Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 234–242 | Cite as

Comparison of Facial Proportions and Anthropometric Norms Among Turkish Young Adults With Different Face Types

  • Seher Gündüz Arslan
  • Celal Genç
  • Bahadır Odabaş
  • Jalen Devecioğlu Kama
Original Article



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.


Europrosope Facial anthropometric norms Facial norms Facial structure Leptoprosope Mesoprosope 


  1. 1.
    Tolleth H (1984) Observations on form and proportion. In: Hetter G (ed) Lipolysis: Theory and practice. Little Brown: BostonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tolleth H (1987) Concepts for the plastic surgeon from art and sculpture. Clin Plast Surg 14:585–598PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vegter F, Hage JJ (2000) Clinical anthropometry and canons of the face in historical perspective. Plast Reconstr Surg 106:1090–1096PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bergmüller JG (1723) Anthropometria. J.J. Lotter: AugsburgGoogle Scholar
  5. 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. 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. 7.
    Elsholtz JS (1663) Anthropometria. A. Becman: Frankfurt am OderGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dawei W, Guozheng Q, Mingli Z, Farkas LG (1997) Differences in horizontal neoclassical facial canons in Chinese (Han) and North American Caucasian populations. Aesth Plast Surg 21:265–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Farkas LG, Hreczko TA, Kolar JC, Munro IR, Chir B (1985) Vertical and horizontal proportions of the face in young adult North American Caucasians: Revision of neoclassical canons. Plast Reconstr Surg 75:328–337PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kelen E (1974) Leonardo da Vinci’s advice to artists. Thomas Nelson, Inc: NashvilleGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lischer BE (1919) Variations and modifications of the facial features: An introductory study. Int J Orthod 5:495–507Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wuerpel EH (1937) On facial balance and harmony. Angle Orthod 7:81–89Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stoner MM (1955) A photometric analysis of the facial profile: A method of assessing facial change induced by orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 41:453–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Burstone CJ (1958) The integumental profile. Am J Orthod 44:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Neger M (1959) A quantitative method for the evaluation of the soft tissue facial profile. Am J Orthod 45:738–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bloom LA (1961) Perioral profile changes in orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 47:371–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Case CS (1964) The question of extraction in orthodontia. Am J Orthod 50:659–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Merrifield LL (1966) The profile line as an aid in critically evaluating facial esthetics. Am J Orthod 52:804–822PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ricketts RM (1968) Esthetics, environment, and the law of lip relation. Am J Orthod 54:272–289PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Legan HL, Burstone CJ (1980) Soft tissue cephalometric analysis for orthognatic surgery. J Oral Surg 38:744–751PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Davenport CB (1939) Postnatal development of the human outer nose. Proc Am Philos Soc 80:175–256Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Meredith HV (1960) Changes in the form of the head and face during childhood. Growth 24:215–264Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Farkas LG (1981) Anthropometry of the head and face in medicine. Elsevier: New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zingaro EA, Falces E (1987) Aesthetic anatomy of the non-Caucasian nose. Clin Plast Surg 14:749–765PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mantzikos T (1998) Esthetic soft tissue profile preferences among the Japanese population. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 114:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Miyajima K, McNamara JA, Kimura T, Murata S, Iizuka T (1996) Craniofacial structure of Japanese and European–American adults with normal occlusions and well-balanced faces. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 110:431–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Farkas LG (1994) Anthropometry of the head and face. 2nd ed. Raven Press: New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ulgen M (2000) Orthodontics: anomalies, etiology, growth and development, cephalometry, and diagnosis. Vol. 2. Yeditepe University Press House: Istanbul, p. 175Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Arman A, Toygar U, Abuhijleh E (2004) Profile changes associated with different orthopedic treatment approaches in class III malocclusions. Angle Orthod 74:733–740PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Frankel R, Frankel C (1988) Orthodontics in orofacial region with help of function regulators. Inf Orthod Kieferorthop 20:277–309PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 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. 32.
    Lehmann JA (1987) Soft tissue manifestations of aesthetic defects of the jaws: Diagnosis and treatment. Clin Plast Surg 14:767–783Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kasai K, Richards LC, Brown T (1993) Comparative study of craniofacial morphology in Japanese and Australian aboriginal populations. Hum Biol 65:821–834PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Porter JP, Olson KL (2001) Anthropometric facial analysis of the African American woman. Arch Facial Plast Surg 3:191–197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sim RS, Smith JD, Chan AS (2000) Comparison of the aesthetic facial proportions of southern Chinese and white women. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2:113–120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Farkas LG, Munro IR, Chir B, Kolar JC (1985) Abnormal measurements and disproportions in the face of Down’s syndrome patients: Preliminary report of an anthropometric study. Plast Reconstr Surg 75:159–167PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Farkas LG, Katic MJ, Forrest CR (2002) Surface anatomy of the face in Down’s syndrome: Age-related changes of anthropometric proportions in the craniofacial regions. J Craniofac Surg 13:368–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. 39.
    Bishara SE, Hession TJ, Peterson LC (1985) Longitudinal soft tissue profile changes: A study of three analyses. Am J Orthod 88:209–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Farkas LG (1996) Accuracy of anthropometric measurements: Past, present, and future. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 33:10–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Le TT, Farkas LG, Ngim RCK, Levin LS, Forrest CR (2002) Proportionality in Asian and North American Caucasian faces using neoclassical facial canons as criteria. Aesth Plast Surg 26:64–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Farkas LG, Forrest CR, Litsas L (2000) Revision of neoclassical facial canons in young adult Afro-Americans. Aesth Plast Surg 24:179–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seher Gündüz Arslan
    • 1
  • Celal Genç
    • 1
  • Bahadır Odabaş
    • 1
  • Jalen Devecioğlu Kama
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OrthodonticsDicle University, Faculty of DentistryDiyarbakırTurkey

Personalised recommendations