Morphological quantitative criteria and aesthetic evaluation of eight female Han face types.

BACKGROUND: Human facial aesthetics relies on the classification of facial features and standards of attractiveness. However, there are no widely accepted quantitative criteria for facial attractiveness, particularly for Chinese Han faces. Establishing quantitative standards of attractiveness for facial landmarks within facial types is important for planning outcomes in cosmetic plastic surgery. The aim of this study was to determine quantitatively the criteria for attractiveness of eight female Chinese Han facial types.

METHODS: A photographic database of young Chinese Han women's faces was created. Photographed faces (450) were classified based on eight established types and scored for attractiveness. Measurements taken at seven standard facial landmarks and their relative proportions were analyzed for correlations to attractiveness scores. Attractive faces of each type were averaged via an image-morphing algorithm to generate synthetic facial types. Results were compared with the neoclassical ideal and data for Caucasians.

RESULTS: Morphological proportions corresponding to the highest attractiveness scores for Chinese Han women differed from the neoclassical ideal. In our population of young, normal, healthy Han women, high attractiveness ratings were given to those with greater temporal width and pogonion-gonion distance, and smaller bizygomatic and bigonial widths. As attractiveness scores increased, the ratio of the temporal to bizygomatic widths increased, and the ratio of the distance between the pogonion and gonion to the bizygomatic width also increased slightly. Among the facial types, the oval and inverted triangular were the most attractive.

CONCLUSION: The neoclassical ideal of attractiveness does not apply to Han faces. However, the proportion of faces considered attractive in this population was similar to that of Caucasian populations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .