Anthropometric Analysis of the Nose

  • Abdullah Etöz
  • İlker Ercan


Anthropometric evaluation begins with the identification of specific locations, called landmark points, defined in terms of visible or palpable features on the subject. Data from facial landmarks have traditionally been obtained by the direct measurement technique using standard instruments such as callipers, measuring tapes, compasses, protractors and angle finders. However, this requires physical contact by the examiner, which could lead to errors during measurement as many areas on the face are very sensitive to touch. The latest reports on craniofacial anthropometry, therefore, include laser scanning and photogrammetric techniques. The nose is a person’s most defining feature as it is at the centre of the face. The shape of the nose is a signature indicating ethnicity, race, age and sex. Anthropometric methods and surgical practice have now merged to treat congenital or post-traumatic facial disfigurements in various racial or ethnic groups successfully. Nasoplasty surgeons require access to facial data based on accurate anthropometric measurements to perform optimum correction. The photogrammetric anthropometric method will be summarized in this chapter. Anthropometry is said to be the most suitable nasal evaluation method to demonstrate the sharp nasal profile contours and eliminate differences between direct and indirect nasal measurements.


Inferior Aspect Nasal Surgery Facial Landmark Optimum Correction Nose Shape 
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.



Euclidean Distance Matrix Analysis


Natural head position


  1. Aung SC. Br J Plast Surg. 2000;53:109–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bozkir MG. Surg Radiol Anat. 2004;26:212–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. DeCarlo D. An Anthropometric face model using variational techniques. 25th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques. Appeared in Proceedings SIGGRAPH’ 98; 1998. p. 67–74.Google Scholar
  4. Ercan I, Etoz A, Guney I, Ocakoglu G, Ozdemir ST, Kan I, Kahveci R. Statistical shape analysis of nose ın Turkish young adults. J Craniofacial Surgery, 2007;18(1):219–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Etöz BC, Etoz A, Ercan I. Nasal shapes and related differences in nostril forms: a morphometric analysis in young adults. J Craniofacial Surgery, 2008;19(5):1402–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Farkas LG. J Craniofacial Surg. 2005;16:615–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ferrario VF. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1997; 34:309–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ferrario VF. Clin Anat. 2003;16:420–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hwang T-S, Kang H-S. Ann Anat. 2003;185:189–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lele S. Math Geol. 1993;25:573–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lele S, Richtsmeier JT. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1991;86:415–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Leong SCL, White PS. Clin Otolaryngol. 2004;29:672–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Milgrim LM. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1996;122:1079–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mishima K. Cell Tissues Organs. 2002;170:198–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nechala P. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;103:1819–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ochi K, Ohashi T. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2002;126:160–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ofodile FA, Bokhari F. Ann Plast Surg. 1995;34:123–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Romo T, Abraham MT. Fac Plast Surg. 2003;19:269–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Theodore MC III, Richtsmeier JT. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1998;107:273–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Uzun A. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2006;33:31–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Weinberg SM, Kolar JC. J Craniofac Surg. 2005;16(5):847–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aesthetic, Plastic and Reconstructive SurgeryBursaTurkey

Personalised recommendations