The Difference in Facial Movement Between the Medial and the Lateral Midface: A 3-Dimensional Skin Surface Vector Analysis

Abstract

Background Our understanding of the functional anatomy of the face is constantly improving. To date, it is unclear whether the anatomic location of the line of ligaments has any functional importance during normal facial movements such as smiling. Objectives It is the objective of the present study to identify differences in facial movements between the medial and lateral midface by means of skin vector displacement analyses derived from 3D imaging and to further ascertain whether the line of ligaments has both a structural and functional significance in these movements. Methods The study sample consisted of 21 healthy volunteers (9 females & 12 males) of Caucasian ethnic background with a mean age of 30.6 (8.3) years and a mean BMI of 22.57 (2.5) kg/m 2. 3D images of the volunteers’ faces in repose and during smiling (Duchenne type) were taken. 3D imaging-based skin vector displacement analyses were conducted. Results The mean horizontal skin displacement was 0.08 (2.0) mm in the medial midface (lateral movement) and was -0.08 (1.96) mm in the lateral midface (medial movement) (p = 0.711). The mean vertical skin displacement (cranial movement of skin toward the forehead/temple) was 6.68 (2.4) mm in the medial midface whereas it was 5.20 (2.07) mm in the lateral midface (p = 0.003). Conclusions The results of this study provide objective evidence for an antagonistic skin movement between the medial and the lateral midface. The functional boundary identified by 3D imaging corresponds to the anatomic location of the line of ligaments.

Superficial versus deep injections of the upper midface—A prospective interventional split‐face study

“…This is in alignment with currently accepted treatment algorithms that predominantly target deep = supraperiosteal fascial layers to reshape and revolumize various facial regions including the midface. These observations are also in line with the previously established treatment principles for minimally invasive facial aesthetic procedures which were confirmed in independent clinical studies: lateral face first, upper face first, and deep layers first 1,5–7 …”

Clinical validation of the upper face first principle—A clinical, prospective, interventional split‐face study

“…Objective outcome assessment relied on 3‐dimensional (3D) imaging as previously described 3,16,17 . In brief, standardized full‐face 3D images were obtained utilizing a Vectra H2 camera system (Canfield).…”

Soft tissue filler augmentation of the orbicularis retaining ligament to improve the lid‐cheek junction

“…One of the major effects of facial aging is a descent of facial soft tissue. This is facilitated by the mobility of the fascial layers—greater in the medial midface compared to the lateral midface 26 . In the medial midface, the increased mobility is needed because of the interaction between facial muscles and the overlying skin; without such mobility, muscle contraction would not result in the skin surface movements that we interpret as facial expressions.…”

“…This is facilitated by the mobility of the fascial layers-greater in the medial midface compared to the lateral midface. 26 In the medial midface, the increased mobility is needed because of the interaction between facial muscles and the overlying skin; without such mobil- Age-related soft tissue descent changes the relative location of some of the superficial fat compartments, but does not affect the deep midfacial fat compartments. 31,32 Recent anatomic experimental studies have demonstrated the stability of the deep midfacial fat compartments, and this observation is exploited clinically by the use of the supra-periosteal plane of the midface as the major area for augmentation to recreate a foundation for the overlying midfacial fascial layers.…”