Lets talk about cheekbones

[ppsk]

I've noticed that quite frequently the only thing talked about here regarding cheekbone augmentation is something like a ZSO, which as far as I can tell, is only going to move the cheekbones out on a lateral plane. Great if you need width, but if I'm correct in what I perceive, the "model" like eyes are achieved by greater support directly under the eye.

Widening the cheekbones will do very little to achieve this, rather the cheekbones need to come FORWARD and UP. You can test this on yourself by pushing the cheek fat up ever so slightly. You will immediately have more support under the eyes which creates this effect assuming you dont have other deficiencies:



Note that he doesn't have particularly WIDE cheekbones, his zygomatic arch isn't very prominent and yet he has great eyes due to forward support.

another example is leo dicaprio, who doesn't have notably wide cheekbones, but has great support under his eyes, giving him a striking appearance at an age where most men are starting to look like wax candles:


I don't believe most people looking for an aesthetic improvement lack width in the cheekbones (the rest of the skull would be necessarily lacking in width too I would presume for this to be the actual case), rather, they lack forward projection, much like weak chin projection can dramatically impact a face.

[Lazlo]

totally right. sinn's surgery can do something for this, but possible scar is evident. and maybe implants plus soft tissue canthopasty. fat injections as well? I dunno, this is sort of the holy grail for us right now.

[The Quest for Aesthetics]

@ Lazlo @ ilovethemoon @ppsk

So in summary there are five aspects to cheekbones that we have to consider.

1) - Lateral projection of the zygomatic body
2) - Lateral prominence of the zygomatic arch
3) - Vertical placement of the cheekbone
4) - Forward projection of the cheekbone
5) - Shape of the cheekbone

Are we saying that lateral projection of the actual zygomatic body is sort of irrelevant in terms of male aesthetics? If you want to see what a face looks like with only lateral projection of the zygomatic body itself, Mabye we can look at mongoloid skulls which tend to have wide zygo mass. I mean this is the chief effect of the ZSO and it hasn't really been shown to be effective for the results that we want to achieve. What do you guys think?

Obviously this post emphasises 3) and 4). I think I agree actually, that these are the most important factors. I think that the importance of these two elements is indisputable.

3) - Vertical placement of the cheekbone is essential, as you say, because of how it 'frames' the eye and gives that striking look that you describe with Leonardo Di Caprio. I feel like this aspect also involves projection of the lateral orbital rim. Mabye a big part of this aspect is contiguity between the lateral orbital rim and the prominence of the cheekbone itself? What do you guys think?

4) - About forward projection. I think this goes hand in hand with the vertical placement. Whilst 3) is the basis for good eye support, I think forward projection actually gives that eye support. Having high set cheekbones without forward projection is like having a million dollars in a frozen bank account. You've got the raw materials, but lack the ability to really see benefit. In that sense I think that it's the combination of high set and forward projected cheekbones that is really important.

What about the other factors? Part of me tells me that 2) - lateral zygomatic arch prominence is less important than is made out. But then I'm reminded of the 'male model look' which often features sharp and protruding zygomatic arches. I don't really know what to say about this? I mean taking my face as an example, I have noticeably less lateral projection of the zygomatic body and zygomatic arch on the left side of the face (so lacking 1) and 2)), and it really throws my oblique view off from the left side. It makes it look like it lacks depth, a feature which the right side of my face doesn't lack. I'm not sure whether this is a consequence of a lack of zygomatic body projection, zygomatic arch projection, or both.

Another thing to consider is whether this is a 'minimum threshold' type thing. What I mean by that is that mabye lateral prominence of the zygomatic body is a feature where, if you lack it, it gives an underdeveloped look, but if you have it, it doesn't really make you stand out in any way. Mabye it just makes you look 'normal'?

5) Shape of the cheekbone is a very complicated one. Are we looking for angularity? If we are, is it in the sense of having a rounded cheekbone v. an 'apexed' cheekbone (see below: *). Are we looking for a cheekbone that isn't vertically long? Does the rotation of the cheekbone have any role? If it does, what kind of rotation are we talking about?

Let's try and really engage with this puzzle here guys

* 'apexed' - what I mean by this is a cheekbone where the angle between the saggital plane of the cheekbone meets the horizontal plane of the cheekbone, is sharp rather than smoothed and rounded out. 'Saggital' is the direction from 'front to back' of the head, horizontal is 'side to side', vertical is 'top to bottom'.

[ppsk]

totally right. sinn's surgery can do something for this, but possible scar is evident. and maybe implants plus soft tissue canthopasty. fat injections as well? I dunno, this is sort of the holy grail for us right now.

A modified lefort 3 with a slight CCW rotation would do the job on a normal person I think.

I dont know many doctors who will perform the procedure for purely aesthetic reasons on someone who isnt deformed.

[ppsk]

@ Lazlo @ ilovethemoon @ppsk

So in summary there are five aspects to cheekbones that we have to consider.

1) - Lateral projection of the zygomatic body
2) - Lateral prominence of the zygomatic arch
3) - Vertical placement of the cheekbone
4) - Forward projection of the cheekbone
5) - Shape of the cheekbone

Are we saying that lateral projection of the actual zygomatic body is sort of irrelevant in terms of male aesthetics? If you want to see what a face looks like with only lateral projection of the zygomatic body itself, Mabye we can look at mongoloid skulls which tend to have wide zygo mass. I mean this is the chief effect of the ZSO and it hasn't really been shown to be effective for the results that we want to achieve. What do you guys think?

Obviously this post emphasises 3) and 4). I think I agree actually, that these are the most important factors. I think that the importance of these two elements is indisputable.

3) - Vertical placement of the cheekbone is essential, as you say, because of how it 'frames' the eye and gives that striking look that you describe with Leonardo Di Caprio. I feel like this aspect also involves projection of the lateral orbital rim. Mabye a big part of this aspect is contiguity between the lateral orbital rim and the prominence of the cheekbone itself? What do you guys think?

4) - About forward projection. I think this goes hand in hand with the vertical placement. Whilst 3) is the basis for good eye support, I think forward projection actually gives that eye support. Having high set cheekbones without forward projection is like having a million dollars in a frozen bank account. You've got the raw materials, but lack the ability to really see benefit. In that sense I think that it's the combination of high set and forward projected cheekbones that is really important.

What about the other factors? Part of me tells me that 2) - lateral zygomatic arch prominence is less important than is made out. But then I'm reminded of the 'male model look' which often features sharp and protruding zygomatic arches. I don't really know what to say about this? I mean taking my face as an example, I have noticeably less lateral projection of the zygomatic body and zygomatic arch on the left side of the face (so lacking 1) and 2)), and it really throws my oblique view off from the left side. It makes it look like it lacks depth, a feature which the right side of my face doesn't lack. I'm not sure whether this is a consequence of a lack of zygomatic body projection, zygomatic arch projection, or both.

Another thing to consider is whether this is a 'minimum threshold' type thing. What I mean by that is that mabye lateral prominence of the zygomatic body is a feature where, if you lack it, it gives an underdeveloped look, but if you have it, it doesn't really make you stand out in any way. Mabye it just makes you look 'normal'?

5) Shape of the cheekbone is a very complicated one. Are we looking for angularity? If we are, is it in the sense of having a rounded cheekbone v. an 'apexed' cheekbone (see below: *). Are we looking for a cheekbone that isn't vertically long? Does the rotation of the cheekbone have any role? If it does, what kind of rotation are we talking about?

Let's try and really engage with this puzzle here guys

* 'apexed' - what I mean by this is a cheekbone where the angle between the saggital plane of the cheekbone meets the horizontal plane of the cheekbone, is sharp rather than smoothed and rounded out. 'Saggital' is the direction from 'front to back' of the head, horizontal is 'side to side', vertical is 'top to bottom'.

I don't believe the lateral projection is super important no. Yes many models have strikingly wide cheekbones but so do many people in relatively primitive countries and often its not a good look. Theres some models with extremely wide cheekbones and they look alien, not attractive.

Also the thing to consider with a lot of models is the tricks of the trade A) lighting, which is super important. I saw someone commenting that Simon Nessman didnt look as impressive in his candid facebook photos as he did in professional shoots - well duh. B) makeup much like for actors, is applied to help these features stand out even more than they naturally do which helps frame the face under intense light.

what often separates good looking people from average looking people in the eye area is the forward projection of the cheekbones. Take for example, dan stevens, who actually has relatively weak jaw by hollywood standards, and yet is very good looking to women because of his eye area:




notice again, lateral prominence is not notable. What is notable is the support directly under the eye which creates the cushioning effect.


I don't think comparisons to mongoloid or primitive human skulls are germane. I've noticed in circles that discuss male aesthetics there is tendency to be obsessive about hyper-masculinity; bigger, thicker everything. But there are modern examples of this that aren't at all good looking. The great khali is undoubtedly masculine looking, very intimidating, huge bony prominence everywhere...... but hes f**k ugly.

If someone really feels like they lack prominence on the zygo, sure maybe the ZSO is the answer, but the before/afters of ZSO available on the internet are very telling I feel: most look barely different after and usually not much better. I've been at various levels of bodyfat in my life and usually the zygo arch becomes prominent at low levels of bodyfat.

one of the only decent results of eye area augmentation ive seen came from orbital rim implants. This seems to actually make a notable impact because it gives support directly under the eye while a ZSO as it is typically performed tends to take away support from what I understand. But i dont think implants are a stable solution especially in that area.

[ditterbo]

I just thought of something. How do we know these Hollywood types we're referencing aren't using fillers to get their looks, especially in the cheek/eye junction area?

[Lestat]

For under eye area i recommend BIO OSS implants.

http://www.noormanvanderdussen.com/feminization/cheek-bone-correction.html

This doctor f.e. does everything and his preference is bio oss!

Preference:

The advantages of Bio-Oss: it is placed in a sub-periosteal pocket, through an intra-oral approach. This is our preference, because moulding is easy and the smooth edges at the border of the implant regions (zygomatic area, lateral orbital rim, lateral infra orbital rim area).
The maximum point of augmentation must be more lateral than infra-orbital in the direction of the arch, in order to avoid the 'miss-piggy' look.

What do you think about BIO OSS?

[ppsk]

I just thought of something. How do we know these Hollywood types we're referencing aren't using fillers to get their looks, especially in the cheek/eye junction area?

Because good looking people exist outside of cosmetic surgery and because most of them were good looking before derma filler was even a thing.

[ppsk]

For under eye area i recommend BIO OSS implants.

http://www.noormanvanderdussen.com/feminization/cheek-bone-correction.html

This doctor f.e. does everything and his preference is bio oss!

Preference:

The advantages of Bio-Oss: it is placed in a sub-periosteal pocket, through an intra-oral approach. This is our preference, because moulding is easy and the smooth edges at the border of the implant regions (zygomatic area, lateral orbital rim, lateral infra orbital rim area).
The maximum point of augmentation must be more lateral than infra-orbital in the direction of the arch, in order to avoid the 'miss-piggy' look.

What do you think about BIO OSS?

BIO OSS sounds like a more expensive version of HA paste. I dont know.

Might be worth meeting with that doctor, but its a bit worrying that his website seems exclusively geared towards female patients and female orientated procedures, and has no B/As at all.

[The Quest for Aesthetics]

I don't believe the lateral projection is super important no. Yes many models have strikingly wide cheekbones but so do many people in relatively primitive countries and often its not a good look. Theres some models with extremely wide cheekbones and they look alien, not attractive.

Also the thing to consider with a lot of models is the tricks of the trade A) lighting, which is super important. I saw someone commenting that Simon Nessman didnt look as impressive in his candid facebook photos as he did in professional shoots - well duh. B) makeup much like for actors, is applied to help these features stand out even more than they naturally do which helps frame the face under intense light.

what often separates good looking people from average looking people in the eye area is the forward projection of the cheekbones. Take for example, dan stevens, who actually has relatively weak jaw by hollywood standards, and yet is very good looking to women because of his eye area:




notice again, lateral prominence is not notable. What is notable is the support directly under the eye which creates the cushioning effect.


I don't think comparisons to mongoloid or primitive human skulls are germane. I've noticed in circles that discuss male aesthetics there is tendency to be obsessive about hyper-masculinity; bigger, thicker everything. But there are modern examples of this that aren't at all good looking. The great khali is undoubtedly masculine looking, very intimidating, huge bony prominence everywhere...... but hes f**k ugly.

If someone really feels like they lack prominence on the zygo, sure maybe the ZSO is the answer, but the before/afters of ZSO available on the internet are very telling I feel: most look barely different after and usually not much better. I've been at various levels of bodyfat in my life and usually the zygo arch becomes prominent at low levels of bodyfat.

one of the only decent results of eye area augmentation ive seen came from orbital rim implants. This seems to actually make a notable impact because it gives support directly under the eye while a ZSO as it is typically performed tends to take away support from what I understand. But i dont think implants are a stable solution especially in that area.

On the second, younger picture; he appears to have a lot of lateral projection. But the lateral projection is of the zygomatic arch relative to the zygomatic body. The zygomatic body doesn't have as much lateral projection sure. Also you're assuming that lateral projection isn't that important because it isn't incredibly important from the front. On my own face I've noticed that lateral projection gives the face more depth from an oblique view. My other half with little lateral projection, looks very flat and underdeveloped in comparison.

Nobody here claimed that hyper masculinity is attractive, or that 'big everything' is desirable at all. I do feel like lateral projection has some role to play however, but only up to a point. As I said in my previous post: it might be a feature which should reach a minimum threshold to avoid appearing underdeveloped, rather than a feature that appears striking or desirable in large quantities.

However, I completely agree that the most important part is cheekbone forward projection in the area directly below the eye. So high set and forward projected cheekbones with a prominent zygomatic arch is what we should be aiming for, with some degree of lateral projection of the zygomatic body if that area is lacking.

To illustrate what the lateral projection of the zygomatic arch and lateral projection of the zygomatic body, view the pictures attached showing three configurations: starring Simon Nessman, David Gandy and Tyson Ballou. Nessman appears to have a lot of lateral and forward projection of the zygomatic body, but not of the zygomatic arches. This makes his cheek area appear flatter on the sides, from the front, which isn't the best look imo. Tyson Ballou appears to have flared zygomatic arches with little lateral projection of the zygomatic body. Imo this looks better than Nessman's configuration. David Gandy, however, has both: great lateral and forward projection of the zygomatic body, with flared zygomatic arches that project further than the malar body itself. This is the best look in my opinion.





[attachment deleted by admin]

[attachment deleted by admin]

[ppsk]

On the second, younger picture; he appears to have a lot of lateral projection. But the lateral projection is of the zygomatic arch relative to the zygomatic body. The zygomatic body doesn't have as much lateral projection sure. Also you're assuming that lateral projection isn't that important because it isn't incredibly important from the front. On my own face I've noticed that lateral projection gives the face more depth from an oblique view. My other half with little lateral projection, looks very flat and underdeveloped in comparison.

Nobody here claimed that hyper masculinity is attractive, or that 'big everything' is desirable at all. I do feel like lateral projection has some role to play however, but only up to a point. As I said in my previous post: it might be a feature which should reach a minimum threshold to avoid appearing underdeveloped, rather than a feature that appears striking or desirable in large quantities.

However, I completely agree that the most important part is cheekbone forward projection in the area directly below the eye. So high set and forward projected cheekbones with a prominent zygomatic arch is what we should be aiming for, with some degree of lateral projection of the zygomatic body if that area is lacking.

To illustrate what the lateral projection of the zygomatic arch and lateral projection of the zygomatic body, view the pictures attached showing three configurations: starring Simon Nessman, David Gandy and Tyson Ballou. Nessman appears to have a lot of lateral and forward projection of the zygomatic body, but not of the zygomatic arches. This makes his cheek area appear flatter on the sides, from the front, which isn't the best look imo. Tyson Ballou appears to have flared zygomatic arches with little lateral projection of the zygomatic body. Imo this looks better than Nessman's configuration. David Gandy, however, has both: great lateral and forward projection of the zygomatic body, with flared zygomatic arches that project further than the malar body itself. This is the best look in my opinion.

Its worth noting the second younger picture is him at lower bodyfat and on a movie set with controlled lighting and makeup.

Its not that i dont think lateral projection has any role, i just think it is overstated, especially the zygomatic arch which is not prominent on 99% of men who are not already very lean. I consider it the equivalent of too much focus on having a square angular jaw - there are numerous men who don't have this angularity that are often considered better looking than the ones that do (Mel gibson for example, is pretty much all chin). So in that example, its not that having an angular jaw wouldnt be nice, i just dont think its worth focusing on before you fix the major issues first you see what i mean?

So we have the ZSO to consider obviously, but the results arent very impressive, i would perhaps even go as far as saying completely pointless in many of the B/As, and it also seems to carry the secondary problem of giving a flat effect to the cheeks. If what I'm thinking is correct however.... it might be necessary to get a ZSO first BEFORE you can actually look at moving the cheekbones forward.

What else is there? Lefort 3? Modified lefort 3 there is at least one case of a member having this on these forums, yet no before/after, precious few details which honestly is a big problem with surgery patients, its all very wham bam thank you mam, leave and leave the rest of us to figure it out.

Maxilla advancements..... seem to provide mixed results. It definitely seems to give more forward projection to the cheeks which is great, but only forward, not forward and UP. In cases its not a good result at all.

[The Quest for Aesthetics]

Its worth noting the second younger picture is him at lower bodyfat and on a movie set with controlled lighting and makeup.

Its not that i dont think lateral projection has any role, i just think it is overstated, especially the zygomatic arch which is not prominent on 99% of men who are not already very lean. I consider it the equivalent of too much focus on having a square angular jaw - there are numerous men who don't have this angularity that are often considered better looking than the ones that do (Mel gibson for example, is pretty much all chin). So in that example, its not that having an angular jaw wouldnt be nice, i just dont think its worth focusing on before you fix the major issues first you see what i mean?

So we have the ZSO to consider obviously, but the results arent very impressive, i would perhaps even go as far as saying completely pointless in many of the B/As, and it also seems to carry the secondary problem of giving a flat effect to the cheeks. If what I'm thinking is correct however.... it might be necessary to get a ZSO first BEFORE you can actually look at moving the cheekbones forward.

What else is there? Lefort 3? Modified lefort 3 there is at least one case of a member having this on these forums, yet no before/after, precious few details which honestly is a big problem with surgery patients, its all very wham bam thank you mam, leave and leave the rest of us to figure it out.

Maxilla advancements..... seem to provide mixed results. It definitely seems to give more forward projection to the cheeks which is great, but only forward, not forward and UP. In cases its not a good result at all.

I do see what you mean and I sort of agree with the comparison between zygomatic arch prominence and the angular jaw. They're not essentially to be good looking, but that doesn't mean to say that giving an average looking person those features won't improve them. In the eyes of ordinary people, the presence of those features will definitely make that particular individual better looking than he would otherwise be. I would argue that the comparison between the David Gandy picture and the Simon Nessman picture demonstrates how the presence of the zygomatic arch adds another dimension to the male face, giving it a winged look. Similarly the comparison between Tyson ballou's and David Gandy's picture demonstrates how lateral projection has a role in giving the face more depth.

However it's obvious that vertical placement and forward projection of the cheekbones are both more important: those 3 are supermodels and they all share it. Unfortunately there's simply no way to achieve the 'high set' configuration with osteotomies. This is why I am getting a custom midface implant next year which will give me: higher set cheekbones, lateral cheek projection, zygomatic arch protrusion, cheek forward projection, lateral orbital rim projection, infraorbital projection, and paranasal projection all at once. I know this is anathemical to the basis of this forum and the philosophies that float around here, but in my opinion it's really the only solution.

[Lazlo]

For under eye area i recommend BIO OSS implants.

http://www.noormanvanderdussen.com/feminization/cheek-bone-correction.html

This doctor f.e. does everything and his preference is bio oss!

Preference:

The advantages of Bio-Oss: it is placed in a sub-periosteal pocket, through an intra-oral approach. This is our preference, because moulding is easy and the smooth edges at the border of the implant regions (zygomatic area, lateral orbital rim, lateral infra orbital rim area).
The maximum point of augmentation must be more lateral than infra-orbital in the direction of the arch, in order to avoid the 'miss-piggy' look.

What do you think about BIO OSS?

I like the idea of this a lot and I like the sound of this doctor. Is bio oss good stuff? I still don't know what it is exactly? What's it made of? Does it induce and erosion? There are mixed theories about HA paste whether its' good or not. I'd get it in ADDITION to an osteotomy. Like if I had a modified lefort 3 with Sinn I wish he'd augment the area further with BIO OSS. But it's good that's this doctor's preference so he must know how to use it.

Yes no before and afters is troubling, however I like that he has experience in facial feminization. Since the cheekbone thing is often a somewhat female thing as well --like melania trump who has the same cheekbones that make both male and female models hot. So it's a plus in my book, also indicates he's well versed in aesthetics.

Just wish there was more of a one-stop for all. But hey.....

[Lazlo]

Do you expect that to change your eye area shape as a knock-on effect?

Do you think that custom midface implant will give a superior effect to a modified lefort 3?

Finally what do you make of Eppley's "extended cheekbone implants"?: http://exploreplasticsurgery.com/extended-cheek-implants-high-cheekbone-look/

I think he has the right idea about shape, but i don't want implants.

[PloskoPlus]

The second guy has visible mid face asymmetry - deviated septum, right side of upper lip higher than left, scleral show in the right eye (not squinting hard enough.  You have to realise that every single model and celebrity squints like mad)...  His hairline is uneven. Yet he is a model.  It's the big picture that counts.