THE ASYMMETRY OF YOUNG MEN FACES UPPER AND MIDDLE PARTS DO NOT DEPEND ON ITS SHAPE AND THE SKULL SHAPE

The human face plays an important role in the process of interpersonal communication and is the object of research by specialists in various fields, including anatomists and anthropologists. Currently, significant experience has been accumulated in studying the morphometric parameters of the face of different population groups, however, there is no information in the literature on the bilateral dimorphism of these parameters in the upper and middle parts of the face depending on the shape of the skull and the shape of the face itself. The purpose of the study is to determine the limits of variability of differences (asymmetry) in the morphometric parameters of the contralateral halves of the upper and middle parts of the face of young men in the frontal norm depending on the anatomical shape of their skull and face. The study involved 140 young men whose average age was 19.1 ± 0.7 years. After determining the shape of the skull and the shape of the face of the young men, photogrammetry of similar parameters of the upper and middle parts of the face in the frontal norm was performed. To determine the morphometric parameters, the following cephalometric points were used: trichion (tr), glabella (gl), nasion (n), subnasale (sn), zygion (zy), exocanthion (ex), endocanthion (en), pupilla (p), alare (al), as well as points p1 and p2, located at the intersection of the horizontal line with the facial contour drawn through the subnasale point. When comparing similar facial dimensions, the difference ("diff") between their average values ​​was determined. According to the obtained results, in dolichocephalic young men (n=45) statistically significant differences were noted when comparing the distances gl-zy on the left and right (respectively 76.5±3.72 mm and 78.5±4.15 mm, diff=–2.02 mm; p=0.017), gl-р2 and gl-р1 (respectively 91.8±4.72 mm and 93.9±5.04 mm, diff=–2.06 mm, p=0.049), as well as n-zy and n-zy_dext (respectively 71.2±3.54 mm and 73.7±3.92 mm, diff=–2.55 mm, p=0.002). Similar results were obtained when studying other groups of young men. The results of the study of the morphometric parameters of the upper and middle parts of the face of young men in the frontal norm demonstrate the predominance of the values ​​of the sizes of the right half of the face over similar parameters of its left half. At the same time, these differences do not depend on the shape of the skull and the shape of the face.

1. Kupriyanov VV, Stovichek GV. Litso cheloveka: anatomiya, mimika. M.: Meditsina. 1988.– 272s. In Russian

2. Hernández-Alfaro F, Vivas-Castillo J, Belle de Oliveira R et al. Barcelona line. A multicentre validation study of a facial projection reference in orthognathic surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2023;61(1):3-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2022.10.002

3. Naqvi S, Hoskens H, Wilke F et al. Decoding the human face: progress and challenges in understanding the genetics of craniofacial morphology. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2022;23:383-412. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genom-120121-102607

4. Hsiao JH, An J, Zheng Y et al. Do portrait artists have enhanced face processing abilities? Evidence from hidden Markov modeling of eye movements. Cognition. 2021;211:104616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104616

5. Lin L, Han W, Sun M et al. Current practices for esthetic facial bone contouring surgery in Asians. Clin Plast Surg. 2023;50(1):71-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cps.2022.08.002

6. Kavoosi T, Pillai A, Rajasekaran A et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols in craniofacial surgery. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2024;32(1):181-187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsc.2023.07.004

7. Bueller H. Ideal Facial relationships and goals. Facial Plast Surg. 2018;34(5):458-465. https://doi.org/ 10.1055/s-0038-1669401.

8. Harrar H, Myers S, Ghanem AM. Art or science? An evidence-based approach to human facial beauty a quantitative analysis towards an informed clinical aesthetic practice. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2018;42(1):137-146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-017-1032-7

9. Singer R, Papadopoulos T. There is no universal standard of beauty. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2024;48(24):5273-5282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-024-04266-w

10. Faustova AG. Prediktory negativnogo samootnosheniya u patsientov, perenesshikh rekonstruktivnoe khirurgicheskoe vmeshatel'stvo. Klinicheskaya i spetsial'naya psikhologiya. 2018;7(4):117-130. In Russian. https://doi.org/10.17759/cpse.2018070407

11. Fezza JP, Massry G. Lower eyelid length. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136(2):152e-159e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000001415

12. Song WC, Koh KS, Kim SH et al. Horizontal angular asymmetry of the face in korean young adults with reference to the eye and mouth. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007;65(11):2164-2168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2006.11.018

13. Hammond P, Suttie M. Large-scale objective phenotyping of 3D facial morphology. Hum Mutat. 2012;33(5):817-825. https://doi.org/10.1002/humu.22054

14. Kriger EA, Drachev SN, Mit'kin NA i dr. Raschet neobkhodimogo ob’’ema vyborki s ispol’zovaniem programmy G*Power. Morskaya meditsina. 2023;9(2):111-125. In Russian

15. Bunak VV, Nesturkh MF, Roginskiy YaYa. Antropologiya: kratkiy kurs. Pod red. prof. V.V. Bunaka. Moskva: Gos. uch.-ped. izd-vo Narkomprosa RSFSR. 1941. – 376s. In Russian

16. Khrisanfova EN, Perevozchikov IV. Antropologiya. Izd-vo Mosk. un-ta: Nauka. 2005.– 400s. In Russian

17. Khaldeeva NI. Antropoestetika. Opyt antropologicheskikh issledovaniy. Institut etnologii i antropologii im. N.N. Miklukho-Maklaya RAN. – Moskva : Institut etnologii i antropologii im. N.N. Miklukho-Maklaya RAN, 2004. 343s. In Russian

18. Rogers LJ. Brain lateralization and cognitive capacity. Animals (Basel). 2021;11(7):1996. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11071996

19. Thiesen G, Gribel BF, Kim KB et al. Prevalence and associated factors of mandibular asymmetry in an adult population. J Craniofac Surg. 2017;28(3):e199-e203. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000003371

20. Shah SM, Joshi MR. An assessment of asymmetry in the normal craniofacial complex. Angle Orthod. 1978;48(2):141-148. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(1978)048<0141:AAOAIT>2.0.CO;2

21. Farkas LG, Cheung G. Facial asymmetry in healthy North American Caucasians. An anthropometrical study. Angle Orthod. 1981;51(1):70-77. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(1981)051<0070:FAIHNA>2.0.CO;2

22. Baudouin JY, Tiberghien G. Symmetry, averageness, and feature size in the facial attractiveness of women. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2004;117(3):313-332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2004.07.002

23. Grammer K, Thornhill R: Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: The role of symmetry and averageness. J Comp Psychol. 1994;108:233, https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.108.3.233

24. Primozic J, Antolic V, Ovsenik M et al. Three-dimensional evaluation of the association between face and back asymmetry among pre-pubertal subjects. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2023;24(2):124-128. https://doi.org/10.23804/ejpd.2023.1724

25. Primozic J, Perinetti G, Zhurov A et al. Three-dimensional assessment of back symmetry in subjects with unilateral functional crossbite during the pre-pubertal growth phase: a controlled study. Eur J Orthod 2019;41:250-257. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjy053

26. Zaidel DW, Aarde SM, Baig K. Appearance of symmetry, beauty, and health in human faces. Brain Cogn. 2005;57:261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2004.08.056

27. Letzer GM, Kronman JH. A posteroanterior cephalometric evaluation of craniofacial asymmetry. Angle Orthod. 1967;37(3):205–211. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(1967)037<0205:APCEOC>2.0.CO;2

28. Mongini F, Schmid W. Treatment of mandibular asymmetries during growth. A longitudinal study. Eur J Orthod. 1987;9(1):51–67. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/9.1.51

29. Peck S, Peck L, Kataja M. Skeletal asymmetry in esthetically pleasing faces. Angle Orthod. 1991;61:43–44. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(1991)061<0043:SAIEPF>2.0.CO;2

30. Schmid W, Mongini F, Felisio A. A computer-based assessment of structural and displacement asymmetries of the mandible. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1991;100:19–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(91)70045-X

31. Pearson K, Woo TL. Further investigation of the morphometric characters of the human skull. Biometrika. 1935;27:424-465

32. Woo TL. On the asymmetry of the human skull. Biometrika. 1931;22:324-352

33. Figalova P. Asymmetry of the face. Antropologia. 1969;7(1):31-34