The nasofrontal, nasofacial angle, nasal tip projection, and oral proportions were found to be statistically significant. Miss Universe group showed wider nasofrontal and nasofacial angle, more nasal tip projection, and thinner lower-upper lip height ratio.
Table 6 shows the comparisons between Miss Universe Thailand and Miss Universe groups, and 7 points of facial analysis were found to be statistically significant. Of the 7 neoclassical canons, 5 were statistically significant: 2-section, 3-section, nasofacial, orbital and naso-oral proportion canons.
The 2-section, 3-section, nasofacial, and naso-oral proportion canons were longer in Miss Universe Thailand than in Miss Universe group. The nasofacial and orbital proportion canons were shorter in the Miss Universe Thailand than in Miss Universe group. Statistical significance was found in the nasal tip projection between Miss Universe Thailand and Miss Universe (Table 7).
Miss Universe Thailand had less nasal tip projection compared with Miss Universe. Eight points of facial proportion were not statistically significant between Miss Universe Thailand and Miss Universe groups, and of these, 4 facial proportions were not statistically significant with the neoclassical canons and previous facial proportion (oral width interalar width, nasolabial angle, tip to lip:lip to ala, and lower face proportion).
The other 4 facial proportions were statistically significant with the neoclassical canons and previous facial proportion (4-section canon, interalar: intermedial canthus, nasofrontal angle, and oral proportion).
Table 8 shows the comparison of the facial golden ratios between Miss Universe Thailand and Miss Universe groups. In the Miss Universe Thailand group, 12 facial ratios demonstrated statistical significance to the facial golden ratio. In the Miss Universe group, 12 facial ratios demonstrated statistical significance to the facial golden ratio. The gnathion-chelion:chelion-endocanthion, endocanthion-gnathion:endocanthion-chelion, labial superius- stomion:stomion-labial inferius did not demonstrate statistical significance in facial golden ratio in either group.
All horizontal facial golden ratios demonstrated statistical significance in both groups. In all 16 facial ratios, no statistical significance was found between the Miss Universe Thailand and Miss Universe groups (Table 9).
Human sculptures produced in ancient Greece were derived from proportions that followed established rules or “canons.”5,6 These rules were incorporated in the neoclassical canons for the human face by Renaissance artists such as Leonardo da Vinci, Vitruvius, Bergmuller, and Durer.7,8 Subsequently, these canons were adapted by medical artists, anatomists, and aesthetic surgeons, and are still being used to this day. Although neoclassical canons define the ideal face and are used for analyzing the attractive face, they were referenced from ideal, yet ancient, standards of beauty derived a small group of people and do not represent the majority.
Neoclassical canons were invalidated due to the differences in transcultural facial structures such as Chinese,5 Arabian,3 Turkish,10 Croatia,11 Korean - American,12 and Greek.13 However, neoclassical canons were more valid in whites than in Asians.7,12,14
The esthetically attractive 1: 1.618 ratio, indicated by the Greek letter Phi (Φ), was first recorded in third century BC by the Pythagoreans. The facial golden ratio was shown by Ricketts15 in 1982.9 Surprisingly, only 10 frontal-view photographs (including 7 whites, 2 Asians, and 1 black) taken from magazine advertisements were analyzed.
The use of the golden ratio Phi mask for attractive facial measurement was revealed by Marquardt.16 The facial golden ratio and the Phi mask were used for identifying the ideal face, and many studies demonstrated and supported this ratio.17–19
The invalidity of the facial Phi mask was shown2,20–26 including in Asians and whites. According to our results, the facial golden ratios were invalid in determining a beautiful face in the 21st century. Most of the facial ratios of Miss Universe and Miss Universe Thailand demonstrated statistically significant difference to the facial golden ratios.
Many studies have attempted to establish the modern facial proportions of beauty, using beautiful faces obtained from direct photographs, 3-dimensional scan and photographs from the internet,4,27–29 field of entertainment,4,29 magazines,30 and beauty contests.26,31,32
Pothanikat et al.33 studied Asian female subjects and revealed that most attractive group had least convex face, larger forehead, and wider faces. Studies on Italian competitions in 2009 and 2010 were performed and compared with the normal population.31,34 Attractive women had more acute soft-tissue profile, increased upper facial width and middle facial depth, larger mouth, and more voluminous lips.
In Asia, studies were performed in Miss Korea 2012 competitions and compared with the normal population.26,32 The Miss Korea group showed greater total facial height and eye width, lesser lower-facial height, and more retruded and smaller lower lips and chins than the general population group. However, these studies did not describe the ranking of the participants who were analyzed in the studies.
Yehezkel and Turley35 studied African American women in fashion magazines from 1940s through the 1990s. Photographs were divided into 6 groups corresponding to the decade in which they were published. Significant between group differences were found for lip position, nasolabial angle, and interlabial angle, with increased fullness and more anteriorly positioned lips in the more recent decades. Esthetic standards for the African American female profile changed during the 20th century.
The study of Mommaerts and Moerenhout28 on contemporary beautiful faces were retrieved from yearly polls of People magazine and FHM. The top 15 female faces were analyzed and compared with the pictures of classical sculptures. Their results showed harmonious contemporary faces had a significantly lower classical facial index, indicating that facial height was less or facial width was larger than in classical female faces.
Study of Iglesias-Linares et al.27 in 2011 compared the most beautiful black and white people in the list of People magazine’s 100 most beautiful people. Facial similarities in 2 ethnic groups were observed in the angle of the inferior facial third, labiomental angle, angle of facial convexity, cervicomental angle, and lower lip projection. They concluded that modern society was changing the classic concept of facial beauty because of globalization and prevalence of multiethnic communities in the developed world. Independent of ethnic origin, beautiful women tend to have similar facial features that were a mixture of both black and white features.
According to our results, the validity in the neoclassical canons was still demonstrated in oral width: alar width, nasolabial angle, nasal tip projection, and lower face proportion.
Moreover, the results showed that the facial golden ratio was not valid in modern beautiful women. Only 3 vertical ratios did not demonstrate statistical significance in both groups compared with the facial golden ratio (gnathion-chelion:chelion -endocanthion, endocanthion -gnathion:endocanthion -chelion, and labial superius-stomion:stomion-labial inferius). All horizontal ratios were shown to be different from the facial golden ratio in both Miss Universe Thailand and Miss Universe. Meanwhile, none of 16 facial ratios were statistically significant between the Miss Universe Thailand and Miss Universe groups.
Although Miss Universe Thailand did not win the Miss Universe contest between 2001 and 2015 and that Thai population is a small percentage of the world population, our results demonstrated that most of modern facial proportions of Miss Universe Thailand correspond with those of Miss Universe and are different from the Greek ideals of the neoclassical canons and the golden facial ratios.
Because variations in size of the photographs were a concern, only the proportions were studied. Anthropometric facial analysis is the study of the human face. Several indirect anthropometric methods exist, for example, cephalometry, photogrammetry, 3-dimensional stereophotogrammetry, and surface laser scanning. Of these methods, photogrammetry has advantages and is ideal for soft-tissue analysis. In addition, its reliability proved to be excellent and remains the optimal choice.36–38
The limitation of this study was the photographs were taken from the Internet that may be not truly anteroposterior and lateral views. The focal lengths of the shots were not of the same length, which might have affected the proportions. This study represented only the early 21st century, and the facial ratios of beauty may change in the future.
The modern facial proportions of beauty are different from those of the past. Photogrammetric analysis demonstrated longer forehead, thinner lower-upper lip height proportion, wider interala-medial canthus width proportion, and wider nasofrontal angle compared with previous standards. Miss Universe winners showed wider nasofacial angle and more nasal tip projection than neoclassical canons. Moreover, the facial golden ratios were statistically significantly invalid in modern facial proportions of beauty. This is a retrospective study, and the results may be used as primary data when analyzing and planning for cosmetic surgery.
The authors thank all the Miss Universe and Miss Universe Thailand who demonstrated in this article and thank them for the photographs from the Internet Web pages especially www.google.com, www.wikipedia.org, and www.youtube.com. The authors also thank Supak Cae-ngow, statistician and research assistant at the Office of Research Development at Phramongkutklao College of Medicine, for kind help with the statistical analysis of this article.
1. Naini FB, Moss JP, Gill DS. The enigma of facial beauty: esthetics, proportions, deformity, and controversy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130:277–282.
2. Veerala G, Gandikota CS, Yadagiri PK, et al. Marquardt’s facial golden decagon mask and its fitness with South Indian facial traits. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10:ZC49–ZC52.
3. Al-Sebaei MO. The validity of three neo-classical facial canons in young adults originating from the Arabian Peninsula. Head Face Med. 2015;11:4.
4. Rhee SC, Dhong ES, Yoon ES. Photogrammetric facial analysis of attractive Korean entertainers. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2009;33:167–174.
5. Ricketts RM. Divine proportion in facial esthetics. Clin Plast Surg. 1982;9:401–422.
6. Jayaratne YS, Deutsch CK, McGrath CP, et al. Are neoclassical canons valid for southern Chinese faces? PLoS One. 2012;7:e52593.
7. Edler RJ. Background considerations to facial aesthetics. J Orthod. 2001;28:159–168.
8. Le TT, Farkas LG, Ngim RC, et al. Proportionality in Asian and North American Caucasian faces using neoclassical facial canons as criteria. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2002;26:64–69.
9. Farkas LG, Hreczko TA, Kolar JC, et al. Vertical and horizontal proportions of the face in young adult North American Caucasians: revision of neoclassical canons. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1985;75:328–338.
10. Karaca Saygili O, Cinar S, Gulcen B, et al. The validity of eight neoclassical facial canons in the Turkish adults. Folia Morphol (Warsz). 2016;75:512–517.
11. Pavlic A, Trinajstic Zrinski M, Katic V, et al. Neoclassical canons of facial beauty: do we see the deviations? J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017;45:741–747.
12. Choe KS, Sclafani AP, Litner JA, et al. The Korean American woman’s face: anthropometric measurements and quantitative analysis of facial aesthetics. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2004;6:244–252.
13. Zacharopoulos GV, Manios A, De Bree E, et al. Neoclassical facial canons in young adults. J Craniofac Surg. 2012;23:1693–1698.
14. Torsello F, Mirigliani L, D’Alessio R, et al. Do the neoclassical canons still describe the beauty of faces? An anthropometric study on 50 Caucasian models. Prog Orthod. 2010;11:13–19.
15. Ricketts RM. The biologic significance of the divine proportion and Fibonacci series. Am J Orthod. 1982;81:351–370.
16. Marquardt SR. Dr. Stephen R. Marquardt on the Golden Decagon and human facial beauty. Interview by Dr. Gottlieb. J Clin Orthod. 2002;36:339–347.
17. Kim YH. Easy facial analysis using the facial golden mask. J Craniofac Surg. 2007;18:643–649.
18. Bashour M. An objective system for measuring facial attractiveness. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118:757–774; discussion 775.
19. Wiener RC, Wiener Pla RM. The occurrence of phi in dento-facial beauty of fine art from antiquity through the Renaissance. Eur J Esthet Dent. 2012;7:440–452.
20. Holland E. Marquardt’s Phi mask: pitfalls of relying on fashion models and the golden ratio to describe a beautiful face. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2008;32:200–208.
21. Kiekens RM, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, van ‘t Hof MA, et al. Putative golden proportions as predictors of facial esthetics in adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134:480–483.
22. Kiekens RM, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, van ‘t Hof MA, et al. Facial esthetics in adolescents and its relationship to “ideal” ratios and angles. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;133:188.e1–188.e8.
23. Alam MK, Mohd Noor NF, Basri R, et al. Multiracial facial golden ratio and evaluation of facial appearance. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0142914.
24. Packiriswamy V, Kumar P, Rao M. Identification of facial shape by applying golden ratio to the facial measurements: an interracial study in Malaysian population. N Am J Med Sci. 2012;4:624–629.
25. Anand S, Tripathi S, Chopra A, et al. Vertical and horizontal proportions of the face and their correlation to phi among Indians in Moradabad population: a survey. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2015;15:125–130.
26. Jang KS, Bayome M, Park JH, et al. A three-dimensional photogrammetric analysis of the facial esthetics of the Miss Korea pageant contestants. Korean J Orthod. 2017;47:87–99.
27. Iglesias-Linares A, Yáñez-Vico RM, Moreno-Manteca B, et al. Common standards in facial esthetics: craniofacial analysis of most attractive black and white subjects according to People magazine during previous 10 years. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;69:e216–e224.
28. Mommaerts MY, Moerenhout BA. Ideal proportions in full face front view, contemporary versus antique. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2011;39:107–110.
29. Liew S, Wu WT, Chan HH, et al. Consensus on changing trends, attitudes, and concepts of Asian beauty. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2016;40:193–201.
30. Milutinovic J, Zelic K, Nedeljkovic N. Evaluation of facial beauty using anthropometric proportions. Scientific World J. 2014;2014:428250.
31. Galantucci LM, Deli R, Laino A, et al. Three-dimensional anthropometric database of attractive Caucasian women: standards and comparisons. J Craniofac Surg. 2016;27:1884–1895.
32. Kim SY, Bayome M, Park JH, et al. Evaluation of the facial dimensions of young adult women with a preferred facial appearance. Korean J Orthod. 2015;45:253–260.
33. Pothanikat JJ, Balakrishna R, Mahendra P, et al. Two-dimensional morphometric analysis of young Asian females to determine attractiveness. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2015;5:208–212.
34. Sforza C, Laino A, D’Alessio R, et al. Soft-tissue facial characteristics of attractive Italian women as compared to normal women. Angle Orthod. 2009;79:17–23.
35. Yehezkel S, Turley PK. Changes in the African American female profile as depicted in fashion magazines during the 20th century. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004;125:407–417.
36. Brons S, van Beusichem ME, Bronkhorst EM, et al. Methods to quantify soft-tissue based facial growth and treatment outcomes in children: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2012;7:e41898.
37. Zhang X, Hans M, Graham G, et al. Correlations between cephalometric and facial photographic measurements of craniofacial form. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;131:67–71.
Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons.
38. Wen YF, Wong HM, Lin R, et al. Inter-ethnic/racial facial variations: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis of photogrammetric studies. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0134525.