Evaluation of Facial Anthropometric Parameters in 11–17 Year Old Boys

Background and Objective: Anthropometry is the study of qualitative specifications based on linear and angular measurements of human body. The aim of the present study was to determine anthropometric parameters of 11-17 year old boys of northeast Iran. Method: This cross-sectional analytical study was conducted on 583 boys of Fars ethnicity living in Mashhad with Class I skeletal and dental relationships. Digital photographs in natural head position were transferred to a computer and the desired anthropometric landmarks were traced on each image. Anthropometric parameters including the width of the forehead, the width of the face, the width of the cranial base, intergonial width, intercanthal width, binocular width, nasal width, mouth width, facial and nasal height and depth of superior, middle and inferior one-third of the face were measured by “Smile Analyzer” software. ANOVA, Tukey test, and linear regression were used for statistical analysis. Results: Most of the parameters studied increased gradually with age. A growth spurt was evident at the ages of 15-16 years old for binocular width, nasal width, nasal height and depths of middle and inferior one-third of the face. Facial height was among some parameters which were found to increase slightly after 16. Unlike the other parameters, intercanthal width showed an irregular pattern of changes and statistical analysis did not show any significant differences among different age groups (P-value = 0.362). Conclusion: Aging of the face occurs in spurts and at different periods of life. During the studied time span, significant growth in most anthropometric parameters except intercanthal width was obvious.

Anthropometry-Face-Iran

1. El-Najjar MY, Mc William KR. Forensic Anthropology: The Structure, Morphology,  and  Variation  of  Human  Bone  and  Dentition.  1  st  ed. Thomas Publisher, USA, pp.12–15, 1977. 

2. Farkas LG, Katic MJ, Forrest CR, Alt KW, Bagic I, Baltadjiev G etal. International  anthropometric  study  of  facial  morphometry  in  various ethnic groups/races. Craniofac Surg, 16(4): 615–46, 2005.

3. Koltz PF, Bloom J, Sbitany H, Fargione RA, Girotto JA. Assessment of growth profiles in cleft children and adolescents. Plast Reconstr Surg, 126(6): 301e–302e, 2010.

4. Khandekar  B,  Srinvasan  N,  Mokal  N,  Thatte  MR.  Anthropometric analysis of lip-nose complex in Indian population. Indian J PlastSurg, 38(2): 128–31, 2005.

5. Farkas LG, Posnick JC, Hreczko TM. Growth patterns of the face: A morphometric study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J, 29(4): 308–15, 1992.

6. Choe KS, Sclafani AP, Litner JA, Yu GP, Romo T. The Korean Ameri-can  woman’s  face:  anthropometric  measurements  and  quantitative analysis  of  facial  aesthetics.  Arch  Facial  Plast  Surg,  6(4):  244–52, 2004.

7. Borman H, Ozgür F, Gürsu G. Evaluation of soft-tissue morphology of the face in 1,050 young adults. Ann Plast Surg, 42(3): 280–8, 1999.

8. Farkas LG, Hreczko TA, Kolar JC, Munro IR. Vertical and horizontal proportions  of  the  face  in  young  adult  North American  Caucasians: revision of neoclassical canons. Plast Reconstr Surg, 75: 328–38, 1985.

9. Farkas LG, Kolar JC, Munro IR. Geography of the nose: a morphome-tric study. Aesthetic Plast Surg, 10: 191–223, 1986.

10. Porter  JP,  Olson  KL.  Anthropometric  facial  analysis  of  the  African American woman. Arch Facial Plast Surg, 3: 191–7, 2001.

11. Ofodile FA, Bokhari FJ, Ellis C. The black American nose. Ann Plast Surg, 31: 209–19, 1993.

12. Ofodile FA, Bokhari F. The African-American nose: part II. Ann Plast Surg, 34: 123–29, 1995.

13. Jeffries  JM,  Dibernardo  B,  Rauscher  GE.  Computer  analysis  of  the African-American face. Ann Plast Surg, 34: 318–22, 1995.

14. Dawei W, Guozheng Q, Mingli Z, Farkas LG. Differences in horizon-tal, neoclassical facial canons in Chinese (Han) and North-American Caucasian populations. Aesthetic Plast Surg, 21: 265–9, 1997.

15. Xuetong Z, Sankui W, Wei Z, Xianfeng W. Measurement and study of the  nose  and  face  and  their  correlations  in  the  young  adult  of  Han nationality. Plast Reconstr Surg, 85: 532–6, 1990.

16. Sim  RSK,  Smith  JD,  Chan ASY.  Comparison  of  the  aesthetic  facial proportions of southern Chinese and white women. Arch Facial Plast Surg, 2: 113–20, 2000.

17. Kawakami S, Tsukada S, Hayashi H, Takada Y, Syouji K. Golden pro-portions  for  maxillofacial  surgery  in  Orientals.  Ann  Plast  Surg,  23: 417–25, 1989.

18. Fariaby J, Hossini A, Saffari E. Photographic analysis of faces of 20 year old students in Iran.Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 44(5): 393–6, 2006.

19. Pezeshkirad H, Jahanbin A, Modabber M. An investigation on facial and cranial anthropometric measurements among 20-35 year old indi-viduals  in  the  city  of  Mashhad.  J  Mashhad  Dent  Sch,  31(4):  261–8, 2008.

20. Dvortsin DP, Ye Q, Pruim GJ, Dijkstra PU, Ren Y. Reliability of the integrated radiograph-photograph method to obtain natural head posi-tion in cephalometric diagnosis. Angle Orthod, 81(5): 889–94, 2011.

21. Farkas  LG.  Anthropometry  of  head  and  face.  2nd  ed.  Ravan  Press, USA, pp. 25–90, 1994.

22. Farkas LG, Posnick JC. Growth and development of regional units in the head and face based on Anthropometric measurement. Cleft Palate Craniofac J, 29(1): 301–2, 1992.

23. Farahani M, Seifi M, Eslami Y. A comparison of cephalometric stan-dards of Iranian and American-Caucasian adolescents. Beheshti Dent J, 22(3): 495–501, 2004.

24. Koury M, Epker BN. Maxillofacial esthetics: anthropometric of max-illofacial region. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 50(8): 806–20, 1992.

25. Thordarson A, Johannsdottir B, Magnusson TE. Craniofacial changes in  Icelandic  children  between  6  and  16  years  of  age—a  longitudinal study. Eur J Orthod, 28(2): 152–65, 2006.

26. Farkas LG, Ngim RC, Lee ST. The fourth dimension of the face: a pre-liminary report of growth potential in the face of the Chinese popula-tion of Singapore. Ann Acad Med Singapore, 17(3): 319–27, 1988.