|
 
 |
| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2022 | Volume
: 42
| Issue : 2 | Page : 87-90 |
|
A comparison of facial profiles between the general populations of Taiwan and Fiji: A preliminary study
Wan-Hsuan Sun1, Su-Yi Hsu2
1 Department of Otolaryngology, National Defense Medical Center, Tri-Service General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
2 Department of Otolaryngology, Cathay General Hospital; Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Fu Jen Catholic University, Taipei, Taiwan
| Date of Submission | 06-Jan-2021 |
| Date of Decision | 03-Mar-2021 |
| Date of Acceptance | 01-Apr-2021 |
| Date of Web Publication | 30-Mar-2022 |
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Su-Yi Hsu
No. 280, Sec. 4, Ren'ai Rd., Da'an Dist., Taipei City
Taiwan
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/jmedsci.jmedsci_6_21
Background: Comprehensive facial assessment can be attained by analyzing population facial profiles and comparing racial variations. To date, there are no databases of Taiwanese facial profiles. Furthermore, facial profiles vary widely among different countries and races. Understanding these differences may facilitate facial profile analyses and surgical planning for facial plastic surgeons. Therefore, in this study, we collected the facial profile parameters of Taiwanese and Fijian people and then analyzed the differences between the two populations. Methods: We recruited 94 Taiwanese individuals at Fu Jen University from December 2014 to November 2015. During a volunteer medical mission to Fiji in November 2017, we enrolled 13 Fijians. Right lateral standard facial photographs were taken to analyze facial profile parameters, including nasofrontal angle (NFA), nasolabial angle, nasofacial angle (NfA), nasomental angle (NMA), mentocervical angle (MCA), glabella-subnasale-pogonion angle, glabella-nasal tip-pogonion angle, superior labial angle, inferior labial angle, and pogonial angle. These parameters were compared between both males and females in Taiwan and Fiji. Results: We observed no significant difference in any of the facial profile parameters between males and females in both Taiwan and Fiji. Compared with Fijian individuals, Taiwanese females have a sharper NfA, and Taiwanese males have a more obtuse NFA, NMA, and MCA, as well as a sharper NfA. Conclusion: Fijian females may have a more outstanding nose than Taiwanese females. Meanwhile, Fijian males may feature a more prominent glabella, a more outstanding nose, and a sharper chin compared with Taiwanese males. In conclusion, the Fijian population has more prominent facial convexity than the Taiwanese population.
Keywords: Facial convexity, Taiwanese facial profile, Fijian facial profile
How to cite this article:
Sun WH, Hsu SY. A comparison of facial profiles between the general populations of Taiwan and Fiji: A preliminary study. J Med Sci 2022;42:87-90 |
| Introduction | |  |
Complete facial profile evaluation before cosmetic surgery is essential for facial plastic surgeons. Comprehensive facial assessment can be attained by analyzing population facial profiles and comparing racial variations. Many studies discussing the facial profile of African American and Caucasian individuals have previously been conducted.[1],[2],[3] However, no database of Taiwanese facial profiles is currently available.
Facial profiles vary widely among different countries and races, and understanding these differences may facilitate facial profile analyses and surgical planning for facial plastic surgeons. Thanks to Cathay General Hospital's annual volunteer medical mission to Fiji, we had the opportunity to approach Fijians and collect their facial profile data. We were thus able to collect the facial profile parameters of both Taiwanese and Fijian individuals and then analyze the differences between the two populations.
| Materials and Methods | | |
One of our previous studies, which was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Cathay General Hospital (IRB number: CGH-P106021), was conducted from December 2014 to November 2015 at Fu Jen University, People's Republic of China (Taiwan) and involved recruiting 94 Taiwanese (67 females and 27 males). All the cases were at least 18 years old. After obtaining informed consent, we took standard facial photographs (front, right oblique, left oblique, right lateral, left lateral, helicopter, and basal). Furthermore, standard facial photographs of 13 Fijians were collected for facial, nose, and thyroid surgery during a volunteer medical mission to Fiji in November 2017.
All standard facial photographs were taken by Dr. Su-Yi Hsu. Facial profile parameters included nasofrontal angle (NFA), nasolabial angle (NLA), nasofacial angle (NfA), nasomental angle (NMA), mentocervical angle (MCA), glabella-subnasale-pogonion (G-Sn-Pg) angle, glabella-nasal tip-pogonion (G-T-Pg) angle, superior labial angle (angle S), inferior labial angle (angle I), and pogonial angle (angle Pg), which were calculated using right lateral facial photographs and the “My Measures” software (Top App d.o.o., Špruha 19, 1236 Trzin, Slovenija) and then recorded. The NFA parameter was defined by the glabella-to-nasion line intersecting with the nasion-to-tip line. NLA was defined by the columellar tangent line intersecting with the subnasale-to-labrale superius line. NfA was defined by the glabella-to-pogonion line (the facial plane) intersecting with the nasion-to-tip line. NMA was defined by the nasion-to-tip line intersecting with the tip-to-pogonion line. MCA was defined by the glabella-to-pogonion line intersecting with the menton-to-cervical point line. The G-Sn-Pg angle was defined by the glabella-to-subnasale line intersecting with the subnasale-to-pogonion line. The G-T-Pg angle was defined by the glabella-to-tip line intersecting with the tip-to-pogonion line. Angle S was defined by the nasion-to-labrale superius line intersecting with the Frankfort horizontal plane. Angle I was defined by the nasion-to-labrale inferius line intersecting with the Frankfort horizontal plane. Angle Pg was defined by the nasion-to-pogonion line intersecting with the Frankfort horizontal plane [Figure 1]. | Figure 1: Facial profile parameters. G = Glabella; N = Nasion; T = Tip-defining point; Cm = Columellar point; Sn = Subnasale; Versus = Superior vermillion borders; Ls = Labrale superius; Li = Labrale inferius; Pg = Pogonion; M = Menton; C = Cervical point; FH = Frankfort horizontal plane = A line connecting the upper margin of the tragus and infraorbital rim; NFA = Nasofrontal angle; NfA = Nasofacial angle; NMA = Nasomental angle; NLA = Nasolabial angle; MCA = Mentocervical angle; G-T-Pg = Glabella-nasal tip-pogonion; G-Sn-Pg = Glabella-subnasale-pogonion; Angle S = Superior labial angle; Angle I = Inferior labial angle; Angle Pg = Pogonial angle
Click here to view |
Using independent sample t-test, SPSS software, we analyzed the differences of the facial parameters between female and male Taiwanese individuals; female and male Fijians; female Taiwanese and Fijian individuals; and male Taiwanese and Fijians.
| Results | | |
Our database of Taiwanese facial profiles was established from these 94 Taiwanese individuals [Table 1]. No significant difference was found among any of the facial profile parameters between females and males. Data of the Fijian facial profile are listed in [Table 2], and we observed no significant differences in any of the parameters between male and female Fijians [Table 2].
As compared with Fijian females, Taiwanese females have a sharper NfA with significant statistically difference (Taiwanese females 138.3° ± 5.4° vs. Fijian females 128.9° ± 8.9°, P < 0.001) [Table 3]. Furthermore, Taiwanese males have a more obtuse NFA (Taiwanese males 135.2° ± 8.7° vs. Fijian males 124° ± 9.9°, P = 0.001), NMA (Taiwanese males 133.6 ± 5.4° vs. Fijian males 127.2° ± 6.9°, P = 0.043), and MCA (Taiwanese males 92.8° ± 9.5° vs. Fijian males 83.7° ± 4.1°, P = 0.27), as well as a sharper NfA (Taiwanese males 34.6° ± 5.8° vs. Fijian males 41.9° ± 5.9°, P < 0.001) with significant statistically different result [Table 4].{Table 3}
| Discussion | | |
In the comparison between males and females of Taiwanese, there is no significant difference of all the parameters of lateral facial profile. In the comparison between males and females of Fijian, there is either no significant difference of all the parameters of lateral facial profile. Although the concepts of beauty may be different among males and females, the calculated data of original facial profile were quite the same in the same country. We may assume that the race takes a big role of facial appearance development but not the sex.
The majority race in Taiwanese is Han Chinese. While in Fiji, according to Fiji Bureau of Statistics, 57% of population is original Fijian and 37% of population is Indian. As compared with Fijian females and males, both Taiwanese females and males have a sharper NfA. Furthermore, Taiwanese males have more obtuse NFA, NMA, and MCA than Fijian males. These results indicate that Taiwanese individuals have less facial profile convexity than Fijian people.
By understanding Taiwanese facial profile more and more by this comparison, we can have better esthetic evaluation and suggestion for the patients. Previous studies have shown that people with greater profile convexity may be considered to be more attractive.[1],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8] Complete facial evaluation before cosmetic surgery is essential for esthetic surgeons. To achieve patients' expectations, the concept of beauty should be established based on both facial proportions and profile convexity.
This study has certain limitations. First, more data are needed regarding Fijian facial profile collection to perform a more comprehensive analysis. People in Fiji come from two major races: Indo-Fijian and Fijian. Different races within one country should also be considered when discussing differences between people's facial profiles, from race to race or from country to country. Furthermore, to establish the database of Taiwanese facial profiles, more data from a wider age group are also needed.
| Conclusion | | |
The Fijian population has more prominent facial convexity than the Taiwanese individuals. All differences in facial profile parameters may cause racial variations in facial convexity that should be considered when assessing beauty before performing facial plastic surgery.
Ethical approval
The study was conducted in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the local ethics committee of the institute. Informed written consent was obtained from all participants and patients.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References | | |
| 1. | Enlow DH, Pfister C, Richardson E, Kuroda T. An analysis of Black and Caucasian craniofacial patterns. Angle Orthod 1982;52:279-87.  |
| 2. | Bailey KL, Taylor RW. Mesh diagram cephalometric norms for Americans of African descent. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:218-23. |
| 3. | de Freitas LM, de Freitas KM, Pinzan A, Janson G, de Freitas MR. A comparison of skeletal, dentoalveolar and soft tissue characteristics in white and black Brazilian subjects. J Appl Oral Sci 2010;18:135-42. |
| 4. | Auger TA, Turley PK. The female soft tissue profile as presented in fashion magazines during the 1900s: A photographic analysis. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1999;14:7-18. |
| 5. | Yehezkel S, Turley PK. Changes in the African American female profile as depicted in fashion magazines during the 20 th century. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125:407-17. |
| 6. | Peck H, Peck S. A concept of facial esthetics. Angle Orthod 1970;40:284-318. |
| 7. | Foster EJ. Profile preferences among diversified groups. Angle Orthod 1973;43:34-40. |
| 8. | Farrow AL, Zarrinnia K, Azizi K. Bimaxillary protrusion in black Americans – An esthetic evaluation and the treatment considerations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;104:240-50. |
[Figure 1]
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]
|
Search Pubmed for