Clinical Rhinology

Register      Login

VOLUME 9 , ISSUE 1 ( January-April, 2016 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Morphometric Analysis and Degree of Satisfaction of Nasal Profiles in Young Medical Students in Northern India

Rohit Sharma, Jolly Agarwal

Keywords : Anthropometry,Leptorrhine,Nasal shapes

Citation Information : Sharma R, Agarwal J. Morphometric Analysis and Degree of Satisfaction of Nasal Profiles in Young Medical Students in Northern India. Clin Rhinol An Int J 2016; 9 (1):24-27.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10013-1258

Published Online: 01-04-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; The Author(s).


Abstract

Background

The nose is the most prominent feature on the face, giving it an exaggerated importance than other facial features. Many people have some complaints about the shapes of their noses. There is increasing interest in cosmetic rhinoplasty in recent times, but reports of anthropometric measurements of the Indian population are limited.

Aims

The objective of this survey was to provide anthropometric data for reconstructive and cosmetic surgery, and medical esthetics.

Materials and methods

A random sample of medical students of both the sexes between the ages of 18 and 25 years from our medical college was obtained for this study. We measured the nasal height, nasal width, and anatomical nasal index. We also inquired about the degree of satisfaction and, in case of dissatisfaction, what an individual wants with his/her nose. The data were analyzed statistically.

Results

Nasal indices were leptorrhine type and showed sexual dimorphism (female vs male: 60.44 vs 67.79). Most of the individuals were satisfied with their nose. Those unsatisfied had larger nasal indices and wanted smaller noses.

Conclusion

This study can help in understanding the need of those who want a more “shapely” nose and can contribute to satisfactory results of cosmetic and reconstructive nasal surgery, anthropology, and forensic medicine.

How to cite this article

Agarwal J, Sharma R, Kumar V. Morphometric Analysis and Degree of Satisfaction of Nasal Profiles in Young Medical Students in Northern India. Clin Rhinol An Int J 2016;9(1):24-27.


PDF Share
  1. Small nasal defects. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2001 Aug;34(4):671-694.
  2. The average values of the nasal anthropometric measurements in 108 young Turkish males. Auris Nasus Larynx 2006 Mar;33(1):31-35.
  3. Anthropometric measurements of the external nose in 18 to 25 year old Sistani and Baluch aborigine women in the southeast of Iran. Folia Morphol 2009 May;68(2):88-92.
  4. ; Ohashi, G. The effect of an external nasal dilator and nasal dimensions in Asians. 2nd ed. Grain Publishers House; 1983. p. 93-101.
  5. The study of Asian origin. 3rd ed. London: Hodder Publishers; 2003. p. 119-121.
  6. Variation in human nasal height and breadth. Am J Phys Anthropol 1991 Aug;85(4):419-427.
  7. Anatomy applied and regional. 6th ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1981. p. 398-403.
  8. Geographic variation of native people along the Pacific coast. Hum Biol 1995 Jun;67(3):407-426.
  9. A reassessment of human cranial plasticity: boas revisited. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2002 Nov;99(23):14636-14639.
  10. Photo identification: Facial metrical and morphological features in South African males. Forensic Sci Int 2008 May;177(2-3):168-175.
  11. The Korean American woman's nose: An indepth nasal photogrammatic analysis. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2006 Sep;8(5):319-323.
  12. Anthropometric anatomical and morphological nose widths in Canadian Caucasian adults. Can J Plast Surg 1998 Autumn;6(3):149-151.
  13. Anthropometric comparison of nasal indices between Andoni and Okrika tribes of Rivers State. Nigeria. Int J Med Sci 2009 Apr;1(4):135-137.
  14. Anthropometric analysis of lip-nose complex in Indian population. Indian J Plast Surg 2005 Jul;38(2):128-131.
  15. Craniofacial anthropometric norms of Malaysian Indians. Indian J Dent Res 2009 Jul-Sep;20(3):313-319.
  16. A cephalometric study among sub caste groups Dangi and Ahirwar of Khurai block of Madhya Pradesh. Anthropologist 2006;8(3):215-217.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.