rhinoplasty.cc
Menu

Journal archive · Outcomes, satisfaction and psychology · Anatomy and nasal analysis · 2024

APS Aesthetic Plastic Surgery · 2024

Chin Dysmorphology in the Primary Rhinoplasty Population: Prevalence, Objective Analysis, and Implications

Coombs DM, Hua V, Patel V, Guyuron B.

What this paper says

Among 108 patients presenting for first time rhinoplasty, 97 or 89.8 percent had a measurable chin abnormality, but only 11 or 10.1 percent agreed to have the chin treated.

Overview

The chin and the nose read against each other in profile, so a small chin makes a nose look larger. The authors set out to measure how often chin abnormalities occur in people seeking rhinoplasty and to describe the planning problem created when a patient or parent declines chin surgery. They reviewed 108 consecutive primary rhinoplasty patients, taking demographics, soft tissue cephalometric measurements and surgical details.

Sections of note

  • Design: retrospective review of 108 consecutive primary rhinoplasty patients. Level of evidence III. Exclusions: prior jaw or chin surgery, jaw trauma, congenital craniofacial deformity.
  • 92 of 108 patients, 85.2 percent, were female. Mean age 30.8 years, range 14 to 72.
  • 97 patients, 89.8 percent, showed some degree of objective chin dysmorphology.
  • Classes recorded: 15 Class I macrogenia at 13.9 percent, 63 Class II microgenia at 58.3 percent, 14 Class III combined at 12.9 percent, and 41 Class IV asymmetry at 38 percent. The class counts overlap, since they exceed the 97 affected patients.
  • All patients were offered chin correction; 11 accepted, 10.1 percent. 5 had bone genioplasty, mean advancement 7.8 millimeters, and 7 had fat grafting, mean 4.4 cubic centimeters. These counts sum to 12, not 11, an internal inconsistency.

What it means for a patient

  • A receding chin was the most common finding, present in nearly six in ten of these patients, and it changes how the nose appears in profile.
  • Almost everyone offered chin correction declined, so most rhinoplasty is performed without addressing the chin.
  • Measurement here was by photographs and cephalometric analysis, not by asking patients whether the chin bothered them.
  • Limits: 108 patients, one practice, retrospective, and no outcome comparison between those who had chin correction and those who did not.

Why this paper matters

Profile balance depends on both the nose and the chin, and operating on one alone limits what the profile can become. Quantifying how common chin abnormalities are, and how rarely they are treated, frames a gap between what surgeons recommend and what patients accept. Whether treating the chin improves rhinoplasty satisfaction is not measured here.

Terms

  • Microgenia: an underdeveloped or receding chin.
  • Macrogenia: an overly prominent or large chin.
  • Genioplasty: surgery to reposition or reshape the chin bone.
  • Cephalometrics: standardized measurements of the head and face.
  • Dysmorphology: a measurable deviation from typical form.

Summary written by rhinoplasty.cc from the abstract, 2026-09-09; not medical advice. The authors' own abstract follows.

Abstract

Background: Chin flaws are far more common than recognized. Denial of genioplasty by parents or adult patients can present a surgical planning enigma, especially in patients with microgenia and chin deviation. This study aims to investigate the frequency of chin imperfections on patients seeking rhinoplasty, review the conundrum they generate, and offer management suggestions based on over 40 years of the senior author's experience.

Methods: This review included 108 consecutive patients presenting for primary rhinoplasty. Demographics, soft tissue cephalometrics, and surgical details were obtained. Exclusion criteria included prior orthognathic or isolated chin surgery, mandiblular trauma, or congenital craniofacial deformities.

Results: Of the 108 patients, 92 (85.2%) were female. Mean age was 30.8 years (SD±13, range 14-72). Ninety-seven (89.8%) patients exhibited some degree of objective chin dysmorphology. Fifteen (13.9%) had Class I deformities (macrogenia), 63 (58.3%) Class II (microgenia), and 14 (12.9%) Class III (combined macro and microgenia in the horizontal or vertical vectors). Forty-one (38%) patients had Class IV deformities (asymmetry). While all patients were offered the opportunity to correct chin flaws, only 11 (10.1%) underwent such procedures. Five (4.6%) patients had simultaneous osseous genioplasty (mean advancement 7.8mm, range 5-9mm); 7 (6.5%) received fat grafting to the chin (mean volume 4.4cc, range 1-9cc).

Conclusions: A considerable proportion of primary rhinoplasty patients possess quantifiable chin dysmorphology on circumspect examination, high-resolution photographs and cephalometric analysis. Only a small number agree to surgical interventions that pursue full facial harmony. Potential reasons for these findings, patient aversion, and mitigation strategies will be discussed.

Level Of Evidence Iii: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these evidence-based medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Abstract as indexed by PubMed; the article is open access (PubMed Central).

Citation

PubMed
Journal
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery
Year
2024
Authors
4
Type
Review, Journal Article
Access
Open access
On this site
Summary and abstract

Authors on this site

Start here

What the rhinoplasty literature says on this paper's topics, cited line by line to PubMed.

Related papers

Same topic, 2024.

  1. ASJ
    2024PMID 38682262Full text
  2. ASJ
    2024PMID 38366551Summary
  3. ASJ
    2024PMID 37738132Summary
  4. ASJ
    2024PMID 38452148Summary
  5. ASJ
    2024PMID 38314894Summary
  6. APS
    2024PMID 38575764Summary
  7. APS
    2024PMID 38587673
  8. APS
    2024PMID 38839614Summary