<< Back to the abstract archive
Determining Chin Dimensions for Feminizing Genioplasty: An Anatomical Study
R'ay Fodor, BA&Sc, Abir Kalandar, MD; Antonio Rampazzo, MD, PhD; Raymond Isakov, MD; Cecile Ferrando, MD MPH; Francis Papay, MD; Bahar Bassiri Gharb, MD, PhD
Cleveland Clinic Department of Plastic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine
2023-02-01
Presenter: R'ay Fodor
Affidavit:
I certify that the material proposed for presentation in this abstract has not been published in any scientific journal or previously presented at a major meeting.
R'ay Fodor participated in data collection, ran all the data analyses used herein, and wrote the abstract.
Director Name: Frank Papay
Author Category: Medical Student
Presentation Category: Clinical
Abstract Category: Craniomaxillofacial
BACKGROUND: Feminizing genioplasty warrants reduction of the chin to achieve a feminine chin shape. This study aims to compare female and male skeletal chin dimensions to provide indications for surgical planning of feminizing genioplasty.
METHODS: Dry skulls stored at Cleveland Museum of Natural history were included for analysis. Maxillae and mandibles that had alveolar height loss and damaged teeth were excluded. Sex, age, ethnic origin, chin height, width, projection, and shape were documented.
RESULTS: Forty-three male (43.58±12.52 year-old) and 43 female (40.48±12.04 year-old) skulls were included. In each group, 25 skulls were of African origin and 18 were of European origin. Male chin height (24.44± 1.96 mm) and lower facial height (LFH, 69.41±5.79 mm) were greater than females' (chin height 21.53±2.25 mm; LFH 64.03 ±6.07 mm) (p<0.0001). Male chin width was wider between parasagittal lines (male 33.08±2.12; female 31.30±2.26; p=0.0001) and inter-mental foramina (male 45.23±2.72 mm; female 44.00±2.59 mm; p=0.017). Chin width to zygomatic width ratio (male 0.25±0.02; female 0.25±0.02; p=0.8) and chin projection (male, 75.40±7.96mm; female, 75.63±7.02mm; p=0.89) did not differ according to sex. Intergonial width was significantly larger in men (men, 97.15±6.85mm; female, 90.57±5.20mm; p<0.0001). Ethnic differences were only noted in males for chin heights (African, 24.89±2.02mm; European, 23.82±1.73mm; p=0.038) and chin widths in the parasagittal plane (African, 33.70±2.30mm; European, 32.22±1.51mm; p=0.011). Male chins displayed prominent lateral tubercles and square shape; female chins were round.
CONCLUSIONS: The most important factor in chin feminization is correction of the shape. Height and width reduction are not necessary in most subjects.
