Background: The purpose of this study is to investigate the differences in the periorbital anthropometry between national Beauty Pageant Contestants and Ordinary Young Women with Korean ethnicity. Methods: Forty-three Beauty Pageant Contestants who were elected for the national beauty contest and forty-eight Ordinary Young Women underwent 3D photography. The authors analyzed 3D photogrammetric measures regarding periorbital soft tissue. Results: The palpebral fissure width was significantly higher in the Beauty Pageant Contestants than the Ordinary Young Women (27.7 ± 1.2 vs. 26.3 ± 1.6 mm) (p OpenSPiltSPi 0.001). The palpebral fissure height was also significantly higher in the Beauty Pageant Contestants (11.5. ± 1.0 vs. 9.1 ± 1.2 mm) (p OpenSPiltSPi 0.001). The intercanthal width and upper eyelid height were smaller for the Beauty Pageant Contestants (intercanthal width, 34.3 ± 1.86 mm vs. 36.7 ± 3.1 mm; upper eyelid height, 11.5 ± 1.4 mm vs. 13.4 ± 2.3 mm) (p OpenSPiltSPi 0.05). The nasal width and midfacial width were significantly smaller in the Beauty Pageant Contestants (nasal width, 38.0 ± 1.8 vs. 39.5 ± 2.2 mm; midfacial width 144.5 ± 3.9 vs. 146.9 ± 5.2 mm) (p OpenSPiltSPi 0.05). The eyebrow showed significantly different features between the two groups in terms of vertical position in the upper face and the shape of the brow apex. The interpupillary distance, binocular distance, slant of palpebral fissure and width of pretarsal crease showed no significant difference between the two groups. Conclusion: Periorbital features in Beauty Pageant Contestants are wide-set eyes, larger palpebral fissure in width and height, relatively small upper eyelid height and intercanthal width, and relatively small nose and facial width compared to normal women. Our anthropometric results can be referable values for Asian eyelid surgery and help surgeons to establish individualized surgical planning. Level of Evidence V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes