Skip to main content

Table 2 Comparison of attractive male and female faces with neoclassical canons

From: Does 3-dimensional facial attractiveness relate to golden ratio, neoclassical canons, ‘ideal’ ratios and ‘ideal’ angles?

Parameters

Descriptions

Ideal target value

Attractive male faces (n = 5)

Attractive female faces (n = 5)

Total judges

Layman judges

Orthognathic judges

Total judges

Layman judges

Orthognathic judges

Median

p-value

Median

p-value

Median

p-value

Median

p-value

Median

p-value

Median

p-value

C1

Orbital canon (right)

Ex(R)-En(R): Ex(R)-Ex(L)

1

1.78

0.50

1.78

0.14

1.78

0.50

1.88

0.04*

1.88

0.04*

1.89

0.04*

C2

Orbital canon (left)

Ex(L)-En(L): Ex(R)-Ex(L)

1

1.79

0.89

1.85

0.35

1.79

0.89

1.75

0.35

1.75

0.89

1.56

0.35

C3

Orbito-nasal canon

En(R)-En(L): Al(R)-Al(L)

1

1.56

0.69

1.56

0.23

1.56

0.69

1.52

0.04*

1.52

0.04

1.52

0.04*

C4

Naso-oral canon

Ch(R)-Ch(L): Al(R)-Al(L)

1.5

1.75

0.35

1.75

0.14

1.75

0.35

1.7

0.04*

1.7

0.04*

1.66

0.04*

C5

Naso-facial canon

Al(R)-Al(L): Zy(R)-Zy(L)

0.25

1.51

0.50

1.55

0.89

1.51

0.50

1.53

0.08

1.53

0.04*

1.52

0.08

C6

Three section facial profile canon (upper vs middle face)

Tr-N: N-Sn

1

1.56

0.23

1.51

0.08

1.56

0.23

1.55

0.04*

1.55

0.04*

1.57

0.04*

C7

Three section facial profile canon (middle vs lower face)

N-Sn: Sn-Gn

1

1.67

0.89

1.67

0.35

1.67

0.89

1.7

0.04*

1.7

0.04*

1.66

0.04*

  1. *Significant p-value < 0.05