4.4 Article

Anthropometry Analysis of Beautiful Upper Eyelids in Oriental: New Eyelid Crease Ratio and Clinical Application

Journal

AESTHETIC PLASTIC SURGERY
Volume 44, Issue 2, Pages 392-410

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00266-019-01536-w

Keywords

Asian eyes; Attractiveness; Double eyelid

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Beautiful upper eyelids can make one feel more attractive and confident. However, the definition of a beautiful upper eyelid in Orientals is still not defined. The aim of this study was to define the most beautiful upper eyelids in Orientals. Methods Participants, who met the inclusion criteria such as Asian ethnic, ages between 18 and 25 years, and double eyelid fold, were conducted. Double upper eyelids were classified into three groups, group A: most beautiful; group B: average; and group C: less beautiful upper eyelid, by plastic surgeons and beauty contestant winners. Eleven linear measurements and type of epicanthal fold were analyzed. Results A total of 153 participants were included, 66 were male and 87 were female. The mean ages were 21.45 years in males and 21.41 years in the female group. The vertical distances of the palpebral fissure, height of the double fold, height of the lid crease and height of the closed upper eyelid were found to be significantly different between the most, average and less beautiful upper eyelids in both males and females. The type 1 epicanthal fold was the most common in the most beautiful upper eyelid group. Conclusion The most beautiful double upper eyelids in Orientals demonstrated a higher vertical palpebral fissure, double eyelid fold, and height of eyelid crease than the average and the less beautiful double upper eyelids. The ratio of height of lower margin of eyebrow to eyelid crease: Height of eyelid crease is 1.2:1 to create the beautiful double upper eyelids. However, preoperative consultation with realistic expectations is important.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available