[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.157.19.94. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Download PDF
Figure 1.
Landmarks superimposed on a photograph of a typical Javanese woman. A, Frontal view; B, basal view. Abbreviations indicate the following: ac, alar crease; al, ala nasi; c, columella breakpoint; en, endocanthion; ex, exocanthion; g, glabella; ld, left dome; li, labium inferius oris; ls, labium superius oris; m, menton; mf, maxillofacial point; n, nasion; or, orbital rim; pg, pogonion; rd, right dome; rh, rhinion; sl, mentolabial sulcus; sn, subnasale; sto, stomion; t, tip-defining point; tr, trichion. See the “Methods” section for definitions.

Landmarks superimposed on a photograph of a typical Javanese woman. A, Frontal view; B, basal view. Abbreviations indicate the following: ac, alar crease; al, ala nasi; c, columella breakpoint; en, endocanthion; ex, exocanthion; g, glabella; ld, left dome; li, labium inferius oris; ls, labium superius oris; m, menton; mf, maxillofacial point; n, nasion; or, orbital rim; pg, pogonion; rd, right dome; rh, rhinion; sl, mentolabial sulcus; sn, subnasale; sto, stomion; t, tip-defining point; tr, trichion. See the “Methods” section for definitions.

Figure 2.
Anthropometric data from Javanese women compared with those from white women (the value for white women is 100%; the asterisk indicates that P < .001, compared with the data of Farkas; the dagger indicates that P < .03, compared with the data of Farkas; and the double dagger indicates that P < .001, compared with the data of McGraw-Wall). Abbreviations indicate the following: al-al, ala nasi width; en-en, epicanthal distance; FCA, facial convexity angle; LFH, lower facial height; MC, mentocervical angle; mf-mf, nasal floor width; MFH, midfacial height; NFA, nasofacial angle; NFR, nasofrontal angle; NLA, nasolabial angle; NM, nasomental distance; NT, nasal length; sl, mentolabial sulcus; SM, Stomion-Menton distance; sn-c, subnasale-columella distance; UFH, upper facial height; ULL, upper lip length. See the “Methods” section for definitions.

Anthropometric data from Javanese women compared with those from white women (the value for white women is 100%; the asterisk indicates that P < .001, compared with the data of Farkas3; the dagger indicates that P < .03, compared with the data of Farkas3; and the double dagger indicates that P < .001, compared with the data of McGraw-Wall1). Abbreviations indicate the following: al-al, ala nasi width; en-en, epicanthal distance; FCA, facial convexity angle; LFH, lower facial height; MC, mentocervical angle; mf-mf, nasal floor width; MFH, midfacial height; NFA, nasofacial angle; NFR, nasofrontal angle; NLA, nasolabial angle; NM, nasomental distance; NT, nasal length; sl, mentolabial sulcus; SM, Stomion-Menton distance; sn-c, subnasale-columella distance; UFH, upper facial height; ULL, upper lip length. See the “Methods” section for definitions.

1.
McGraw-Wall  B Facial analysis. Bailey  BJHead and Neck Surgery: Otolaryngology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA Lippincott-Raven2001;2181- 2193
2.
Apaydin  FAkyildiz  SHecht  DA  et al.  Rhinobase software. http://rhinobase.net. Accessed June 15, 2009
3.
Farkas  LG Anthropometry of the Head and Face.  New York, NY Raven Press1994;
4.
Choe  KSSclafani  APLitner  JAYu  GPRomo  T  III The Korean American woman's face: anthropometric measurements and quantitative analysis of facial aesthetics. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2004;6 (4) 244- 252
PubMedArticle
5.
Sim  RSTSmith  JDChan  ASY Comparison of the aesthetic facial proportions of southern Chinese and white women. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2000;2 (2) 113- 120
PubMedArticle
6.
Leong  SCLWhite  PS A comparison of aesthetic proportions between the Oriental and Caucasian nose. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2004;29 (6) 672- 676
PubMedArticle
Research Letter
Septembet/Oct 2009

Facial Anthropometric Analysis of the Javanese Female

Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2009;11(5):347-352. doi:10.1001/archfacial.2009.59

Facial attractiveness is based on a combination of facial proportion, symmetry, and harmony and is immersed in cultural values.1 This study develops a set of facial measurements for women of pure Javanese heritage.

Methods

We examined facial measurements of 80 randomly selected women of Javanese descent aged 18 to 39 years living in Jakarta. Participants with abnormal body mass index, prior facial fracture or surgery, mild to severe allergic rhinitis, chronic nasal obstruction, orthodontic treatment, or craniofacial disorder were excluded from the study.

Digital frontal, lateral, and basal photographs (using a Nikon D70S camera and Nikkor zoom 18- to 70-mm lens, f3.5, Nikon Corp, Tokyo, Japan) were taken of all participants. The images were then analyzed using a proprietary digital analysis software2 (Rhinobase Software, Izmir, Turkey), calibrated by including a 10-cm ruler at the facial plane.

Values measured were as follows (Figure 1):

1. Upper facial height (UFH): distance between the trichion (tr) and glabella.

2. Midfacial height (MFH): distance between the glabella and subnasal (sn).

3. Lower facial height (LFH): distance between the subnasal and menton (m).

4. Upper lip length (ULL): distance between the labium superius oris (ls) and stomion (sto).

5. Stomion-Menton distance (SM): distance from the stomion to the menton.

6. Epicanthal distance (en-en): distance between the left and right endocanthion (en).

7. Nasal floor width (mf-mf): distance between the right and left maxillofacial (mf) points.

8. Ala nasi width (al-al): distance between the ala nasi (al).

9. Nasofrontal angle (NFR): angle between the glabella-nasion (n) line and nasion–nasal tip (t) line.

10. Nasofacial angle (NFA): angle between vertical line just touching the forehead at the glabella and the chin at pogonion (pg), intersected by a line from the dorsal plane of the nose.

11. Nasolabial angle (NLA): angle between the nasal tip–subnasale line and the subnasale–labium superius oris line.

12. Mentocervical angle (MC): angle between the glabella–pogonion line and the menton–cervical point line.

13. Nasomental angle (NM): angle formed by nasion–nasal tip line and nasal tip–pogonion line.

14. Nasal length (NT): distance between the nasion and nasal tip.

15. Subnasale-columella distance (sn-c): distance between the subnasale (sn) and the columella breakpoint (c).

16. Simons tip projection ratio: ratio of subnasale-labium superius oris to the nasal tip–subnasale.

17. Powell tip projection ratio: ratio between the nasion-subnasale and the perpendicular line that crosses it through the nasal tip.

18. Facial convexity angle (FCA): angle formed by glabella-subnasale line and subnasale-pogonion line.

19. Columellar show: distance of the lowest point of the columella to the alar rim.

20. Mentolabial sulcus: distance between the deepest point of the mentolabial sulcus (sl) and the line that crosses the labium inferius oris (li) and pogonion.

21. Lobule-basal ratio: ratio of the lobule nasal width (rd-ld) to the nasal base (al-al).

The data were entered into an Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft Corp, Redmond, Washington) and were analyzed by t test. This research was approved by the ethics panel of the University of Indonesia, Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia.

Results

The facial characteristics of 80 participants were analyzed from June 2006 through August 2006 in the offices of the Faculty of Medicine Ear, Nose, and Throat Department, University of Indonesia, Rumah Sakit Cipto Mangunkusumo (Hospital), in Central and South Jakarta. A summary of the results is shown in Figure 2.

Comment
Vertical Facial Height

The length of the face and each vertical third was greater in Javanese women compared with white women. In Javanese women, the midfacial height (69.39 mm) was greater than the upper facial height (57.65 mm) and the lower facial height (67.92 mm). The midface of Javanese women was proportionally the largest facial vertical third. Choe et al4 found that the vertical proportions of Korean American women were not notably different from those reported in Farkas’3 data on white women. In our study, a substantial difference existed between the vertical facial proportions in Javanese and white women.3 The lower facial height was proportionally smaller in Javanese women than in white women (34.87% vs 36%; P < .001).

Horizontal Facial Value

In this study, 90% of the subjects had a wider ala nasi than epicanthal distance. Sim et al5 also arrived at the same result in their study of Chinese women, as did Choe et al4 in their study of Korean American women. These results differ from those of Farkas,3 who found that most white women had equivalent epicanthal and ala nasi widths.

Facial Aesthetic Angle

The mean measurement of the nasofrontal angle in this study was significantly greater than in white women (138.04° vs 134.3°; P < .001). By contrast, Leong and White6 found no significant difference in the nasofrontal angles of Chinese and white women.

Nose

The mean nose length in Javanese women was shorter than in white women (39.7 vs 44.7 mm; P < .001). By contrast, Choe et al4 showed that the mean nose length in Korean American women was not significantly different from that of white women.

Conclusions

From the analysis of 21 facial anthropometric parameters in 80 Javanese women, we have determined the mean data for this population. The values of these parameters should be considered when planning and evaluating the results of reconstructive and facial aesthetic procedures in these patients. The characteristics of Javanese women include the following:

1. Vertically, the facial proportion of the Javanese woman is not divided into 3 equal sections; the mean proportion of the upper facial height (mean, 57.66 mm [29.54% of total facial height]) is the lowest, and the mean midfacial height and lower facial height are relatively the same.

2. The mean epicanthal distance (30.08 mm) is wider than in white women.

3. The ala nasi width (mean, 40.41 mm) is greater than the epicanthal width.

4. The mean nose length (mean, 39.72 mm) is shorter and accounts for a lower percentage of the total facial height than in white women.

5. The width of the ala nasi is approximately equal to the nasal length.

6. Compared with white women, Javanese women have less nasal tip projection, a wider nasal base (mean, 23.38 mm), wider ala nasi, shorter columella (5.83 mm), and wider nasal lobule, which accounts for a larger percentage (56%) of the nasal base width.

7. The red upper lip is larger (mean, 14.40 mm), and there is a smaller nasolabial angle (92.81°) than in white women.

8. Javanese women have less chin projection than white women.

The parameters of the facial anthropometry analysis in this study showed substantial differences from facial anthropometric values in white women.3 These differences are important considerations when planning facial surgery in these patients.

Back to top
Article Information

Correspondence: Dr Sclafani, The New York Eye and Ear Infirmary, 310 E 14th St, Sixth Floor, North Building, New York, NY 10003 (asclafani@nyee.edu).

Author Contributions: Dr Reksodiputro had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Reksodiputro, Koento, Boedhihartono, and Sclafani. Acquisition of data: Reksodiputro, Koento, Boedhihartono, and Sclafani. Analysis and interpretation of data: Reksodiputro, Koento, Boedhihartono, and Sclafani. Drafting of the manuscript: Reksodiputro, Koento, Boedhihartono, and Sclafani. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Reksodiputro, Koento, Boedhihartono, and Sclafani. Statistical analysis: Reksodiputro, Koento, Boedhihartono, and Sclafani. Obtained funding: Reksodiputro, Koento, and Boedhihartono. Administrative, technical, and material support: Reksodiputro, Koento, Boedhihartono, and Sclafani. Study supervision: Reksodiputro, Koento, Boedhihartono, and Sclafani.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

References
1.
McGraw-Wall  B Facial analysis. Bailey  BJHead and Neck Surgery: Otolaryngology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA Lippincott-Raven2001;2181- 2193
2.
Apaydin  FAkyildiz  SHecht  DA  et al.  Rhinobase software. http://rhinobase.net. Accessed June 15, 2009
3.
Farkas  LG Anthropometry of the Head and Face.  New York, NY Raven Press1994;
4.
Choe  KSSclafani  APLitner  JAYu  GPRomo  T  III The Korean American woman's face: anthropometric measurements and quantitative analysis of facial aesthetics. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2004;6 (4) 244- 252
PubMedArticle
5.
Sim  RSTSmith  JDChan  ASY Comparison of the aesthetic facial proportions of southern Chinese and white women. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2000;2 (2) 113- 120
PubMedArticle
6.
Leong  SCLWhite  PS A comparison of aesthetic proportions between the Oriental and Caucasian nose. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2004;29 (6) 672- 676
PubMedArticle
×