Advertisement

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp 93–96 | Cite as

Perioral Ruler in Routine Esthetic Surgery: Convenient and Exact

  • Tae-Kwang JeongEmail author
  • Sang-Hun Park
Innovative Techniques Face and Neck Surgery
  • 54 Downloads

Abstract

Lip and perioral surgery, like any other esthetic surgery, requires an exact and convenient measurement tool to ensure reliable and reproducible outcomes. Although three-dimensional measuring equipment has proven its effectiveness in measuring facial parameters over the past two decades, it has some drawbacks, including high cost, long scanning times, and non-portability. Thus, digital photography remains the standard tool of measurement in esthetic surgery to date. Many authors have presented evaluation and measurement methods using digital photography in combination with different tools. However, there are no specific tools for the perioral region. Therefore, we devised a specific ruler for perioral measurements. The ruler has differently colored lines for length and angle measurements and a reference point for correct positioning. It can be used in preoperative consultation, intraoperative orientation, and postoperative evaluation.

Level of Evidence IV 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.

Keywords

Esthetic surgery Lip Philtrum Outcome assessment Outcome measures 

Notes

Funding

None.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and publication of this article to declare.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

All patients provided written informed consent for the publication and the use of their images.

References

  1. 1.
    Page RE, Stranc MF (1982) Normal lip functions in adults. Ann Plast Sur 9:502–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Spiegel JH, Spiegel OL (2019) Lip lifting: not just fullness—everything you need to know about lifting and creating youthful, beautiful lips. Facial Plast Surg 35:129–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weissler JM, Stern CS, Schreiber JE, Amirlak B, Tepper OM (2017) The evolution of photography and three-dimensional imaging in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 139:761–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Edler R, Rahim MA, Wertheim D, Greenhill D (2010) The use of facial anthropometrics in aesthetic assessment. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 47:48–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Manktelow RT, Zuker RM, Tomat LR (2008) Facial paralysis measurement with a handheld ruler. Plast Reconstr Surg 121:435–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mommaerts MY, Moerenhout BA (2008) Reliability of clinical measurements used in the determination of facial indices. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 36:279–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bush K, Antonyshyn O (1996) Three-dimensional facial anthropometry using a laser surface scanner: validation of the technique. Plast Reconstr Surg 98:226–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coombes AG, Sethi CS, Kirkpatrick WN, Waterhouse N, Kelly MH, Joshi N (2007) A standardized digital photography system with computerized eyelid measurement analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 120:647–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ghoddousi H, Edler R, Haers P, Wertheim D, Greenhill D (2007) Comparison of three methods of facial measurement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 36:250–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Taylor HO, Morrison CS, Linden O, Phillips B, Chang J, Byrne ME, Sullivan SR, Forrest CR (2014) Quantitative facial asymmetry: using three-dimensional photogrammetry to measure baseline facial surface symmetry. J Craniofac Surg 25:124–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ozkul T, Ozkul MH, Akhtar R, Al-Kaabi F, Jumaia T (2009) A software tool for measurement of facial parameters. Open Chem Biomed Methods J 2:69–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wong WW, Davis DG, Camp MC, Gupta SC (2010) Contribution of lip proportions to facial aesthetics in different ethnicities: a three-dimensional analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 63:2032–2039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kusnoto B, Evans CA (2002) Reliability of a 3D surface laser scanner for orthodontic applications. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 122:342–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sforza C, de Menezes M, Ferrario V (2013) Soft- and hard-tissue facial anthropometry in three dimensions: what’s new. J Anthropol Sci 91:159–184PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Persichetti P, Simone P, Langella M, Marangi GF, Carusi C (2007) Digital photography in plastic surgery: how to achieve reasonable standardization outside a photographic studio. Aesthetic Plast Surg 31:194–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.HB Plastic ClinicSeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations