Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Perception of Nasal Aesthetics: Nose or Face?

  • Original Article
  • Rhinoplasty
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Aesthetic assessment of the nose might not be limited to the nose as an isolated facial unit but might be the result of a broader perception of the whole facial image. The aim of this study was to investigate if the aesthetic evaluation of a nose is made by sole observation of the nose or influenced by the other features of the face.

Methods

Nose and face photographs of 20 voluntary models were taken from five different angles and merged into a single image of just the noses and whole faces of each model. First the nose and then the face photos were sent to a reviewer group consisting of 100 individuals from different professions to evaluate the nose's beauty on standard questionnaires with a four-week interval to complicate the recall process.

Results

Aesthetic evaluation of the isolated nose (Group 1) and the nose with the whole face (Group 2) were compared through Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores ranging from 1 to 10 (1: the least, 10: the highest). The mean VAS score of the Whole Face Group (5.26 ± 1.28) was significantly higher than the score of the Isolated Nose Group (4.50 ± 1.32) (p 0.001). There was no significant difference between the scores of reviewers considering their gender, profession, or experience of having an aesthetic operation previously.

Conclusion

Current study revealed that in the evaluation of the beauty of the nose, the holistic perception of the face is as important as the perfection of the angles and proportions within the nose itself.

Level of Evidence V

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Adamson PA, Zavod MB (2006) Changing perceptions of beauty: a surgeon’s perspective. Facial Plast Surg 22:188–193

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Liew S, Wu WT, Chan HH, Ho WW, Kim HJ, Goodman GJ, Peng PH, Rogers JD (2016) Consensus on changing trends, attitudes, and concepts of Asian beauty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 40:193–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bueller H (2018) Ideal facial relationships and goals. Facial Plast Surg 34:458–465

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hicks KE, Thomas JR (2020) The changing face of beauty: a global assessment of facial beauty. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 53:185–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Biller JA, Kim DW (2009) A contemporary assessment of facial aesthetic preferences. Arch Facial Plast Surg 11:91–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Saad A, Hewett S, Nolte M, Delaunay F, Saad M, Cohen SR (2018) Ethnic rhinoplasty in female patients: the neoclassical canons revisited. Aesthetic Plast Surg 42:565–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Patel PN, Most SP (2020) Concepts of facial aesthetics when considering ethnic rhinoplasty. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 53:195–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhang Y, Wang X, Wang J, Zhang L, Xiang Y (2017) Patterns of eye movements when observers judge female facial attractiveness. Front Psychol 8:1909

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Roxbury C, Ishii M, Godoy A, Papel I, Byrne PJ, Boahene KD et al (2012) Impact of crooked nose rhinoplasty on observer perceptions of attractiveness. Laryngoscope 122:773–778

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Çakır B, Öreroğlu AR, Daniel RK (2016) Surface aesthetics and analysis. Clin Plast Surg 43:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Çakır B, Öreroğlu AR, Daniel RK (2014) Surface aesthetics in tip rhinoplasty: a step-by-step guide. Aesthet Surg J 34:941–955

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Krane NA, Markey JD, Moneta LB, Kim MM (2017) Aesthetics of the nasal dorsum: proportions, light, and shadow. Facial Plast Surg 33:120–124

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Leong SC, White PS (2006) A comparison of aesthetic proportions between the healthy Caucasian nose and the aesthetic ideal. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 59:248–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Guyuron B, Bokhari F (1996) Patient satisfaction following rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 20:153–157

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Bonne OB, Wexler MR, De-Nour AK (1996) Rhinoplasty patients’ critical self-evaluations of their noses. Plast Reconstr Surg 98:436–439

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Goin MK, Rees TD (1991) A prospective study of patients’ psychological reactions to rhinoplasty. Ann Plast Surg 27:210–215

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Radulesco T, Penicaud M, Santini L, Thomassin JM, Dessi P, Michel J (2017) The MiRa scale, a new standardised scale for evaluating nasal deformities before and after septorhinoplasty: a prospective study comparing patient satisfaction and the surgeon’s assessment. Clin Otolaryngol 42:1350–1357

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Rezaei F, Rezaei F, Abbasi H, Moradi H (2019) A comparison of doctor/patient satisfaction with aesthetic outcomes of rhinoplasty: a prospective study. J Med Life 12:374–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Haraldsson P (1999) Psychosocial impact of cosmetic rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 23:170–174

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Broer PN, Buonocore S, Morillas A, Liu J, Tanna N, Walker M, Ng R, Persing JA (2012) Nasal aesthetics: a cross-cultural analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 130:843e–850e

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Samizadeh S (2019) The ideals of facial beauty among chinese aesthetic practitioners: results from a large national survey. Aesthetic Plast Surg 43:102–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Weeks DM, Thomas JR (2014) Beauty in a multicultural world. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 22:337–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Darrach H, Ishii LE, Liao D, Nellis JC, Bater K, Cobo R et al (2019) Assessment of the influence of “other-race effect” on visual attention and perception of attractiveness before and after rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 21:96–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Rugo KF, Tamler KN, Woodman GF, Maxcey AM (2017) Recognition-induced forgetting of faces in visual long-term memory. Atten Percept Psychophys 79:1878–1885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Scotti PS, Janakiefski L, Maxcey AM (2020) Recognition-induced forgetting of schematically related pictures. Psychon Bull Rev 27:357–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tavakol M, Dennick R (2011) Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ 2:53–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Farkas LG, Kolar JC, Munro IR (1986) Geography of the nose: a morphometric study. Aesthetic Plast Surg 10:191–223

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. van Schijndel O, Tasman AJ, Litschel R (2015) the nose influences visual and personality perception. Facial Plast Surg 31:439–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Andretto AC (2007) The central role of the nose in the face and the psyche: review of the nose and the psyche. Aesthetic Plast Surg 31:406–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rohrich RJ, Villanueva NL, Small KH, Pezeshk RA (2017) Implications of facial asymmetry in rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 140:510–516

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Ercolani M, Baldaro B, Rossi N, Trombini G (1999) Five-year follow-up of cosmetic rhinoplasty. J Psychosom Res 47:283–286

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Mikalsen SK, Folstad I, Yoccoz NG, Laeng B (2014) The spectacular human nose: an amplifier of individual quality? PeerJ 2:e357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Faure JC, Rieffe C, Maltha JC (2002) The influence of different facial components on facial aesthetics. Eur J Orthod 24:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Milutinovic J, Zelic K, Nedeljkovic N (2014) Evaluation of facial beauty using anthropometric proportions. ScientificWorldJournal 2014:428250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Harrar H, Myers S, Ghanem AM (2018) Art or science? An evidence-based approach to human facial beauty a quantitative analysis towards an informed clinical aesthetic practice. Aesthetic Plast Surg 42:137–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Young P (2019) Assessment of ideal dimensions of the ears, nose, and lip in the circles of prominence theory on facial beauty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 21:199–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Vučinić N, Tubbs RS, Erić M, Vujić Z, Marić D, Vuković B (2020) What do we find attractive about the face?: Survey study with application to aesthetic surgery. Clin Anat 33:214–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Cingi C, Eskiizmir G (2013) Deviated nose attenuates the degree of patient satisfaction and quality of life in rhinoplasty: a prospective controlled study. Clin Otolaryngol 38:136–141

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Li J, He D, Zhou L, Zhao X, Zhao T, Zhang W, He X (2019) The Effects of facial attractiveness and familiarity on facial expression recognition. Front Psychol 10:2496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Bashour M (2006) History and current concepts in the analysis of facial attractiveness. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:741–756

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Khansa I, Khansa L, Pearson GD. (2016) Patient Satisfaction After Rhinoplasty: A Social Media Analysis. Aesthet Surg J 36: NP1-5

  42. Ahmed J, Patil S, Jayaraj S (2010) Assessment of the chin in patients undergoing rhinoplasty: What proportion may benefit from chin augmentation? Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 142:164–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Yaremchuk MJ, Vibhakar D (2016) Pyriform aperture augmentation as an adjunct to rhinoplasty. Clin Plast Surg 43:187–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Maia M, Lukash FN (2019) Autologous fat grafting in young patients: a simple and effective way to achieve facial balance. Ann Plast Surg 83:253–257

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Tobin HA, Webster RC (1986) The less-than-satisfactory rhinoplasty: comparison of patient and surgeon satisfaction. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 94:86–95

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Pausch NC, Unger C, Pitak-Arnnop P, Subbalekha K (2016) Nasal appearance after secondary cleft rhinoplasty: comparison of professional rating with patient satisfaction. Oral Maxillofac Surg 20:195–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Sena Esteves S, Gonçalves Ferreira M, Carvalho Almeida J, Abrunhosa J, Almeida E, Sousa C (2017) Evaluation of aesthetic and functional outcomes in rhinoplasty surgery: a prospective study. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 83:552–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Sözen T, Cabbarzade C, Tahir E, Kuşçu O (2017) Factors determining patient satisfaction in rhinoplasty: analysis of 506 cases with rhinoplasty outcome evaluation. Acta Medica 48:1–5

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

Authors would like to thank Assoc. Prof. Cengiz Bal PhD, (Osmangazi University, Dept. Of Biostatistics) his help with the statistics.

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Marmara University School of Medicine, Bağdat cad. Konak apt. No: 189/8, Çiftehavuzlar, 34730, Istanbul, Turkey

    Melekber Çavuş Özkan & Mehmet Bayramiçli

Authors
  1. Melekber Çavuş Özkan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mehmet Bayramiçli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mehmet Bayramiçli.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Disclosures

None.

Human or Animal Participants

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors other than the evaluation of nose beauty on pictures of voluntary participants and a written informed consent was obtained from each participant whose faces and noses have been evaluated by the reviewers.

Ethical Committee

The study protocol was approved by the Marmara University School of Medicine, Clinical Research Ethics Committee (No: 09.2020.469). The study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Özkan, M.Ç., Bayramiçli, M. Perception of Nasal Aesthetics: Nose or Face?. Aesth Plast Surg 46, 2931–2937 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-022-02943-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-022-02943-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation