Vertical and horizontal neoclassical facial canons in Turkish young adults

Abstract

Four vertical and three horizontal measurements were taken to assess the validity of neoclassical facial canons in 500 (272 female, 228 male) healthy, young adults between the ages of 18 and 25 years from Turkey and to compare them with a different population. The measurements were made by a millimetric compass. The special head height was longer than the special face height in the majority of our group (women/men: 97.8%/91.7%). The three-section facial profile canon was equal in only one male subject (women/men: 0/0.4%). Faces with four equal profile sections were not seen in either of the sexes. The nose length was longer than the ear length in the minority of our population (women/men: 1.5%/1.3%). The intercanthal distance was shorter than the nose width and left eye fissure length in the majority of our subjects (women/men: 50.4%/78.9% and 50.0%/52.2% respectively). The mouth width was greater than 1.5 times the nose width in the majority of this study (women/men: 66.9% vs 49.1%).

The validity of eight neoclassical facial canons in the Turkish adults

“…For some Turkish adults the eye fissure length was greater (54% of females, 49% of males) than the intercanthal distance. The similar results were also found in Africans (42%) [18] and in another study for Turkish population [3]. In contrast to our findings, Korean American females (100%), Southern Chinese people (100%) and North American white people (52%) have intercanthal distance greater than eye widths [4,6,13].…”

“…Whereas special face height was shorter than the special head height for both males and females in African American and North American white people [6,18,19]. In addition, when we compare our results for canon I with findings that were obtained from other studies in Turkish population the differences were seen between findings [2,3]. The results show that there may be differences in the facial proportions even in different regions of the same country.…”

“…Most of anthropometric data about the neoclassical canons comes from Farkas' work on North American white populations [6,7,10,15]. But another studies of Korean [4], Indian [12], African American [18], Turkish [2,3] and Chinese [13] subjects as well as the present study, reported that some of the Abbreviations as in Table 1 neoclassical canons may fit a few subjects and they do not represent the average facial proportions. In our study, especially the three-section and the four-section facial proportion could not be found valid even in a single participant.…”

Digital anthropometric shape analysis of 110 rhinoplasty patients in the Black Sea Region in Turkey

“…However, reports of anthropometric measurements of the Turkish noses are limited. We have compared our results with the results of other Turkish authors (Uzun et al, 2006;Borman et al, 1999;Hamamci et al, 2010;Bozkir et al, 2004;Gulsen et al, 2006), because some common findings may have been revealed. Also, a comparison was made with the results of different studies made on various races.…”

Detection of Driver Sleepiness and Warning the Driver in Real-Time Using Image Processing and Machine Learning Techniques

“…After finding the facial image, the left and right eye areas were cropped using the geometric ratios of the face and the left and right eye images were simultaneously found in these areas using parallel tasks [2]. The eye images were combined to obtain a minimum size image containing both eyes.…”