Download PDF
CC BY-NC 4.0 · Arch Plast Surg 2019; 46(03): 248-254
DOI: 10.5999/aps.2018.01319
Original Article

Perception of upper lip augmentation utilizing simulated photography

Gary Linkov 
Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
,
Elizabeth Wick
Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
,
Dorina Kallogjeri
Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
,
Collin L. Chen
Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
,
Gregory H. Branham
Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
› Author AffiliationsREDCap supported by Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Grant (UL1 TR000448) and Siteman Comprehensive Cancer Center and NCI Cancer Center Support Grant (P30 CA091842).
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Background No head to head comparison is available between surgical lip lifting and upper lip filler injections to decide which technique yields the best results in patients. Despite the growing popularity of upper lip augmentation, its effect on societal perceptions of attractiveness, successfulness and overall health in woman is unknown.

Methods Blinded casual observers viewed three versions of independent images of 15 unique patient lower faces for a total of 45 images. Observers rated the attractiveness, perceived success, and perceived overall health for each patient image. Facial perception questions were answered on a visual analog scale from 0 to 100, where higher scores corresponded to more positive responses.

Results Two hundred and seventeen random observers with an average age of 47 years (standard deviation, 15.9) rated the images. The majority of observers were females (n=183, 84%) of white race (n=174, 80%) and had at least some college education (n=202, 93%). The marginal mean score for perceived attractiveness from the natural condition was 1.5 points (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9–2.18) higher than perceived attractiveness from the simulated upper lip filler injection condition, and 2.6 points higher (95% CI, 1.95–3.24) than the simulated upper lip lift condition. There was a moderate to strong correlation between the scores of the same observer.

Conclusions Simulated upper lip augmentation is amenable to social perception analysis. Scores of the same observer for attractiveness, successfulness, and overall health are strongly correlated. Overall, the natural condition had the highest scores in all categories, followed by simulated upper lip filler, and lastly simulated upper lip lift.

Keywords

Lip - Surgery, plastic - Injections - Perception


Publication History

Received: 01 November 2018

Accepted: 23 April 2019

Article published online:
28 March 2022

© 2019. The Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, permitting unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 2017 Plastic surgery statistics report [Internet]. Arlington Heights, IL: American Society of Plastic Surgeons; 2018. [cited 2019 May 3]. Available from https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2017/plastic-surgery-statistics-report-2017.pdf
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Popenko NA, Tripathi PB, Devcic Z. et al. A quantitative approach to determining the ideal female lip aesthetic and its effect on facial attractiveness. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2017; 19: 261-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Penna V, Fricke A, Iblher N. et al. The attractive lip: a photomorphometric analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2015; 68: 920-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Wong WW, Davis DG, Camp MC. et al. Contribution of lip proportions to facial aesthetics in different ethnicities: a three-dimensional analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2010; 63: 2032-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Sawyer AR, See M, Nduka C. 3D stereophotogrammetry quantitative lip analysis. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2009; 33: 497-504
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Haworth RD. Customizing perioral enhancement to obtain ideal lip aesthetics: combining both lip voluming and reshaping procedures by means of an algorithmic approach. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 113: 2182-93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Mommaerts MY, Blythe JN. Rejuvenation of the ageing upper lip and nose with suspension lifting. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2016; 44: 1123-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lee DE, Hur SW, Lee JH. et al. Central lip lift as aesthetic and physiognomic plastic surgery: the effect on lower facial profile. Aesthet Surg J 2015; 35: 698-707
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Moragas JS, Vercruysse HJ, Mommaerts MY. “Non-filling” procedures for lip augmentation: a systematic review of contemporary techniques and their outcomes. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2014; 42: 943-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Ponsky D, Guyuron B. Comprehensive surgical aesthetic enhancement and rejuvenation of the perioral region. Aesthet Surg J 2011; 31: 382-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Echo A, Momoh AO, Yuksel E. The no-scar lip-lift: upper lip suspension technique. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2011; 35: 617-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Weston GW, Poindexter BD, Sigal RK. et al. Lifting lips: 28 years of experience using the direct excision approach to rejuvenating the aging mouth. Aesthet Surg J 2009; 29: 83-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Waldman SR. The subnasal lift. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2007; 15: 513-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Santanche P, Bonarrigo C. Lifting of the upper lip: personal technique. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 113: 1828-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Niechajev I. Lip enhancement: surgical alternatives and histologic aspects. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 105: 1173-83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Guerrissi JO. Surgical treatment of the senile upper lip. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 106: 938-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Jeter TS, Nishioka GJ. The lip lift: an alternative corrective procedure for latrogenic vertical maxillary deficiency: report of a case. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1988; 46: 323-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Austin HW. The lip lift. Plast Reconstr Surg 1986; 77: 990-4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Fanous N. Correction of thin lips: “lip lift”. Plast Reconstr Surg 1984; 74: 33-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Rozner L, Isaacs GW. Lip lifting. Br J Plast Surg 1981; 34: 481-4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Nellis JC, Ishii M, Bater KL. et al. Association of rhinoplasty with perceived attractiveness, success, and overall health. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2018; 20: 97-102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Bater KL, Ishii M, Joseph A. et al. Perception of hair transplant for androgenetic alopecia. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2016; 18: 413-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Perenack J. Treatment options to optimize display of anterior dental esthetics in the patient with the aged lip. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005; 63: 1634-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Kane MA, Lorenc ZP, Lin X. et al. Validation of a lip fullness scale for assessment of lip augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129: 822e-828e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Geronemus RG, Bank DE, Hardas B. et al. Safety and effectiveness of VYC-15L, a hyaluronic acid filler for lip and perioral enhancement: one-year results from a randomized, controlled study. Dermatol Surg 2017; 43: 396-404
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar