Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 150–157 | Cite as

Facial Anthropometric Norms of the Young Iranian Population

  • Mohammad Bayat
  • Mahsa Shariati
  • Fatemeh Rajaeirad
  • Mir Saeed Yekaninejad
  • Fatemeh Momen-heravi
  • Zeinab Davoudmanesh
Research Paper



Facial anthropometric measurement is considered an essential concern of surgeons, orthodontists, artists and forensic scientists. The aim of this study is to investigate facial anthropometric norms of the young Iranian population.


The study participants consisted of 200 healthy Iranian students (100 males, 100 females) aged 18–25 years old. Twenty-three liner and four angular measurements were investigated twice by a dentist. Independent-samples t test was used to compare indices between males and females and also between countries. A p value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.


It was found that the mean measurements of c’–sn’ of both sides, nasolabial angle, trichion–gnathion, tragion–tragion and gnathion–gnathion were statistically greater in Iranian males than in females (p < 0.05). Comparing Iranian anthropometric norms with North American Whites, Malays, Turkish and African American women demonstrated that there were statistically significant differences in most anthropometric measurements between Iranians and other populations (p < 0.05).


In Iranians, mean measurements of c’–sn’ of the right and left sides, nasolabial angle, trichion–gnathion, tragion–tragion and gnathion–gnathion were greater in men than in women. Comparing Iranian males and females with different ethnicities indicated several interracial differences, which should be taken into consideration when dealing with patients or also practitioners originated in this region.


Anthropometry Anthropometric norms Face Facial 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Mohammad Bayat, Mahsa Shariati, Fatemeh Rajaeirad,Mir Saeed Yekaninejad, Fatemeh Momen-heravi, Zeinab Davoudmanesh declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Uysal T, Baysal A, Yagci A, Sigler LM, McNamara JA Jr (2012) Ethnic differences in the soft tissue profiles of Turkish and European-American young adults with normal occlusions and well-balanced faces. Eur J Orthod 34:296–301CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Oshagh M, Salehi P, Pakshir H, Bazyar L, Rakhshan V (2011) Associations between normative and self-perceived orthodontic treatment needs in young-adult dental patients. Korean J Orthod 41:440–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hwang HS, Kim WS, McNamara JA Jr (2002) Ethnic differences in the soft tissue profile of Korean and European-American adults with normal occlusions and well-balanced faces. Angle Orthod 72:72–80PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Khosravanifard B, Rakhshan V, Raeesi E (2013) Factors influencing attractiveness of soft tissue profile. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 115:29–37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hamdan AM (2010) Soft tissue morphology of Jordanian adolescents. Angle Orthod 80:80–85CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Trevisan F, Gil CTLA (2006) Photogrametric and subjective analysis of the facial profile in young subjects with normal occlusion. Revista Dental Press de Ortodontia e Ortopedia Facial 11:24–35. doi: 10.1590/S1415-54192006000400004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bowman SJ (1999) More than lip service: facial esthetics in orthodontics. J Am Dent Assoc 130:1173–1181CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mohajerani H, Karimi F, Mohajerani A, Rakhshan V (2013) Incidence and risk factors of functional upper airway complications of primary esthetic closed rhinoplasty in two residency programs: a 6-month preliminary prospective cohort study. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 10:74–80Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sobouti F, Rakhshan V, Chiniforush N, Khatami M (2014) Effects of laser-assisted cosmetic smile lift gingivectomy on postoperative bleeding and pain in fixed orthodontic patients: a controlled clinical trial. Prog Orthod 15:66CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sforza C, Laino A, D’Alessio R, Grandi G, Tartaglia GM, Ferrario VF (2008) Soft-tissue facial characteristics of attractive and normal adolescent boys and girls. Angle Orthod 78:799–807CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Farkas LG, Kolar JC (1987) Anthropometrics and art in the aesthetics of women’s faces. Clin Plast Surg 14:599–616PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jimenez DF (1998) Craniofacial anthropometry: practical measurement of the head and face for clinical, surgical and research use. Neurosurgery 43:1254–1255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Argyropoulos E, Sassouni V (1989) Comparison of the dentofacial patterns for native Greek and American-Caucasian adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 95:238–249CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Legan HL, Burstone CJ (1980) Soft tissue cephalometric analysis for orthognathic surgery. J Oral Surg 38:744–751PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Farkas LG, Hreczko TA, Kolar JC, Munro IR (1985) Vertical and horizontal proportions of the face in young adult North American Caucasians. Plast Reconstr Surg 75:328–337CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Matoula S, Pancherz H (2006) Skeletofacial morphology of attractive and nonattractive faces. Angle Orthod 76:204–210PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mantzikos T (1998) Esthetic soft tissue profile preferences among the Japanese population. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 114:1–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nguyen DD, Turley PK (1998) Changes in the Caucasian male facial profile as depicted in fashion magazines during the twentieth century. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 114:208–217CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Scavone H Jr, Trevisan H Jr, Garib DG, Ferreira FV (2006) Facial profile evaluation in Japanese–Brazilian adults with normal occlusions and well-balanced faces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 129(721):e1–e5Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nomura M, Motegi E, Hatch JP, Gakunga PT, Ng’ang’a PM, Rugh JD et al (2009) Esthetic preferences of European American, Hispanic American, Japanese, and African judges for soft-tissue profiles. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 135:S87–S95CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Turkkahraman H, Gokalp H (2004) Facial profile preferences among various layers of Turkish population. Angle Orthod 74:640–647PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Porter JP (2001) Anthropometric facial analysis of the African American woman. Arch Facial Plast Surg 3:191–197CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Teck Sim RS (2000) Comparison of the aesthetic facial proportions of Southern Chinese and White women. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2:113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dawei W, Guozheng Q, Mingli Z, Farkas LG (1997) Differences in horizontal, neoclassical facial canons in Chinese (Han) and North American Caucasian populations. Aesthetic Plast Surg 21:265–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kasai K, Kanazawa E, Aboshi H, Tuisuva J, Takahashi M, Matsuno M (1998) Comparative study of craniofacial morphology and bite force in Fijians and Japanese. Am J Hum Biol 10:63–72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kasai K, Richards LC, Brown T (1993) Comparative study of craniofacial morphology in Japanese and Australian aboriginal populations. Hum Biol 65:821–834PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lehman JA Jr (1987) Soft-tissue manifestations of aesthetic defects of the jaws: diagnosis and treatment. Clin Plast Surg 14:767–783PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Foster EJ (1973) Profile preferences among diversified groups. Angle Orthod 43:34–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Erbay EF, Caniklioglu 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 121:65–72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Czarnecki ST, Nanda RS, Currier GF (1993) Perceptions of a balanced facial profile. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 104:180–187CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Al-Gunaid T, Yamada K, Yamaki M, Saito I (2007) Soft-tissue cephalometric norms in Yemeni men. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 132(576):e7–e14Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lew KK, Ho KK, Keng SB, Ho KH (1992) Soft-tissue cephalometric norms in Chinese adults with esthetic facial profiles. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 50:1184–1189 discussion 9–90 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Arslan SG, Genc C, Odabas B, Kama JD (2008) Comparison of facial proportions and anthropometric norms among Turkish young adults with different face types. Aesthetic Plast Surg 32:234–242CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Husein OF, Sepehr A, Garg R, Sina-Khadiv M, Gattu S, Waltzman J et al (2010) Anthropometric and aesthetic analysis of the Indian American woman’s face. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 63:1825–1831CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Amini F, Mashayekhi Z, Rahimi H, Morad G (2014) Craniofacial morphologic parameters in a Persian population. J Craniofac Surg 25:1874–1881CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ngeow WC, Aljunid ST (2009) Craniofacial anthropometric norms of Malaysian Indians. Indian J Dent Res 20:313CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Farkas LG, Katic MJ, Forrest CR (2002) Surface anatomy of the face in Down’s syndrome: age-related changes of anthropometric proportion indices in the craniofacial regions. J Craniofac Surg 13:368–374CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Farkas LG, Munro IR, Kolar JC (1985) Abnormal measurements and disproportions in the face of Down’s syndrome patients: preliminary report of an anthropometric study. Plast Reconstr Surg 75:159–167CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Arman A, Toygar TU, Abuhijleh E (2004) Profile changes associated with different orthopedic treatment approaches in Class III malocclusions. Angle Orthod 74:733–740PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Frankel R, Frankel C (1988) Orthodontics in orofacial region with help of function regulators. Inf Orthod Kieferorthop 20:277–309PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lundstrom A, Forsberg CM, Peck S, McWilliam J (1992) A proportional analysis of the soft tissue facial profile in young adults with normal occlusion. Angle Orthod 62:127–133 discussion 33–34 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Uysal T, Baysal A, Yagci A, Sigler LM, McNamara JA Jr (2012) Ethnic differences in the soft tissue profiles of Turkish and European-American young adults with normal occlusions and well-balanced faces. Eur J Orthod 34(3):296–301CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Berneburg M, Dietz K, Niederle C, Goz G (2010) Changes in esthetic standards since 1940. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 137(450):e1–e9 discussion-1 Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sajjadi SH, Khosravanifard B, Moazzami F, Rakhshan V, Esmaeilpour M (2015) Effects of three types of digital camera sensors on dental specialists’ perception of smile esthetics: a preliminary double-blind clinical trial. J Prosthodont 24:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons of India 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohammad Bayat
    • 1
  • Mahsa Shariati
    • 2
  • Fatemeh Rajaeirad
    • 2
  • Mir Saeed Yekaninejad
    • 3
  • Fatemeh Momen-heravi
    • 4
    • 5
  • Zeinab Davoudmanesh
    • 2
  1. 1.Craniomaxillofacial Research Center, Shariati Hospital and Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Dental SchoolTehran University of Medical SciencesTehranIslamic Republic of Iran
  2. 2.Craniomaxillofacial Research Center, Shariati HospitalTehran University of Medical SciencesTehranIslamic Republic of Iran
  3. 3.Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public HealthTehran University of Medical SciencesTehranIslamic Republic of Iran
  4. 4.Craniomaxillofacial Research CenterTehran University of Medical SciencesTehranIslamic Republic of Iran
  5. 5.Department of MedicineUniversity of Massachusetts Medical SchoolWorcesterUSA

Personalised recommendations