monecel
Beauty and violence
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2023
- Posts
- 1,826
- Reputation
- 1,751
There is a guy on tiktok / some other platforms called lin00b who has had a significant ascension and change in facial aesthetics through surgery. As far as I am aware he went to giant implants and got the following:
Trimax,
Titanium Implants:
Infraorbital-Malar,
Supraorbital,
Jaw Angle
Possible Fat Grafting
Here are pictures of the ascension:
Before:
After:
You can see a significant increase in zygomatic protrusion on his 3/4 profile. Maxillary CCW is significant, radix had some filling, basically every aspect of his face was masculinized. However I have some of my own opinions on what may be more ideal in terms of aesthetics. The results are very good but are slightly uncanny imo.
The main points I have are these:
- Ramus height increased slightly too much
- Increased zygomatic protrusion requires more smoothing
- Mandible body ideally could have slight negative space near the gonion
- Mid-Supraorbital protrusion could have been increased more while outer protrusion could have decreased slightly
Point 1. Ramus Height:
I don't have faceIQ level of autistic measurements for side profiles right now but based on intuition the ramus height added with the gonial implants seems a bit high compared to what it should be. The gonion is below the lip on the side profile while ideally it might be a bit higher. Because I don't have a front profile I can't compare the outer palpebral fissure-nasal/jaw angle measurement but from the side it seems like the jaw would be on the flatter side.
Barrett is a good example of this, having an ideal frontal angle:
And with very high posterior facial depth though with a less tall ramus than the implant design above in comparison:
More jaw depth will naturally change your jaw angle so adding ramus height on much can over-compensate so this is something to think about.
Point 2. Zygomatic smoothing
When increasing how much the zygos protrude, especially when factoring in the 3/4 profile, it seems ideal to add a bit of height as well (though it depends on the baseline) as this is how bones naturally grow. It is very rare to find protrusive zygos that have a very sharp contour. In the images at the top of this thread you can see the 3/4 profile and how the zygo lacks a bit of height compared to what may be ideal.
Point 3. Mandibular Negative Space:
People with large amounts of posterior maxillary/sphenoid depth and subsequent mandibular depth very often have a slight upwards curve in the mandible body before the gonion. This occurs mainly due to the protrusion of the gonion itself. This is something that could have been improved in implant design in my opinion. It isn't too significant but mandibles with good growth naturally have this curvature. There are definitely worse implant designers, some want to make the jaw a series of straight angles (jfl)
Example:
4. Mid-Supraorbital Protrusion
Very much a nitpick but this is something I think could be improved in supraorbital implant design. What I am talking about is the depth added in the brow ridge vs the edges of the brow ridge. In my opinion the supras could have more depth added in the middle in design which may be more congruent with natural androgenic growth.
Also just to add in to this I think the increased radix depth might be slightly too much based on other features.
To make my nitpicks in design clearer here is my best attempt at a morph to show the differences in aesthetics:
The differences seem small but these changes actually mean a lot in terms of harmony and being as "canny" as possible after surgery.
Results are definitely way better than fillercels like androgenic jfl
^ Not sure what you call this contour
Anyways thank you for reading this thread on craniofacial aesthetics.
Trimax,
Titanium Implants:
Infraorbital-Malar,
Supraorbital,
Jaw Angle
Possible Fat Grafting
Here are pictures of the ascension:
Before:
After:
You can see a significant increase in zygomatic protrusion on his 3/4 profile. Maxillary CCW is significant, radix had some filling, basically every aspect of his face was masculinized. However I have some of my own opinions on what may be more ideal in terms of aesthetics. The results are very good but are slightly uncanny imo.
The main points I have are these:
- Ramus height increased slightly too much
- Increased zygomatic protrusion requires more smoothing
- Mandible body ideally could have slight negative space near the gonion
- Mid-Supraorbital protrusion could have been increased more while outer protrusion could have decreased slightly
Point 1. Ramus Height:
I don't have faceIQ level of autistic measurements for side profiles right now but based on intuition the ramus height added with the gonial implants seems a bit high compared to what it should be. The gonion is below the lip on the side profile while ideally it might be a bit higher. Because I don't have a front profile I can't compare the outer palpebral fissure-nasal/jaw angle measurement but from the side it seems like the jaw would be on the flatter side.
Barrett is a good example of this, having an ideal frontal angle:
And with very high posterior facial depth though with a less tall ramus than the implant design above in comparison:
More jaw depth will naturally change your jaw angle so adding ramus height on much can over-compensate so this is something to think about.
Point 2. Zygomatic smoothing
When increasing how much the zygos protrude, especially when factoring in the 3/4 profile, it seems ideal to add a bit of height as well (though it depends on the baseline) as this is how bones naturally grow. It is very rare to find protrusive zygos that have a very sharp contour. In the images at the top of this thread you can see the 3/4 profile and how the zygo lacks a bit of height compared to what may be ideal.
Point 3. Mandibular Negative Space:
People with large amounts of posterior maxillary/sphenoid depth and subsequent mandibular depth very often have a slight upwards curve in the mandible body before the gonion. This occurs mainly due to the protrusion of the gonion itself. This is something that could have been improved in implant design in my opinion. It isn't too significant but mandibles with good growth naturally have this curvature. There are definitely worse implant designers, some want to make the jaw a series of straight angles (jfl)
Example:
4. Mid-Supraorbital Protrusion
Very much a nitpick but this is something I think could be improved in supraorbital implant design. What I am talking about is the depth added in the brow ridge vs the edges of the brow ridge. In my opinion the supras could have more depth added in the middle in design which may be more congruent with natural androgenic growth.
Also just to add in to this I think the increased radix depth might be slightly too much based on other features.
To make my nitpicks in design clearer here is my best attempt at a morph to show the differences in aesthetics:
The differences seem small but these changes actually mean a lot in terms of harmony and being as "canny" as possible after surgery.
Results are definitely way better than fillercels like androgenic jfl
^ Not sure what you call this contour
Anyways thank you for reading this thread on craniofacial aesthetics.
