Lets talk about cheekbones

[ppsk]

Something ive just considered...


It might be useful to see if you can find a skull scan of an attractive person vs an average person. I have no idea where to start looking for that, but I believe being able to see the differences in 3d or even an xray would be instrumental in then being able to determine what part of the structure you really need enhanced and how.

[The Quest for Aesthetics]

Something ive just considered...


It might be useful to see if you can find a skull scan of an attractive person vs an average person. I have no idea where to start looking for that, but I believe being able to see the differences in 3d or even an xray would be instrumental in then being able to determine what part of the structure you really need enhanced and how.

Given unlimited funds, the best way to do it would be to pay a male supermodel to get the ct scan done. And then use it to compare to our own scans.

[GJ]

That is all nonsense and bulls**t!!!

The stories of it leading to tissue/bone inflammation / erosion etc. are anecdotal not laboratory results. HA f.e. has the same structure as natural bone so blood and tissue will grow into it.

http://www.arnettgunson.com/files/2015/02/hydroxyapatite.pdf

EDIT: I have informed the moderators and administrators!

To my knowledge, there are different types of HA and some can cause problems, so that could be the cause of confusion.
The type of HA and method of processing it that A/G use is considered superior, to my understanding.

[Lazlo]

yeah i'd really iike to see more skulls and also do comparative stuff with my skull model versus a male models.

I wonder if any good looking famous people's skulls are available like marlon brando or elvis presley.

wouldn't that be the best way to plan surgery if you had bio-oss or osteotomy. like skull now, and then what needs to be augmented to make it male model skull. PERFECT>

[The Quest for Aesthetics]

yeah i'd really iike to see more skulls and also do comparative stuff with my skull model versus a male models.

I wonder if any good looking famous people's skulls are available like marlon brando or elvis presley.

wouldn't that be the best way to plan surgery if you had bio-oss or osteotomy. like skull now, and then what needs to be augmented to make it male model skull. PERFECT>

The thing is we more or less know what makes somebody good looking in general. There are certain areas of confusion: such as how much does maxillary projection really matter, how much does lateral orbital projection matter, and whether there is any role for the 'forward set' orbital box theory. But the point is, we know that maxillary and lateral orbital development is good to whichever degree, it's just a question of quantifying its importance and ideal configurations.

[The Quest for Aesthetics]

We need to crowd fund the CT scan of a male model tier skull.

I'm up for this. I could try and get one my MM tier (too short to be an actual male model) friends to do it - we'll need to cover the cost of the CT scan and £200 or so for him so about £500 in total I'm guessing.

[The Quest for Aesthetics]

i'd also be in, but he'd have to have excelent bone structure (not just goodlooking from a great eye area and just average bones), would need to see pics of his face to decide if i will continue to invest in it.

Yeah sure. I'll have to PM privately though

[ppsk]

I'm interested.

Has anyone like Eppley ever confirmed that having a CT scan of the desired look would be beneficial?

I have a feeling it's not as simple as we think just comparing the difference between skulls and making implants to fill in what's missing. A key thing being the skull widths and heights. I would conjecture the optimal approach would be to use a CT scan of a MM who has the same skull dimensions and that is going to be hard to do.

Its not that its as simple as going ohh hes got 2mm more of bone in this direction and that direction, custom implant, voila! Because of course you still have significant differences in soft tissues like the insertions and dimensions of muscles, fat storage etc.

But, none the less, it would be instrumental in getting a clearer idea of just how different the skull of a good looking person is to an average looking person, and in what areas in particular. It seems to me that a lot of bad plastic surgery results (the freakshow cases) are a result of trying to recreate a look without understanding what actually produces the look. The "hollow cheeks" for example has little to do with the fat pad in the cheek, and a whole lot more to do with a draped curtain effect being created by having wide cheekbones and a wide mandible.

So not optimal, no, but what is really. Instrumental however? definitely.

[ditterbo]

Would it be any easier to obtain at what point different skull measurement ratios can essentially be considered 'ugly'? 
 
Like if it's hard to say what exact skull measurements are ideal for any individual, given a MM skull reference, maybe it's helpful to also work from the bottom up, so to speak?

[PloskoPlus]

It's all about proportions, not absolute measurements.

[ppsk]

update: i had been basing my misgivings about the ZSO on what seems to be a case of forum chinese whispers

there is B/A that was circulated here that was claimed to have been the result of a ZSO, it wasnt very good. However, apparently it was NOT a ZSO and the b/a was a man who had malar implants and a rhinoplasty.

here are what actual ZSO results can look like: http://www.academia.edu/6713021/1995_The_sandwich_zygomatic_osteotomy_-_technique_indications_and_clinical_results._JCMFS

pay close attention to figure 7. IMO that is a fantastic result.



It has widened his cheekbone to the extent that he now has slight cheek hollows (which would probably be further defined by anything that widens the mandible) but he also seems to have more support under the eye, creating the cushioning effect!

No orthognathic surgery was performed in this case. The patient desired refinement of the nasal tip, definition of the cheekbones and mandibular angle, and volume reduction of the lower lip. (A) preoperative lateral view; (B) preoperative 3/4 profile view; (C) 18 month postoperative lateral view; (D) 18 month postoperative 3/4 profile view

[The Quest for Aesthetics]

update: i had been basing my misgivings about the ZSO on what seems to be a case of forum chinese whispers

there is B/A that was circulated here that was claimed to have been the result of a ZSO, it wasnt very good. However, apparently it was NOT a ZSO and the b/a was a man who had malar implants and a rhinoplasty.

here are what actual ZSO results can look like: http://www.academia.edu/6713021/1995_The_sandwich_zygomatic_osteotomy_-_technique_indications_and_clinical_results._JCMFS

pay close attention to figure 7. IMO that is a fantastic result.



It has widened his cheekbone to the extent that he now has slight cheek hollows (which would probably be further defined by anything that widens the mandible) but he also seems to have more support under the eye, creating the cushioning effect!

No orthognathic surgery was performed in this case. The patient desired refinement of the nasal tip, definition of the cheekbones and mandibular angle, and volume reduction of the lower lip. (A) preoperative lateral view; (B) preoperative 3/4 profile view; (C) 18 month postoperative lateral view; (D) 18 month postoperative 3/4 profile view

There's no denying that it's a great result, but it doesn't look as if vertical movement was performed. Ideally the cheekbone prominence would be higher and the zygomatic arches more flared. Great change overall though. I'm still inclined towards the custom implants however, due to the fact that my zygos are low set and my lateral orbital rims are underdeveloped.

[The Quest for Aesthetics]

I wonder if the modified lefort iii brings out the zygomatic arches laterally?

I'm not sure - are you totally against custom implants for that area?

[triot]

update: i had been basing my misgivings about the ZSO on what seems to be a case of forum chinese whispers

there is B/A that was circulated here that was claimed to have been the result of a ZSO, it wasnt very good. However, apparently it was NOT a ZSO and the b/a was a man who had malar implants and a rhinoplasty.

here are what actual ZSO results can look like: http://www.academia.edu/6713021/1995_The_sandwich_zygomatic_osteotomy_-_technique_indications_and_clinical_results._JCMFS

pay close attention to figure 7. IMO that is a fantastic result.



It has widened his cheekbone to the extent that he now has slight cheek hollows (which would probably be further defined by anything that widens the mandible) but he also seems to have more support under the eye, creating the cushioning effect

How do you come to this conclusion? If the mandible is increased in width shouldn't the lateral projection of the cheekbones reduce and thus the shadow become even smaller (or the chances in having one eliminated?)

[ppsk]

There's no denying that it's a great result, but it doesn't look as if vertical movement was performed. Ideally the cheekbone prominence would be higher and the zygomatic arches more flared. Great change overall though. I'm still inclined towards the custom implants however, due to the fact that my zygos are low set and my lateral orbital rims are underdeveloped.

I should say that i dont know if vertical movement is necessary. I was basing my concept of ZSO results off a picture that ive now found out was not a zso at all.

looking at this result, it seems obvious that he has the effect we are talking about..... perhaps you were right all along and its lateral projection that is very important. Maybe there is slightly vertical movement when performing the ZSO? I am not sure.