Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy

, Volume 36, Issue 7, pp 633–641 | Cite as

External nasal parameters in Egyptians: an in-depth nasal photogrammatic analysis

  • Mona Hassan Mohammed AliEmail author
Original Article



As ethnic influences can result in different appearances of the nose, the purpose of this study was to provide a set of standard values of the external form of the nose with special emphasis on the influence of age and sex on these values to establish norms for the Egyptians.


Several soft-tissue landmarks on the external nose were obtained by a non-invasive, photogrammetric analysis in 1,000 healthy Egyptians aged 20–70 years. From these landmarks, ten linear distances and six nasal angles were measured and six nasal indices were calculated.


A significant sexual dimorphism was found for nasal external volume and area and most linear distances where males presented with higher values than those in females of the corresponding age except for alar length where females showed higher values. Moreover, age significantly influenced nasal volume, area and distances as they showed statistically significant increase till old age. Concerning angles, nasofrontal, nasofacial, nasomental and nasolabial angles were wider in females while mentocervical angle was wider in males. Moreover, nasofrontal, mentocervical and alar slope angles showed significant increase with advancing age while nasofacial, nasomental and nasolabial showed significant decrease. Regarding nasal indices, sexual dimorphism was recognized for anatomic nasal index, nasal tip protrusion, nasal height ratio and nasal tip protrusion-nasal width indices. Moreover, results also showed that the Egyptians have a Mesorrhine type of nose.


Data collected in the present investigation could serve as a database for the quantitative description of the Egyptian nasal morphology.


Anthropometry Digital photograph External nasal parameters Egyptians 



The author would like to express her gratitude to those who participated in the research.

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

The author declares that this research complies with the current laws of Egypt.


  1. 1.
    Abigail AB (2006) Anatomical changes in the emerging adult brain: a voxel-based morphometry study. Hum Brain Mapp 27:766–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abraham MT, Romo T (2003) Rhinoplasty multiracial. Otolaryngology and facia. Plast Surg 1:11Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson KJ, Henneberg M, Norris RM (2008) Anatomy of the nasal profile. J Anat 213:210–216PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anic-Milosevic C, Lapter-Varga SM, Slaj M (2008) Analysis of soft tissue profile by means of angular measurements. Eup J of Orthod 30:135–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Antibor E, Etetafia MO, Eboh DE, Akpobasha O (2011) Anthropometric study of the nasal parameters of the Isokos in delta state of Nigeria. Ann Biol Res 2(6):408–413Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aung SC, Foo CL, Lee ST (2000) Three dimensional laser scan assessment of the oriental nose with a new classification of oriental nasal types. Br J Plast Surg 53:109–116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Choe KS, Yalamanchili HR, Litner JA, Sclafani AP, Quatela VC (2006) The Korean American woman’s nose: an in-depth nasal photogrammatic analysis. Arch Facial Plast Surg 8:319–323PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cohen H, Heaton I, Congdon SL, Sharon L, Congdo N, Herman A, Jenkin S (2006) Changes in sensory organization test scores with age. Age Ageing 25:39–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Costa JR, Prates JC, De Castilho HT, Santos RA (2005) Estudio craneométrico de los huesos nasales y proceso frontal de la maxila. Int J Morphol 23(1):9–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Epker BN (1992) Adjunctive aesthetic patients. In: Mcmamara JA, Carlson DS, Ferrara A (eds) Aesthetic and the treatment of facial forms monograph no 28 craniofacial growth series, center for human growth and development, University of Michagan. Ann Arbor pp 187–216Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Farkas LG, Bryson W, Klotz J (1980) Is photogrammetry of the face reliable? Plast Reconstr Surg 66(3):346–355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Farkas LG, Kolar JC, Munro IR (1986) Geography of the nose: a morphometric study. Aesthetic Plast Surg 70(4):191–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Farkas LG, Hreczko TA, Katic MJ (1994) Craniofacial norms in North American Caucasians from birth (one year) to young adulthood. In: Farkas L G (ed) Anthropometry of the head and face raven Press, New York, pp 285–301Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Poggio C, Schmitz JH (1997) Three–dimensional study of growth and development of the nose. Cleft Palate-Craniof J 34:309–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Garandawa HI, Nwaorgu OGB, Oluwatosin OB (2009) Morphometric nose parameters in adult Nigerians. Int J Otorhinolaryngol 10 (2)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Genecov JS, Sinclair PM, Dechow PC (1990) Development of the nose and soft tissue profile. Angle Orthod 60:191–198PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hochman B, Castilho HT, Ferreira LM (2002) Padronização fotográfica e morfométrica na fotogrametria computadorizada do nariz. Acta cir bras 77(4):258–266Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hwang TS, Song J, Yoon H, Cho BP, Kang HS (2005) Morphometry of the nasal bones and piriform apertures in Koreans. Ann Anat 187:411–414PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Janis JE, Rohrich RJ (2007) Rhinoplasty. In: Throne CH, Beasley RW, Aston SJ, Barlett SP, Gutner GC, Spear SL (eds) Gabb and Smith’s plastic surgery, 6th edn. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 517–518Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jimoh RO, Alabi SB, Kayode AS, Salihu AM, Ogidi OD (2011) Rhinometry: spectrum of nasal profile among Nigerian Africans. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 77(5):589–593PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ngeow WC, Aljunid ST (2009) Craniofacial anthropometric norms of Malays. Singapore Med J 50:525–528PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Oghenemavwe AE, Osunwoke SKO, Omovigho O (2010) Photometric analysis of soft tissue facial profile of adult Urhobos. Asian J Med Sci 2(6):248–252Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Oladipo GS, Olabiyi AO, Aremosu AA, Noronha CC (2007) Nasal indices among major ethnic groups in southern Nigeria. Sci Res Essay 2(1):20–22Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ozdemir ST, Sigirli D, Ercan I, Cankur NS (2009) Photographic facial soft tissue analysis of healthy Turkish young adults: anthropometric measurements. Aesthetic Plast Surg 33:175–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pérez DAS (2004) Influencia de la prominencia facial en la apreciación estética del perfil facial. Tesis para optar al Título de Cirujano Dentista. Universidad de Talca, ChileGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Risley HH (1915) The people of Indian. In: Crooke W. 2nd edn Puplishing Company, Philedephia, pp 395–399Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sforza C, Grandi G, De Menezes M, Tartaglia GM, Ferrario VF (2010) Age- and sex-related changes in the normal human external nose. Forensic Sci Int 204:205.e1–205.e9Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Uzun A, Akbas H, Bilgic S, Emirzeoglu M, Bostanc O, Sahin B, Bek Y (2006) The average values of the nasal anthropometric measurements in 108 young Turkish males. Auris Nasus Larynx 33:31–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zankl A, Eberle L, Molinari L, Schinzel A (2002) Growth charts for nose length, nasal protrusion, and philtrum length from birth to 97 years. Am J Med Genet 111:388–391PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zankl A, Molinari L (2003) A Base-a tool for the rapid assessment of anthropometric measurements on handheld computers. Am J Med Genet 121:146–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Human Anatomy and Embryology, Faculty of MedicineSuez Canal UniversityIsmailiaEgypt

Personalised recommendations