Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Surg J (N Y) 2016; 02(01): e44-e48
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1579658
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

When Aesthetics, Surgery, and Psychology Meet: Aesthetic Nasal Proportions in Patients Having Rhinoplasty and Normal Adults

Mohsen Naraghi
1   Division of Rhinology and Facial Plastic Surgery, Department of Otorhinolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2   Otorhinolaryngology Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3   Rhinology Research Society, Tehran, Iran
,
Mohammad Atari
4   Department of Psychology, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
,
Hossein Asadollahi
3   Rhinology Research Society, Tehran, Iran
5   Medical Sciences Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

23 November 2015

21 January 2016

Publication Date:
24 February 2016 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The aesthetic nasal proportions have played a significant role in rhinoplasty practice. On the other hand, psychological variables also play a crucial role in rhinoplasty. It is of paramount importance for facial plastic surgeons to consider both sides to achieve a more satisfactory outcome. The present study aimed to compare aesthetic nasal proportions between primary rhinoplasty candidates and a demographically matched control group to determine whether patients having rhinoplasty have different aesthetic nasal proportions compared with healthy adults who are not interested in rhinoplasty. Sixty patients having rhinoplasty were selected consecutively from a surgical clinic. A control group (n = 60) with the same demographic characteristics was selected. Photographs were taken using a digital camera on a fixed zoom setting. All images were captured at a distance of 1.5 m. Frontal and right lateral views were used to compare nasolabial angle, nasofrontal angle, nasofacial angle, alar width, intercanthal distance, nasal length, and width-to-length ratio. Independent t tests were used for comparisons. Independent t tests verified that nasofrontal angle, nasal length, and width-to-length ratio were significantly different between the two groups (p < 0.01). Effect sizes ranged between 0.11 and 0.69. Aesthetic proportions were not significantly different in four factors. Nasolabial angle, nasofacial angle, alar width, and intercanthal distance were not different (p > 0.05). Four major aesthetic nasal proportions were statistically similar in a group of patients having rhinoplasty and a control group with no interest in rhinoplasty. Surprisingly, the patients having rhinoplasty showed a mean width-to-length ratio closer to aesthetic ideal. Therefore, applying for rhinoplasty may have strong psychological reasons (e.g., body dysmorphic symptoms) compared with realistic aesthetic appraisals.

Keywords

facial plastic surgery - facial aesthetics - rhinoplasty - psychology
 

  • References

  • 1 Cunningham MR, Roberts AR, Barbee AP, Druen PB, Wu CH. “Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours”: consistency and variability in the crosscultural perception of female physical attractiveness. J Pers Soc Psychol 1995; 68 (02) 261-279
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Langlois JH, Kalakanis L, Rubenstein AJ, Larson A, Hallam M, Smoot M. Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychol Bull 2000; 126 (03) 390-423
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Aharon I, Etcoff N, Ariely D, Chabris CF, O'Connor E, Breiter HC. Beautiful faces have variable reward value: fMRI and behavioral evidence. Neuron 2001; 32 (03) 537-551
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Berscheid E, Reis HT. Attraction and close relationships. In: Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindzey G. eds. The Handbook of Social Psychology. New York, NY and London, UK: Oxford University Press; 1998: 193-281
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Rhodes G, Simmons L, Peters M. Attractiveness and sexual behaviour: does attractiveness enhance mating success?. Evol Hum Behav 2005; 26: 186-201
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hosoda M, Stone-Romero EF, Coats G. The effects of physical attractiveness on job related outcomes: a meta-analysis of experimental studies. Pers Psychol 2003; 56: 431-462
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Etcoff N. Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty. New York, NY: Anchor/Doubleday; 1999
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Andretto Amodeo C. The central role of the nose in the face and the psyche: review of the nose and the psyche. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2007; 31 (04) 406-410
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Babuccu O, Latifoğlu O, Atabay K, Oral N, Coşan B. Sociological aspects of rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2003; 27 (01) 44-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Cash TF, Pruzinsky T. Body Images: Development, Deviance and Change. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1990
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Litner JA, Rotenberg BW, Dennis M, Adamson PA. Impact of cosmetic facial surgery on satisfaction with appearance and quality of life. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2008; 10 (02) 79-83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Reilly MJ, Tomsic JA, Fernandez SJ, Davison SP. Effect of facial rejuvenation surgery on perceived attractiveness, femininity, and personality. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2015; 17 (03) 202-207
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Chauhan N, Warner JP, Adamson PA. Perceived age change after aesthetic facial surgical procedures quantifying outcomes of aging face surgery. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2012; 14 (04) 258-262
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Sarwer DB, Crerand CE. Body image and cosmetic medical treatments. Body Image 2004; 1 (01) 99-111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Cook SA, Rosser R, Meah S, James MI, Salmon P. Clinical decision guidelines for NHS cosmetic surgery: analysis of current limitations and recommendations for future development. Br J Plast Surg 2003; 56 (05) 429-436
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Naraghi M, Atari M. Comparison of patterns of psychopathology in aesthetic rhinoplasty patients versus functional rhinoplasty patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2015; 152 (02) 244-249
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Mulkens S, Bos AER, Uleman R, Muris P, Mayer B, Velthuis P. Psychopathology symptoms in a sample of female cosmetic surgery patients. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2012; 65 (03) 321-327
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Zojaji R, Javanbakht M, Ghanadan A, Hosien H, Sadeghi H. High prevalence of personality abnormalities in patients seeking rhinoplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007; 137 (01) 83-87
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Naraghi M, Atari M. A comparison of depression scores between aesthetic and functional rhinoplasty patients. Asian J Psychiatr 2015; 14: 28-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Naraghi M, Atari M. Comparison of self-esteem status in aesthetic and functional rhinoplasty patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014; 151 (Suppl. 01) 139
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Atari M, Akbari-Zardkhaneh S, Mohammadi L, Soufiabadi M. The factor structure and psychometric properties of the Persian version of Body Appreciation Scale. American Journal of Applied Psychology 2015; 3 (03) 62-66
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Dey JK, Ishii M, Phillis M, Byrne PJ, Boahene KD, Ishii LE. Body dysmorphic disorder in a facial plastic and reconstructive surgery clinic: measuring prevalence, assessing comorbidities, and validating a feasible screening instrument. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2015; 17 (02) 137-143
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Barahmand U, Mozdsetan N, Narimani M. Body dysmorphic traits and personality disorder patterns in rhinoplasty seekers. Asian J Psychiatr 2010; 3 (04) 194-199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 American Psychiatric Association. Text revision. In: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th ed. Washington, DC: APA; 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Bull TR. Rhinoplasty: aesthetics, ethics and airway. J Laryngol Otol 1983; 97 (10) 901-916
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Leong SCL, White PS. A comparison of aesthetic proportions between the Oriental and Caucasian nose. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2004; 29 (06) 672-676
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Alam M, Dover JS. On beauty: evolution, psychosocial considerations, and surgical enhancement. Arch Dermatol 2001; 137 (06) 795-807
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Nolst Trenité GJ. Considerations in ethnic rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg 2003; 19 (03) 239-245
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Bagal AA, Adamson PA. Revision rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg 2002; 18 (04) 233-244
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Gruber RP, Peck GC. Rhinoplasty: State of the Art. St. Louis, MO: Mosby-Year Book; 1993
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Johnson CM, Toriumi DM. Open Structure Rhinoplasty. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders Company; 1990
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Mackay IS, Bull TR. Scott-Brown's Otolaryngology–Rhinology. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1997
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Maran AGD, Lund VJ. Clinical Rhinology. Stuttgart, Germany: Thieme Medical Publishers; 1990
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Powell NB. Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery. St. Louis, MO: Mosby-Year Book; 1993
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Powell NB, Humphreys B. Proportions of the Aesthetic Face. New York, NY: Thieme-Stratton; 1984
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Porter JP. The average African American male face: an anthropometric analysis. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2004; 6 (02) 78-81
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Sim RST, Smith JD, Chan ASY. Comparison of the aesthetic facial proportions of southern Chinese and white women. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2000; 2 (02) 113-120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Armijo BS, Brown M, Guyuron B. Defining the ideal nasolabial angle. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129 (03) 759-764
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Pousti SB, Jalessi M, Asghari A. Management of nasofrontal angle in rhinoplasty. Iran Red Crescent Med J 2010; 12: 7-11
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Jain SK, Anand C, Ghosh SK. Photometric facial analysis: a baseline study. J Anat Soc India 2004; 53: 11-13
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Hormozi AK, Toosi AB. Rhinometry: an important clinical index for evaluation of the nose before and after rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2008; 32 (02) 286-293
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Gupta VP, Sodhi PK, Pandey RM. Normal values for inner intercanthal, interpupillary, and outer intercanthal distances in the Indian population. Int J Clin Pract 2003; 57 (01) 25-29
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Leong SC, White PS. A comparison of aesthetic proportions between the healthy Caucasian nose and the aesthetic ideal. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2006; 59 (03) 248-252
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Shipchandler TZ, Sultan B, Ishii L. , et al. Aesthetic analysis in rhinoplasty: surgeon vs. patient perspectives: a prospective, blinded study. Am J Otolaryngol 2013; 34 (02) 93-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Phillips KA, Dufresne RG. Body dysmorphic disorder. A guide for dermatologists and cosmetic surgeons. Am J Clin Dermatol 2000; 1 (04) 235-243
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Veale D, De Haro L, Lambrou C. Cosmetic rhinoplasty in body dysmorphic disorder. Br J Plast Surg 2003; 56 (06) 546-551
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Alavi M, Kalafi Y, Dehbozorgi GR, Javadpour A. Body dysmorphic disorder and other psychiatric morbidity in aesthetic rhinoplasty candidates. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2011; 64 (06) 738-741
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar