Aesthetics research
The research section of the website contains aesthetics-related research carried out by specialists around the world, including Dr Leonie Schelke, Dr Peter Velthuis, Dr Tom Decates, Dr Jonathan Kadouch & Dr Tom van Eijk.
The information is updated automatically on a daily basis.
Abstracts & full-text articles are provided, where available.
If you'd like to access the information & receive email notifications when new research is available, then please subscribe to the database first, or log in, using the buttons, below:
Recent articles include:
Sebastian Cotofana
PMID: 38636497
Aesthet Surg J. 2024 Apr 18:sjae096. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjae096. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In 2022, the US experienced a significant increase in demand for minimally invasive aesthetic procedures, underscoring its rising acceptance amidst an unregulated educational environment for practitioners. The absence of standardized educational pathways and quality control in aesthetic medicine, primarily provided by non-academic institutions, highlights a critical need for establishing educational standards to ensure practitioner competence and patient safety.
OBJECTIVES: To identify levels of competency for the aesthetic practitioner and for necessary achievement milestones during the educational path from novice to expert injector.
METHODS: A total of n = 386 international study participants responded to an online questionnaire regarding their experience in aesthetic medicine practice. The questionnaire comprised 58 questions focusing on professional data, the perceived difficulty of injection and risk for the occurrence of adverse events for specific facial regions in soft tissue filler and toxin injections.
RESULTS: Regardless of medical specialty and experience level, an average of 3.85 (1.8) years, 786.4 (2,628) filler injections, and 549.9 (1,543) toxin injections was estimated to progress from novice to advanced injector, while an average of 6.10 (3.7) years, 1,842.2 (4,793) filler injections, and 1,308.5 (3,363) injections was estimated to advance from advanced to expert injector. The nose and the perioral region have been ranked as the facial regions most difficult to achieve a perfect aesthetic outcome and with the greatest risk for the occurrence of adverse events for filler and toxin injections, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: This study establishes an educational framework in aesthetic medicine by defining the progression from novice to competent and expert injector levels, suggesting 4 years of practice and over 790 filler and 550 neuromodulator injections for competence, and at least 6 years with 1,840 filler and 1,310 neuromodulator injections for expertise. It also identifies critical facial regions for targeted treatments by different expertise levels.
Rosa Sigrist, Ximena Wortsman
PMID: 38624100
Dermatol Surg. 2024 Apr 16. doi: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000004177. Online ahead of print.
NO ABSTRACT
Sebastian Cotofana
PMID: 38582052
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2024 Mar 24;92:264-275. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2024.03.012. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The increasing number of esthetic procedures emphasizes the need for effective evaluation methods of outcomes. Current practices include the individual practitioners' judgment in conjunction with standardized scales, often relying on the comparison of before and after photographs. This study investigates whether comparative evaluations influence the perception of beauty and aims to enhance the accuracy of esthetic assessments in clinical and research settings.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the evaluation of attractiveness and gender characteristics of faces in group-based versus individual ratings.
METHODS: A sample of 727 volunteers (average age of 29.5 years) assessed 40 facial photographs (20 male, 20 female) for attractiveness, masculinity, and femininity using a 5-point Likert scale. Each face was digitally edited to display varying ratios in four lip-related proportions: vertical lip position, lip width, upper lip esthetics, and lower lip esthetics. Participants rated these images both in an image series (group-based) and individually.
RESULTS: Differences in the perception of the most attractive/masculine/feminine ratios for each lip proportion were found in both the group-based and individual ratings. Group ratings exhibited a significant central tendency bias, with a preference for more average outcomes compared with individual ratings, with an average difference of 0.50 versus 1.00. (p = 0.033) CONCLUSION: A central tendency bias was noted in evaluations of attractiveness, masculinity, and femininity in group-based image presentation, indicating a bias toward more "average" features. Conversely, individual assessments displayed a preference for more pronounced, "non-average" appearances, thereby possibly pointing toward a malleable "intrinsic esthetic blueprint" shaped by comparative context.