European Journal of Plastic Surgery

, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 189–206 | Cite as

Assessment of facial harmony among Caucasian Spaniards 18 to 60 years of age and its relationship with the golden ratio

  • José Francisco Ballester Ferrandis
  • Francisco Martínez Soriano
  • Maria Isabel Ribera Vega
  • Juan José Font Ferrandis
Original Paper



Throughout history, the perception and definition of beauty and attractiveness have changed and have been influenced by cultural norms. This article analyzes the concept of “facial normality” (faces that are considered normal by 90% of respondents and, therefore, do not require esthetic surgery) among Spaniards of Caucasian ancestry. We also sought to determine the relationship between faces that are considered “normal” and the golden ratio.


We surveyed 54 respondents (equal numbers of women and men) between the ages of 18 and 60. The surveys followed the visual analog scale (VAS) protocol, and 13,514 responses were obtained. The respondents were asked to evaluate up to nine photographed faces according to their degree of attractiveness.


According to the data obtained, “facial normality” or facial beauty can be defined by the following characteristics: (a) the sizes of the three facial segments (equal in proportion), (b) the width of the nose (narrow in women and average in men), and (c) the profile (straight or slightly retracted in women and straight or slightly prominent in men). In addition, five specific facial proportions were directly related to the golden ratio. Thus, the concept of “normal” can be applied to 90% of faces whose proportions fall within distinct ranges that encompass the value of the golden ratio.


We conclude that a standard perception of “facial normality” and facial beauty does exist. We also observed a general correlation between specific facial proportions and the golden ratio.

Level of Evidence: Not ratable.


Facial beauty Divine proportion Golden ratio Orthognathic surgery 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

José Francisco Ballester Ferrandis, Francisco Martínez Soriano, Maria Isabel Ribera Vega, and Juan José Font Ferrandis declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Patient consent

Patients provided written consent for the use of their images.

Informed consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required.




  1. 1.
    Maslow AH (1943) A theory of human motivation. Psychol Rev 50(4):370–396Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bashoure M (2006) An objetive system for measuring facial attractiveness plast. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:757–774Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hönn M, Göz G (2007) The ideal of facial beauty: a review. J Orofac Orthop 68(1):6–16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Farkas LG, Katic MJ, Forrest CR et al (2005) International anthropometric study of facial morphology in various ethnic groups/races. J Craniofac Surg 16:615–646CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jefferson Y (1993) Facial esthetics-presentation of an ideal face. J Gen Orthod 4(1):18–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ricketts RM (1982) Divine proportion in facial esthetics. Clin Plast Surg Ovt 9(4):401–422Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Preston JD (1993) The golden proportion revisited. J Esthet Dent 5(6):247–251CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Amoric M (1995) The golden number: applications to cranio-facial evaluation. Funct Orthod 12(1):18–21 24-25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baker BW, Woods MG (2001) The role of the divine proportion in the aesthetic improvement of patients undergoing combined orthodontic/orthognathic surgical treatment. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath surg 16(2):108–120PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shell TL, Woody MG. (2004) Facial aesthetics and the divine proportion; a comparison of surgical and non. surgical class II treatment. Aust. Orthod. J 20 (2), 51–63Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Holland E (2008) Marquardt’s Phi mask: pit falls of relying on fashion models and the golden ratio to describe a beautiful face. Aesthetic Plast Surg 32:200–208Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rossetti A, De Menezes M, Rosati R, Ferrario VFS, Forza C (2013) The role of the golden proportion in the evaluation of facial aesthetics. Angle Orthod 83(5):801–808CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rajiv A, Juhi Y (2014) Golden proportions as predictors of attracstiveness and malocclusion. Indian J Den Rev 25(6):788–793Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Perrett D., May Ka, Yoshikawa S. (1994). Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness. Nature. 17, 368 (6468) 239–242Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Duggal S, Kapoor DN, Verma S, Sagar M, Lee Y-S, Moon H, Rhee SC (2016) Photogrammetic Analysis of attractiveness in indian faces. Arch plast surg 43(2):160–171CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Aníc-Milosëvíc S, Lapter-Vargha M, Dumancic J, Slaj M (2011) Analisis of the soft tissue profile in Croatians with normal oclusions and well- balanced face. Eur J Orthod 33(3):305–310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Michiels G, Sather A (1994) Determinants of facial attractiveness in a simple of White women. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 9(2):95–103PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Prokopakis EP, Vlastos JM, Picavet VA, Noist Trenite G, Thomas R, Cingi C, Helliges PW (2013) The Golden ratio in facial symmetry. Rhinology 51(1):18–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Soler C, Kekäläimen J, Númez M, Sancho M, Núñez J, Yaber I, Gutiérrez R (2012) Male facial anthropometry and Attractriveness. Perception 41 (20), 1234-1245.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Swaddle JP, Cuthiel IC (1995) Asymmetry and human facial attractiveness: Symmetry may not always be beautiful. Proc Bill Sci 261(1360):111–6Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Medici Filho E, Martins MV, Dos Santos Da Silva MA, Castilho JC, De Moraes LC, Gil CT (2007) Divine proportions and facial aesthetic after manipulation of frontal photographs. World J Orthod 8(2):103–108Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Knight H, Keith O (2005) Ranking facial attractiveness. Eur J Orthod 27(4):340–348CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Erbay EF, Canikliogln CM (2002) Soft tissue profile in Anatolian Turkish adults; part II. Comparison of different soft tissue analyses in the evaluation of beauty. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 121(1):85–72Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Johnston DJ, Hunt O, Johnston (1), Burden DJ, Stevensson M, Hepper P. (2005) The influence of lower face vertical proportion on facial attractiveness. Eur J Orthod 27 (4), 349–354Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Scheideman GB, Bell WH, Legan HL, Finn RA, Reisch JS (1980) Cephalometric analysis of dentofacial normals. Am J Orthod 78(4):404–420CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mesaros A, Cornea D, Cioara L, Dudea D, Mesaros M, Badea M (2015) Facial attractiveness assessment using illustrated questionnairer. Clujul Med 88(1):73–78Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rhee SC, Woo KS, Kwon B (2012) Biometric study of eyelid shape and dimensions of different races with references to beauty. Aesthet Plast Surg 36(5):1236–1245Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mc Curdy JA (2006) Beautiful eyes: characteristics and application to aesthetic surgery. Facial plastic surgery (3):204–214Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Faure JC, Rieffe C, Maltha JC (2002) The influence of different facial components on facial aesthetics. Eur J Orthod 24(1):1–7Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Devcic Z, Rayikanti BA, Hevia JP, Popenki NA, Karimik, Wong BJ (2011) Nasal tip projection and facial attractiveness. Laryngoscope 121(7):1388–1394CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yu XN, Bai D, Feng X, Lin YH, Chen WJ (2016) Correlation beween cephalometric measures and end-of-treatment facial attractiveness. J Craniofac Surg 27(2):405–409Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Modarai F, Donaldson JC, Naini FB (2013) The influence of lower lip position on the perceived atractiveness of chin prominence. Angle Orthod 83(5):795–800CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Murthy BV, Ramani N (2008) Evaluation of natural smile: golden proportions, RED or golden percentage. J Conserv Dent 11(1):16–21CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mahshid M, Khoshvaghti A, Varshosaz M, Vallael N (2004) Evaluation of “golden proportion” in individuals with an esthetic smile. J Esthet Restor Dent 16(3):183–193 discussion 193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Macías Gago AB, Romero Manoto M, Crego A (2012) The perception of funcional aesthetics in a young spanish population. Eur J Orthod 34(3):335–339CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nomura M, Motegi E, Hatch JP, GAkunga PT, Ngángá PM, Rugh JD, Yamaguchi H (2009) Esthetic preferencies of European American, Hispanic american, Japanese, and African judges for soft tissue profiles. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 135(4 suppl):S 87–S 95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zhao Q, Zhou R, Zhang X, Sun H, Lu X, Xia D, Song M, Liang Y (2013) Morphological quantitative criteria and aesthetic evaluation of eight female han face types. Aesthetic Plast Surg 37(2):445–453CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pancherz H, Knapp V, Erbe C, Heiss AM (2010 Spring) Divine proportions in attractive and non attractive face. World J Orthod 11(1):27–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jahanbin A, Basafa M, Alizadeh Y (2008) Evaluation of the divine proportion in the facial profile of young females. Indian J Dent Res 19(4):292–296CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Khosravanifard B, Ralkhshan V, Raeesi E (2013) Factors influencing attractiveness of soft tissue profile. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 115(1):29–37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • José Francisco Ballester Ferrandis
    • 1
  • Francisco Martínez Soriano
    • 2
  • Maria Isabel Ribera Vega
    • 3
  • Juan José Font Ferrandis
    • 4
  1. 1.ValenciaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Anatomy and Human Embryology, Faculty of Medicine and DentistryValenciaSpain
  3. 3.Department of Reconstructive DentistryFaculty of Dental Sciences, University Alfonso X of MadridMadridSpain
  4. 4.Department of MathematicsUniversity Jaume I of CastellónCastellónSpain

Personalised recommendations