Negative orbital vector - ALWAYS poor under eye support?

[meltmylungs_]

Look what this person writes:

Orbital vector

Guys, do ive a neutral or negative orbital vector?

looksmax.org

Your eyeballs are ALWAYS anterior to your infraorbitals, and if the orbital vector ONLY accounted for them, no one in the world would even have a neutral vector, and even if they did, it would be deformed. Therefore, whether you have a NOV, Neutral OV, or POV is ENTIRELY determined by your under-eye support.

From this, it's easy to explain why recessed people can have a neutral orbital vector, while some with good forward growth have a negative one. Examples are few, of course, but Cillian Murphy's serve as a prime example:

Another conclusion: the orbital vector does depend on forward projection, but only indirectly, since with good forward growth, you have a MORE chance of having good fat deposits under your eyes. But this doesn't change the fact that you can have good deposits even with poor growth.

Another fact: with maxillary recession, the orbitals DO NOT RETRACT. You can ask the GPT chat, and they'll tell you that the only segment that sinks during recession is the LOWER SEGMENT OF THE MAXILLA:

And this is corrected with Le Fort 1; there's NO NEED to interact with the infraorbitals.

The orbitals PHYSICALLY cannot sink, as their position is STABLE relative to the skull, regardless of any type of recession. Therefore, I repeat, you can EASILY correct your orbital vector by grafting fat into the infraorbital cavity, and it will be anatomically CORRECT.

For your orbital vector, this NEVER OVER.

 

[monecel]

Asking GPT anything about craniofacial aesthetics is like asking a woman what they find attractive. They will be subversive at worst and delusional at best. Leave asethetics to the high IQ autists. As for fixing neg vector fat grafting and infraorbital implants are both good options depending on your case. If you have scleral show at rest then implants are likely the better option.

 

[CantEscape:(]

Maybe.can ur infras even be recessed with no maxilla recessesion?

 

[skolnaja]

Maybe.can ur infras even be recessed with no maxilla recessesion?

Yeah it's possible. You can have good forward growth in your lower maxilla (teeth/lips area) but still have a recessed upper maxilla and cheeks. So your mouth sticks out more than your under-eyes, which gives you a negative orbital vector even though your lower third looks fine.

 

[skolnaja]

The orbital vector thing is just wrong. A positive orbital vector means your infraorbital rim and cheekbone project ahead of your cornea. That's the whole point, the bone is forward of the eye. Plenty of people have this, especially with good forward facial growth. Saying "no one would have a neutral vector" if we only looked at bone position doesn't make sense because that's literally how it's measured.
It's not just about fat. Yeah, soft tissue matters for appearance, but the orbital vector is fundamentally skeletal. You can't create a real positive vector with fat grafting alone if your bone structure is recessed. Without that bony shelf, fat just sags or creates puffiness over time.
Maxillary recession affects the whole midface, not just teeth. When someone has a hypoplastic maxilla, it's usually the entire nasomaxillary complex that's set back, including the infraorbital rims. The maxilla literally forms the orbital floor. If it's recessed, your rims are too. That's what causes a negative vector for most people.
LF1 doesn't touch the under eyes. LF1 cuts below the infraorbital rim to advance the dental segment. It'll fix your bite and lip support but does nothing for orbital rim position. If you actually need the rims moved forward, you're looking at LF2/LF3 territory (way more invasive) or implants. Anyone saying LF1 fixes orbital vector doesn't understand the surgery. The orbitals don't "sink" but they absolutely can be developmentally retruded. Stable position doesn't mean ideal position.

 

[meltmylungs_]

The orbital vector thing is just wrong. A positive orbital vector means your infraorbital rim and cheekbone project ahead of your cornea. That's the whole point, the bone is forward of the eye. Plenty of people have this, especially with good forward facial growth. Saying "no one would have a neutral vector" if we only looked at bone position doesn't make sense because that's literally how it's measured.
It's not just about fat. Yeah, soft tissue matters for appearance, but the orbital vector is fundamentally skeletal. You can't create a real positive vector with fat grafting alone if your bone structure is recessed. Without that bony shelf, fat just sags or creates puffiness over time.
Maxillary recession affects the whole midface, not just teeth. When someone has a hypoplastic maxilla, it's usually the entire nasomaxillary complex that's set back, including the infraorbital rims. The maxilla literally forms the orbital floor. If it's recessed, your rims are too. That's what causes a negative vector for most people.
LF1 doesn't touch the under eyes. LF1 cuts below the infraorbital rim to advance the dental segment. It'll fix your bite and lip support but does nothing for orbital rim position. If you actually need the rims moved forward, you're looking at LF2/LF3 territory (way more invasive) or implants. Anyone saying LF1 fixes orbital vector doesn't understand the surgery. The orbitals don't "sink" but they absolutely can be developmentally retruded. Stable position doesn't mean ideal position.

Sorry, bro, I was drunk when I wrote this and hadn't slept for two nights. I was just looking for a simple theory about jaw development, without even bothering to verify anything. If I could delete this thread, I would

 

[CantEscape:(]

Sorry, bro, I was drunk when I wrote this and hadn't slept for two nights. I was just looking for a simple theory about jaw development, without even bothering to verify anything. If I could delete this thread, I would

Healthmaxx