What is the average chin length for men?

Share your experiences with the opposite sex. Suggest ways to improve your success. Analyze the behavior of females in real life and online. Rant and rave about females. Show the importance of looks pertaining to attracting females and other social situations. Discuss aesthetics and the science of attractiveness. Exchange health, nutrition and looksmaxing tips.



A few different sites said stomion to menton should be 44mm (s.d-2mm) and women's should be 40.

vinylelife wrote:A few different sites said stomion to menton should be 44mm (s.d-2mm) and women's should be 40.


link?

also in case that somebody dont know what the menton/stomion is

Image

Let's talk about numbers. This is helpful and useful. Everybody have their chin measuring devices?
Two or three surgeries away from being Ja Rule gang.

Image
Image



heilsa wrote:
vinylelife wrote:A few different sites said stomion to menton should be 44mm (s.d-2mm) and women's should be 40.


link?

also in case that somebody dont know what the menton/stomion is

Image


I don't feel like looking for links. Seriously though, just Google "average stomion to menton height/length" or "average mandibular height".

One group of 316 dental students (with various forms of occlusion so not all had ideal bites) all took each others various facial measurments and the average stomion to menton height (mandibular height) for them was 45.2mm's. That link will be harder to find but it was somewhere on the first few pages of Google after searching for average stomion to menton height or something.

What but people on here say the ideal lower third height should be in the 70s I'm in the 60s

eliasisdope wrote:What but people on here say the ideal lower third height should be in the 70s I'm in the 60s



I still agree with 70's being legit. All I know is the those links seemed to find that the average stomion to menton was 44. I know that farkas found the average for males to be 50mm (s.d- 4) and one other study found similar measurments that coincided with farkas.

So yea, I'm not entirely sure. I also found a link that has 72mm (s.d-4) as average for lower facial height. A few other links found similar numbers and farkas (famous anthropologists whom studied facial aesthetics quite deeply) stated that average and +or- 1 s.d is optimal and harmonious.

I think that facebase "averages" may be a tad larger than actual physical measurments due to the fact that the computer doesn't compress any skin when measuring.



eliasisdope wrote:What but people on here say the ideal lower third height should be in the 70s I'm in the 60s

That includes your upper lip and philtrum tho, a 70mm chin looks ridiculous
Image

socloseto6ft wrote:
eliasisdope wrote:What but people on here say the ideal lower third height should be in the 70s I'm in the 60s

That includes your upper lip and philtrum tho, a 70mm chin looks ridiculous

He's talking about the whole lower third measurement here, brother soclose.
The ends of the 70's mms or the early of the 80's mms seem to be the ideal.

Mine is in the 90's mms I think.
Image

beetlejuice wrote:
socloseto6ft wrote:That includes your upper lip and philtrum tho, a 70mm chin looks ridiculous

He's talking about the whole lower third measurement here, brother soclose.
The ends of the 70's mms or the early of the 80's mms seem to be the ideal.

Mine is in the 90's mms I think.


Nah, I think ideal is anything close to average, which is 72. It seems like lots of good looking dudes (friends, actors and robust athletes) are more average in their lower facial height as opposed to long. Models tend to have longer lower thirds I think.

Facebase has the average lower third height at - 73.5mm, if you take away the avg philtrum and lip height you get 41.5mm, seems about right to me.
Image

Image

Techno Viking wrote:Facebase has the average lower third height at - 73.5mm, if you take away the avg philtrum and lip height you get 41.5mm, seems about right to me.

hmm wierd

Well my middle third is average according to face base my philtrum is 14 mm probably my short chin? Because my chin is only 34 mm from bottom of lower lip to bottom of chin

eliasisdope wrote:Well my middle third is average according to face base my philtrum is 14 mm probably my short chin? Because my chin is only 34 mm from bottom of lower lip to bottom of chin


short teeth & short chin

so you lazy faggots...

Image
Attachments
vertical chin length.PNG
vertical chin length.PNG (112.02 KiB) Viewed 11037 times

just found this:

arkas et al.7 reported the craniofacial norms in nineteen to twenty-five year-old North American Caucasian men and women (109 male, 200 female). Among these norms: the width of the face (zy-zy) was 139.1 mm to 130.0 mm (male to female), the height of the face (tr-gn) was 187.2 mm to 173.3 mm, the height of the lower face (sn-gn) was 72.6 mm to 64.3 mm, the height of the mandible (sto-gn) was 50.7 mm to 43.4 mm, and the lower half of the craniofacial height (en-gn) was 117.7 mm to 102.7 mm. The width of the nose (al-al) was 34.9 mm to 31.4 mm, the width of the mouth (ch-ch) was 54.5 mm to 50.2 mm, and the length of the upper lip (sn-sto) averaged 22.3 mm to 20.1 mm. In comparing these measurements with our current study, most of Farkas et al.'s measurements were very similar. However, the height of the face (tr-gn), the height of the upper lip (sn-sto), and the width of the nose (al-al) were comparably larger than Farkas et al.'s. In the current study, the average length of the face 189.8 mm (tr-gn) was 1.44 times larger than the width of the face (zy-zy) 131.2 mm. They reported that the size and form of the artificial anterior teeth harmonized with the shape of the patient's face (ref 8-10). In the current study, the face width (zy-zy) 131.2 mm was 3.8 times larger than the distance between the maxillary canine cusp tips (34.8 mm).

An estimation of the position of the apex of the upper natural canine can be found by an extension of parallel lines from the lateral surfaces of the ala of the nose onto the labial surface of the upper occlusal rim.3 In this study, the width of the nose (al-al) 35.2 mm was as same as between the cusp tips of maxillary canines 34.8 mm. Although these two comparisons are frequently used to select the size of denture teeth, one dental student's nose was 29 mm wider, and another's was 11 mm narrower than the distance between the maxillary canine cusp tips. Consequently, even though the averages of these distances were almost equal (35.2 and 34.8 mm), such a comparison is relatively useless for selecting tooth size or for positioning upper canines on an edentulous patient. The average 24.6 mm upper lip height or length was the most variable dimension measured, whereas the 62.6 mm distance between the pupils was the most stable dimension among eleven facial measurements recorded.

In this study, the average length of the face 189.8 mm (tr-gn) was 1.44 times larger than its 131.2 mm width (zyzy). The average height or length of the face (tr-gn) 189.8 mm was 2.71 times larger than the 70 mm height or length of the lower face (sn-gn). The 70 mm average length of the lower face (sn-gn) was 2.85 times larger than the 24.6 mm upper lip length (sn-sto). The average length of endocanthion to stomion (en-sto) 68.8 mm was the same as the average length of the lower face (sn-gn) 70 mm. These two distances are often compared in selecting the proper vertical dimension of occlusion on edentulous patients. The position of the natural maxillary central incisors in this study averaged 1.2 mm longer than the upper lip. Many prosthodontists would agree that this amount of upper tooth exposure below the upper lip, is a useful guide in determining the upper tooth position and proper length on an edentulous patient.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4279047/

just found this:

arkas et al.7 reported the craniofacial norms in nineteen to twenty-five year-old North American Caucasian men and women (109 male, 200 female). Among these norms: the width of the face (zy-zy) was 139.1 mm to 130.0 mm (male to female), the height of the face (tr-gn) was 187.2 mm to 173.3 mm, the height of the lower face (sn-gn) was 72.6 mm to 64.3 mm, the height of the mandible (sto-gn) was 50.7 mm to 43.4 mm, and the lower half of the craniofacial height (en-gn) was 117.7 mm to 102.7 mm. The width of the nose (al-al) was 34.9 mm to 31.4 mm, the width of the mouth (ch-ch) was 54.5 mm to 50.2 mm, and the length of the upper lip (sn-sto) averaged 22.3 mm to 20.1 mm. In comparing these measurements with our current study, most of Farkas et al.'s measurements were very similar. However, the height of the face (tr-gn), the height of the upper lip (sn-sto), and the width of the nose (al-al) were comparably larger than Farkas et al.'s. In the current study, the average length of the face 189.8 mm (tr-gn) was 1.44 times larger than the width of the face (zy-zy) 131.2 mm. They reported that the size and form of the artificial anterior teeth harmonized with the shape of the patient's face (ref 8-10). In the current study, the face width (zy-zy) 131.2 mm was 3.8 times larger than the distance between the maxillary canine cusp tips (34.8 mm).

An estimation of the position of the apex of the upper natural canine can be found by an extension of parallel lines from the lateral surfaces of the ala of the nose onto the labial surface of the upper occlusal rim.3 In this study, the width of the nose (al-al) 35.2 mm was as same as between the cusp tips of maxillary canines 34.8 mm. Although these two comparisons are frequently used to select the size of denture teeth, one dental student's nose was 29 mm wider, and another's was 11 mm narrower than the distance between the maxillary canine cusp tips. Consequently, even though the averages of these distances were almost equal (35.2 and 34.8 mm), such a comparison is relatively useless for selecting tooth size or for positioning upper canines on an edentulous patient. The average 24.6 mm upper lip height or length was the most variable dimension measured, whereas the 62.6 mm distance between the pupils was the most stable dimension among eleven facial measurements recorded.

In this study, the average length of the face 189.8 mm (tr-gn) was 1.44 times larger than its 131.2 mm width (zyzy). The average height or length of the face (tr-gn) 189.8 mm was 2.71 times larger than the 70 mm height or length of the lower face (sn-gn). The 70 mm average length of the lower face (sn-gn) was 2.85 times larger than the 24.6 mm upper lip length (sn-sto). The average length of endocanthion to stomion (en-sto) 68.8 mm was the same as the average length of the lower face (sn-gn) 70 mm. These two distances are often compared in selecting the proper vertical dimension of occlusion on edentulous patients. The position of the natural maxillary central incisors in this study averaged 1.2 mm longer than the upper lip. Many prosthodontists would agree that this amount of upper tooth exposure below the upper lip, is a useful guide in determining the upper tooth position and proper length on an edentulous patient.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4279047/

Techno Viking wrote:
heilsa wrote:so you lazy faggots...

Image


https://www.facebase.org/facial_norms/s ... plipheight

https://www.facebase.org/facial_norms/s ... faceheight

20 year old measurement for upper lip height = 21.8mm

Largest measurement from your picture = 45mm

Total 66.8mm, that's quite far off of the facebase average for total lower face height at 73.5mm, lol.


I already made the point that facebase measurments are skewed towards the larger ends possibly since the computer software doesn't compress any skin when measuring. The average lower facial height in male's already largely corroborated in other studies was found to be 72mm+-4.

Also, keep in mind that this is still a very early field of research and a measuring standard has not been put forth. Even beauty standards have changed in a few important areas. It was once said in the vitruvian man that male beauty is optimal when his face is vertically divided into equal thirds. We now know that that is utter bs since males are more attractive when their lower facial third is relatively larger than their other thirds.

heilsa wrote:just found this:

arkas et al.7 reported the craniofacial norms in nineteen to twenty-five year-old North American Caucasian men and women (109 male, 200 female). Among these norms: the width of the face (zy-zy) was 139.1 mm to 130.0 mm (male to female), the height of the face (tr-gn) was 187.2 mm to 173.3 mm, the height of the lower face (sn-gn) was 72.6 mm to 64.3 mm, the height of the mandible (sto-gn) was 50.7 mm to 43.4 mm, and the lower half of the craniofacial height (en-gn) was 117.7 mm to 102.7 mm. The width of the nose (al-al) was 34.9 mm to 31.4 mm, the width of the mouth (ch-ch) was 54.5 mm to 50.2 mm, and the length of the upper lip (sn-sto) averaged 22.3 mm to 20.1 mm. In comparing these measurements with our current study, most of Farkas et al.'s measurements were very similar. However, the height of the face (tr-gn), the height of the upper lip (sn-sto), and the width of the nose (al-al) were comparably larger than Farkas et al.'s. In the current study, the average length of the face 189.8 mm (tr-gn) was 1.44 times larger than the width of the face (zy-zy) 131.2 mm. They reported that the size and form of the artificial anterior teeth harmonized with the shape of the patient's face (ref 8-10). In the current study, the face width (zy-zy) 131.2 mm was 3.8 times larger than the distance between the maxillary canine cusp tips (34.8 mm).

An estimation of the position of the apex of the upper natural canine can be found by an extension of parallel lines from the lateral surfaces of the ala of the nose onto the labial surface of the upper occlusal rim.3 In this study, the width of the nose (al-al) 35.2 mm was as same as between the cusp tips of maxillary canines 34.8 mm. Although these two comparisons are frequently used to select the size of denture teeth, one dental student's nose was 29 mm wider, and another's was 11 mm narrower than the distance between the maxillary canine cusp tips. Consequently, even though the averages of these distances were almost equal (35.2 and 34.8 mm), such a comparison is relatively useless for selecting tooth size or for positioning upper canines on an edentulous patient. The average 24.6 mm upper lip height or length was the most variable dimension measured, whereas the 62.6 mm distance between the pupils was the most stable dimension among eleven facial measurements recorded.

In this study, the average length of the face 189.8 mm (tr-gn) was 1.44 times larger than its 131.2 mm width (zyzy). The average height or length of the face (tr-gn) 189.8 mm was 2.71 times larger than the 70 mm height or length of the lower face (sn-gn). The 70 mm average length of the lower face (sn-gn) was 2.85 times larger than the 24.6 mm upper lip length (sn-sto). The average length of endocanthion to stomion (en-sto) 68.8 mm was the same as the average length of the lower face (sn-gn) 70 mm. These two distances are often compared in selecting the proper vertical dimension of occlusion on edentulous patients. The position of the natural maxillary central incisors in this study averaged 1.2 mm longer than the upper lip. Many prosthodontists would agree that this amount of upper tooth exposure below the upper lip, is a useful guide in determining the upper tooth position and proper length on an edentulous patient.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4279047/


Nice find. I also just realized that your earlier link that showed 44mm's as average is from the Indian dental academy.

Here is another thing I found and she gives a s.d as well.

https://books.google.com/books?id=kYeSj ... ht&f=false

vinylelife wrote:
Nice find. I also just realized that your earlier link that showed 44mm's as average is from the Indian dental academy.



lmao. another proof that indians are subhumans.

heilsa wrote:
vinylelife wrote:
Here is another thing I found and she gives a s.d as well.

https://books.google.com/books?id=kYeSj ... ht&f=false


dafuq? look at the difference between us and uk


Lol, I know!


What's your view on your measurments being either 1-2mm's larger or shorter than the average s.d which is also considered optimal. Is something that small generally noticeable? Does it make being good looking an impossibility?

heilsa wrote:
vinylelife wrote:
Here is another thing I found and she gives a s.d as well.

https://books.google.com/books?id=kYeSj ... ht&f=false


dafuq? look at the difference between us and uk


Jesus christ thank you viny I though you should measure from the edge of the lower lip so I came out subhuman, turns out that I'm 4.5cm which is average.

Topic Tags

Return to Shitty Advice

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 92 guests