The Concept of Anthropometric Facial Asymmetry

  • Senem Turan Ozdemir


Facial asymmetry is a common finding in healthy subjects and in esthetically pleasing faces. It is believed that normal craniofacial skeletons have some degree of asymmetry which is compatible with normal dental occlusion, and mild facial asymmetry is often disregarded by clinicians. In parallel with increasing demand for facial aesthetics and recent advances in facial aesthetic surgery, patients have become more sensitive to facial asymmetry which may occur after the operation. In this context, objective evaluation of facial asymmetry by extended facial analysis before and after the operation has gained importance. Facial asymmetry analysis can be performed as objective and/or subjective. Soft tissues of the face can be evaluated by subjective analysis; however, skeletal asymmetries compensated by the overlying soft tissue may not be recognized most of the time. Objective assessment of the asymmetry degree of both soft and hard tissues of the face before facial operations, aesthetic and orthodontic procedures in particular, will allow a more accurate analysis of the treatment results. Anthropometric measurement is one of the methods used for the quantitative analysis of facial asymmetry. Although anthropological studies on face have been extensively addressed in the literature, anthropologists have rarely examined facial asymmetry. The concept of facial asymmetry and anthropometric measurement of facial asymmetry will be reviewed in this chapter.


Anthropometric Measurement Facial Asymmetry Hemifacial Microsomia Overlie Soft Tissue Facial Midline 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Two dimensional


Three dimensional


Euclidean Distance Matrix Analysis


Natural head position





We would like to thank Dr. Ilker Ercan for statistical support.


  1. Baudouin JY, Tiberghien G. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2004;117:313–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bidra AS, Uribe F, Taylor TD, Agar JR, Rungruanganunt P, Neace WP. J Prosthet Dent. 2009;102:94–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bishara SE, Burkey PS, Kharouf JG. Angle Orthod. 1994;64:89–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burke PH, Healy MJ. Ann Hum Biol. 1993;20:527–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chatrath P, De Cordova J,. Nouraei SA, Ahmed J, Saleh HA. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2007;9:184–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ercan I, Ozdemir ST, Etoz A, Sigirli D, Tubbs RS, Loukas M, Guney I. J Anat. 2008a; 213:663–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ercan I, Ocakoglu G, Guney I, Yazici B. Int J Tomogr Stat. 2008b;9 (S08):51–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Farkas LG. Anthropometry of the head and face in medicine. New York: Elsevier; 1981.Google Scholar
  9. Farkas LG, Cheung G. Angle Orthod. 1981;51:70–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Poggio CE, Tartaglia G. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1994;52:1126–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Miani A, Serrao G. J Anat. 1995;186 (Pt 1):103–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Poggio CE, Cova M, Tartaglia G. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1998;35:9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Ciusa V, Dellavia C, Tartaglia GM. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2001;59:382–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Dellavia C, Tartaglia GM, Colombo A, Carù A. J Craniofac Surg. 2003;14:739–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hajeer MY, Ayoub AF, Millett DT. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004;42:396–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haraguchi S, Iguchi Y, Takada K. Angle Orthod. 2008;78:421–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kohn, L, Cheverud, J. In: Vannier M, Yates R, Whitestone J, editors. Calibration, validation, and evaluation of scanning systems: anthropometric imaging system repeatability. Electronic Imaging of the Human Body Proceedings of a Working Group. Dayton, OH: CSERIAC; 1992, p. 114–23.Google Scholar
  18. Kolar JC, Salter EM. Craniofacial anthropometry. Practical measurement of the head and face for clinical, surgical and research use. Charles C Thomas, Springfield, Illinois, USA; 1997, p. 213–30.Google Scholar
  19. Lane C, Harrell W Jr. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;133:612–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lele SR, Richtsmeier JT. An invariant approach to statistical analysis of shapes, New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2000. p. 1–45.Google Scholar
  21. McIntyre GT, Mossey PA. J Orthod. 2002;29:299–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Melnick AK. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1992;101:355–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Naini FB, Gill DS. Dent Update. 2008;35:159–70.Google Scholar
  24. Shaner DJ, Peterson AE, Beattie OB, Bamforth JS. Am J Med Genet. 2000;93:143–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Skvalirova B. Acta Chir Plast. 1993;35:173–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Smith WM. Laterality. 2000;5:251–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Song WC, Koh KS, Kim SH, Hu KS, Kim HJ, Park JC, Choi BY. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007;65:2164–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stedman JK. Stedman’s medical dictionary, 28th edn. 2006.
  29. Vig PS, Hewitt AB. Angle Orthod. 1975;45:125–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Anatomy, Faculty of MedicineUludag UniversityGorukle/BursaTurkey

Personalised recommendations