facial analysis. One of these parameters, is nasolabial angle, in patients undergoing rhinoplasty. This study based on theoretical definitions of beauty and proportions performed the search for the application of this numerical proportions in modern cosmetic surgery.
METHODS
Twenty-three samples [16 (69.5%) female and 7 (30.5%)] male] were enrolled from patients who underwent rhinoplasty, by a single surgeon. The nasolabial angle was measured in these patients from their lateral profile photographs with adobe Photoshop, before and after surgery.
RESULTS
Ideal post-operative angle was 111.54±26.5 degrees from this study and 18.8◦ increase in male and 14.68◦ increase in female were seen. There was no significant difference between men and women.
CONCLUSION
Our results showed that an ideal proportion can be very useful and practical to assess patient’s preoperative expectations and to evaluate the results after surgery and satisfaction of cosmetic surgery process.
References
1. Esfandyari S. Implementation of aesthetics in the philosophy of Plato and Descartes. J Philos 2013;41:67-84.
2. Lloyd DR. Symmetry and beauty in Plato. Symmetry 2010;2:455-65. doi: 10.3390/sym2020455. [DOI:10.3390/sym2020455]
3. Tan KS, Oh S-R, Priel A, Korn BS, Kikkawa DO. Surgical anatomy of the forehead, eyelids, and midface for the aesthetic surgeon. Master techniques in blepharoplasty and periorbital rejuvenation: Springer; 2011. p. 11-24. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-0067-7_2. [DOI:10.1007/978-1-4614-0067-7_2]
4. Rupesh S, Rakesh S, Winnier J, Kaimal A, John A, Prasannan M, Jeyaprakash V. The role of divine proportion in the perception of beauty: A cross sectional study. Amrita journal of medicine 2014;10:1-44.
5. Persaud-Sharma D, O'Leary J. Fibonacci series, golden proportions, and the human biology. Austin J Surg 2015;2:1066.
6. Umredkar K, Wagh P, Bhoir A. Face Recognition System Invariant to Plastic Surgery. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer and Communication Engineering 2015;4:32-4.
7. Rastegar KA, Kaveh M. Women and beauty project (subjective meanings of cosmetic surgery). Woman In Development and Politics (Women's Research) 2014;11:453-478.
8. Tam KP, Ng HK, Kim YH, Yeung VW, Cheung FY. Attitudes toward cosmetic surgery patients: the role of culture and social contact. J Soc Psychol 2012;152:458-79. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2011.637997. [DOI:10.1080/00224545.2011.637997]
9. Atiyeh BS, Hayek SN. Numeric expression of aesthetics and beauty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2008;32:209-16; discussion 17-9. doi: 10.1007/s00266-007-9074-x. [DOI:10.1007/s00266-007-9074-x]
10. Sohrabi F, Mohammad Alilu M, Rasouli Azad M. Checking psychopathology profile in plastic surgery of applicants. J Ment Health 2011;3:260-9.
11. Prendergast PM. Facial proportions. Advanced Surgical Facial Rejuvenation: Springer; 2012. p. 15-22. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-17838-2_2]
12. Naraghi M, Atari M, Asadollahi H. When Aesthetics, Surgery, and Psychology Meet: Aesthetic Nasal Proportions in Patients Having Rhinoplasty and Normal Adults. Surg J (N Y) 2016;2:e44-e8. doi: 10.1055/s-0036-1579658. [DOI:10.1055/s-0036-1579658]
13. Rogeric P, Marcos M, Marilo CA, Marina SC, P. Dall'lgna Daniela. Soccel Andriea. Intl Arcb Otorbinolaryngol 2008;12:393-6.
14. Tugrul S, Dogan R, Kocak I, Eren SB, Ozturan O. Split Cartilage Resection of Nasal Dome: A Solution to Ptotic Nasal Tips. J Craniofac Surg 2015;26:e400-5. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000001872. [DOI:10.1097/SCS.0000000000001872]
15. Kommi PB, Venkatesan R, Keerthi N, Kumar AN, Kumar S, Gopinath V. A cephalometric assessment of ideal nasolabial angle range for south Indian population. Journal of International Oral Health 2016;8:205-207.
16. Kim DW, Egan KK. Metrics of nasal tip rotation: a comparative analysis. Laryngoscope 2006;116:872-7. doi: 10.1097/01.mlg.0000216796.63683.d3. [DOI:10.1097/01.mlg.0000216796.63683.d3]
17. Ferdousi MA, Al Mamun A, Banu LA, Paul S. Angular photogrammetric analysis of the facial profile of the adult Bangladeshi garo. Advances in Anthropology 2013;3:188-192. doi: 10.4236/aa.2013.34026. [DOI:10.4236/aa.2013.34026]
18. Meruane M, Ayala MF, Garcia-Huidobro MA, Andrades P. Reliability of Nasofacial Analysis Using Rhinobase(R) Software. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2016;40:149-56. doi: 10.1007/s00266-015-0569-6. [DOI:10.1007/s00266-015-0569-6]
19. Dua V, Gupta S, Singh C. Evaluation of the nasolabial angle in the Indian population. Contemp Clin Dent 2010;1:79-82. doi: 10.4103/0976-237X.68595. [DOI:10.4103/0976-237X.68595]
20. Bottino A, Laurentini A, editors. The analysis of facial beauty: an emerging area of research in pattern analysis. International Conference Image Analysis and Recognition; Springer 2010: 1:425-35. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-13772-3_43. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-13772-3_43]
21. Sadacharan CM. Vertical and horizontal facial proportions of Indian American men. Anat Cell Biol 2016;49:125-31. doi: 10.5115/acb.2016.49.2.125. [DOI:10.5115/acb.2016.49.2.125]
22. Sadacharan CM. Evaluation Of Various Facial Anthropometric Proportions In Indian American Women. Evaluación de varias proporciones antropométricas en mujeres indio-americanas. Revista Argentina de Anatomía Clínica 2016;8:10-7. doi: 10.31051/1852.8023.v8.n1.14203. [DOI:10.31051/1852.8023.v8.n1.14203]
23. Balali E, Afshar KJ. Beauty and wealth: cosmetics and surgery. Women's Strategic Studies (Ketabe Zanan) 2010:12: 99-140.
24. Holman A. Psychology of Beauty: An Overview of the Contemporary Research Lines. Psihologia Socială 2011;28:81-94.
25. Sunilkumar LN, Jadhav KS, Nazirkar G, Singh S, Nagmode PS, Ali FM. Assessment of Facial Golden Proportions among North Maharashtri-an Population. J Int Oral Health 2013;5:48-54.
26. Berys G, Lopes D. The Routledge Companion A esthetics. Tehran: Tehran Translation groups; 2005.
27. Naraghi M, Atari M. Preliminary findings on gender differences in aesthetic rhinoplasty patients: body appreciation and appearance com-parisons. Otolaryngol Open J 2015;1:7-12. doi: 10.17140/otloj-1-103. [DOI:10.17140/OTLOJ-1-103]
28. Bottino A, De Simone M, Laurentini A, Sforza C. A new 3-D tool for planning plastic surgery. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2012;59:3439-49. doi: 10.1109/TBME.2012.2217496. [DOI:10.1109/TBME.2012.2217496]
29. Nasr Abadi A, Porjafar M, Taghavaee AA. Analyzing the role of Aesthetic geometry in the formation of Esfahan. Chaharbagh Urban Space. 2011.
30. Germine L, Russell R, Bronstad PM, Blokland GA, Smoller JW, Kwok H, Anthony SE, Nakayama K, Rhodes G, Wilmer JB. Individual aesthetic preferences for faces are shaped mostly by environments, not genes. Curr Biol 2015;25:2684-9. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.08.048. [DOI:10.1016/j.cub.2015.08.048]
31. Uzun A, Ozdemir F. [Morphometric analysis of nasal shapes and angles in young adults]. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2014;80:397-402. doi: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2014.07.010. [DOI:10.1016/j.bjorl.2014.07.010]
32. Aghili H, Tabatabaei S, Moghadam MG, Jafarzadeh M, Samei R. Soft tissue cephalometric norms in Iranian normal subjects. Health Sciences 2016;5:149-55.
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
