Comparison of Facial Proportions and Anthropometric Norms Among Turkish Young Adults With Different Face Types
- 519 Downloads
This study aimed to determine the prevalence of three different face types among Turkish young adults based on facial indices, to assess and compare the vertical and horizontal dimensions for each type, and to establish anthropometric norms for Turkish adults.
A total of 173 healthy young adults (83 females and 90 males) 17 to 25 years of age were examined. Using anthropometric landmarks, 8 horizontal and 10 vertical direct measurements were made with a millimetric compass.
Using facial indices, 59 of the 173 subjects were classified as euryprosopic, 49 as mesoprosopic, and 65 as leptoproposic. In the total evaluation of both groups, all the parameters were higher in the males except forehead heights 1 and 2. A comparison of face types in females and males separately showed no significant differences between the parameters.
The data presented in this study may help plastic surgeons and orthodontists objectively determine the relationships between facial structures for different face types. Additionally, the facial anthropometric norms derived from this study may be useful in the treatment of Turkish patients.
KeywordsEuroprosope Facial anthropometric norms Facial norms Facial structure Leptoprosope Mesoprosope
- 1.Tolleth H (1984) Observations on form and proportion. In: Hetter G (ed) Lipolysis: Theory and practice. Little Brown: BostonGoogle Scholar
- 4.Bergmüller JG (1723) Anthropometria. J.J. Lotter: AugsburgGoogle Scholar
- 5.Da Vinci L (1786) Trattario della pittura. Bologna. In (ref.): Boyd E (ed) (1980) Origins of the study human growth. University of Oregon Health Sciences Center Foundation: Portland, p 167Google Scholar
- 6.Dürer A (1557) Les quatre livres d’Albert Dürer, peintre et géomètre très excellent, de la proportion des parties portraits des corps humains. C Perier: ParisGoogle Scholar
- 7.Elsholtz JS (1663) Anthropometria. A. Becman: Frankfurt am OderGoogle Scholar
- 10.Kelen E (1974) Leonardo da Vinci’s advice to artists. Thomas Nelson, Inc: NashvilleGoogle Scholar
- 11.Lischer BE (1919) Variations and modifications of the facial features: An introductory study. Int J Orthod 5:495–507Google Scholar
- 12.Wuerpel EH (1937) On facial balance and harmony. Angle Orthod 7:81–89Google Scholar
- 21.Davenport CB (1939) Postnatal development of the human outer nose. Proc Am Philos Soc 80:175–256Google Scholar
- 22.Meredith HV (1960) Changes in the form of the head and face during childhood. Growth 24:215–264Google Scholar
- 23.Farkas LG (1981) Anthropometry of the head and face in medicine. Elsevier: New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 27.Farkas LG (1994) Anthropometry of the head and face. 2nd ed. Raven Press: New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 28.Ulgen M (2000) Orthodontics: anomalies, etiology, growth and development, cephalometry, and diagnosis. Vol. 2. Yeditepe University Press House: Istanbul, p. 175Google Scholar
- 31.McNamara JA Jr, Brust EW, Riolo ML (1993) Soft tissue evaluation of individuals with an ideal occlusion and a well-balanced face. In: McNamara JA Jr (ed) Esthetics and the treatment of facial form. Monograph 28. Craniofacial Growth Series, Center for Human Growth and Development, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pp. 115–146Google Scholar
- 32.Lehmann JA (1987) Soft tissue manifestations of aesthetic defects of the jaws: Diagnosis and treatment. Clin Plast Surg 14:767–783Google Scholar
- 38.Farkas LG (1987) Age and sex-related changes in facial proportions. In: Farkas LG, Munro IR (eds) Anthropometric facial proportions in medicine. CC Thomas: Springfield, pp. 29–56Google Scholar