Facial harmony: how lips, chin, eyes, nose, and skin change the overall impression

Editorial responsibility: My Best Version. About MBV · Sources, review and corrections (Portuguese).

English guides · About MBV · Português

Have you noticed a change in someone’s appearance without being able to identify exactly what changed? The explanation may lie in relationships between features. Lip contour, chin projection, eyebrows, the nasal profile, and skin appearance provide different visual information. A change in one can influence the impression of the whole without establishing a correct face or a need for treatment.

Facial harmony describes relationships between facial characteristics. Analysis combines anatomy, proportions, and perception, but it does not turn beauty into a diagnosis. Studies identify tendencies in defined groups; experience, context, and individual differences also matter.¹

The face is a whole, not a collection of measurements

Lips may look more prominent in a profile with a less projected chin. Their relationship changes when both regions are viewed differently. This is a reason to avoid interpreting a feature in isolation, not a diagnosis of a defect.³

Distinguish shape, surface appearance, and expression. Contours and projection are not the same as colour and texture, and a photograph captures only one moment in two dimensions. Read what makes a face attractive for the broader research context.

The frontal illustration shows cumulative variants: initial configuration, lips, chin contour, eye region, nose, and skin. The profile illustration explores chin projection and a modest nasal change. These are visual examples—not doses, techniques, research data, or predicted clinical outcomes. Generative images may also vary slightly beyond the intended region, so they are not a controlled experiment.

Photography also changes the face you see

Ward and colleagues modelled distortion in close photographs. At about 30 cm, they estimated an apparent increase of approximately 29–30% in nasal width relative to facial width; distortion was much smaller at approximately 1.5 m. These are geometric estimates, not a rule for every selfie.²

Check distance, head angle, expression, makeup, lighting, and filters before comparing images. Different photographic conditions should not be treated as clinical measurements.

Lips: contour, proportion, and projection

Visible vermilion height is not the same as forward projection. Contour, the Cupid’s bow, and the relationship between the upper and lower portions provide different information.

Modarai and colleagues presented manipulated silhouettes in 4-mm increments involving the chin and lower lip to 100 laypeople and 30 orthodontists. Preferences changed with the relationship between the regions.³ This demonstrates an interaction, not a recommendation to add 4 mm or adopt a universal ratio. Silhouettes do not reproduce expression, texture, or human diversity. Explore lip shapes.

Jaw and chin: contour is not only projection

The chin region and the mandible are not interchangeable. A more defined frontal outline does not alone establish increased or decreased chin projection.

Arroyo and colleagues discuss lower-face assessment and the possibility of dentoskeletal differences. Facial proportions and the wider clinical context matter rather than one point determining intervention.⁴ In profile, consider the relationship with the mouth and nose; from the front, width and contour become more evident. A simulation cannot assess the bite or establish a surgical indication.

Eyes: eyebrows, lids, and shadows

The eye region includes more than eye shape. Zeng and colleagues studied eyebrow preferences using AI-generated images, eye tracking, and 76 volunteers. Tested arch angles ranged from 8° to 20°; moderate arches were better rated within those images, and preferences for apex position differed between groups.⁵ Those angles describe the experiment, not the recommended eyebrow angle for every person. The study does not test treatment efficacy or establish that raising eyebrows always improves appearance.

Dark circles may involve pigment, vessels, swelling, or shadows produced by contours and laxity.⁶ Lightening pigment and changing a contour are different goals. Read dark circles: causes, care, and treatments.

Nose: front and profile are different views

From the front, examine the axis, base width, and tip contour. In profile, the dorsum, projection, and tip rotation stand out. Projection is forward extension; rotation is orientation.

Brito, Avashia, and Rohrich organize nasal analysis across views and characteristics.⁷ A bridge change is not necessarily shortening, and a tip change is not necessarily narrowing the frontal base. Do not assign millimetres or angles to an illustrative image. Shape and breathing must both be considered clinically. Explore nose shapes.

Skin: appearance is not only geometry

Colour uniformity and texture are different properties. Matts and colleagues examined colour uniformity and perceptions of age, apparent health, and attractiveness in female skin. The findings are perceptual associations, not a health diagnostic test. Two authors disclosed employment with Procter & Gamble; that context belongs alongside the study.⁸

Uniformity within skin should not be translated into a hierarchy of skin tones. Our final variant preserves visible pores and small marks rather than treating natural texture as something that must disappear.

Skin care and cosmetic science

Start with a clear goal: comfort, dryness, sun protection, pigmentation, acne, or photoaging. These do not automatically require the same product.

A randomized trial of 903 adults under 55 compared daily sunscreen with discretionary use. After 4.5 years, photoaging progression was lower in the daily-use group. The outcome was assessed through skin microtopography, not a change in facial proportions.⁹

A systematic review of topical tretinoin trials found evidence concerning aspects of photoaging, but formulations, duration, and assessments differed. Irritation matters, and tretinoin evidence should not be transferred wholesale to every product marketed as retinol.¹⁰ Around the eyes, investigate the cause and tolerability rather than selecting strong actives from a simulated result.⁶

Different approaches serve different purposes

Topical care addresses skin-related goals, not bone position. Fillers address selected soft-tissue goals and do not automatically correct bite-related concerns. Surgery may concern structure, excess tissue, or function and requires clinical planning.⁴,⁷,¹⁰,¹¹ For equipment-based treatments, ask which device, indication, and outcome were actually studied rather than treating all technologies as equivalent.

The US FDA describes swelling, bruising, and serious potential harms from inadvertent vascular injection of fillers, including necrosis, visual impairment, and stroke. This is a US regulatory source, not a substitute for Brazilian regulation.¹¹

There is no direct match between an effect in a simulation and the procedure you should undergo. This guide also does not establish that five interventions together are better than evaluating a specific concern—or making no change.

Use analysis to ask better questions

Identify the feature you wish to understand, examine different views, and separate photographic impressions from functional concerns. Ask a professional about objectives, alternatives, risks, follow-up, and the option of not treating.

MBV’s analysis is illustrative and does not provide a diagnosis or individualized treatment recommendation. Read about our approach or return to the English guides.

Frequently asked questions

Is facial harmony the same as a treatment package?

No. Here it describes visual relationships. An intervention must be explained through its actual techniques, goals, evidence, and risks.

Is there an ideal proportion for every face?

The studies cited use particular populations and stimuli and do not establish a universal prescription.¹,³,⁵

Can changing the chin change the impression of the nose?

The profile relationship can change without the nose itself changing. That does not establish an indication for chin treatment.³,⁴

Does an AI comparison show my likely result?

No. The images illustrate relationships and do not reproduce individual healing or treatment outcomes.

References

1. Little AC, Jones BC, DeBruine LM. Facial attractiveness: evolutionary based research. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2011;366(1571):1638–1659. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0404. Full text.

2. Ward B, Ward M, Fried O, Paskhover B. Nasal distortion in short-distance photographs: the selfie effect. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2018;20(4):333–335. doi:10.1001/jamafacial.2018.0009. Full text.

3. Modarai F, Donaldson JC, Naini FB. The influence of lower lip position on the perceived attractiveness of chin prominence. Angle Orthod. 2013;83(5):795–800. doi:10.2319/122912-974.1. Full text.

4. Arroyo HH, Olivetti IP, Lima LF, Jurado JR. Clinical evaluation for chin augmentation: literature review and algorithm proposal. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;82(5):596–601. doi:10.1016/j.bjorl.2015.09.009. Full text.

5. Zeng R, Moellhoff N, Cotofana S, Giunta R, Wiggenhauser S, Glaue E, et al. A gaze into the eyebrow standards of Asian versus Caucasian women. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2024;48(23):4725–4734. doi:10.1007/s00266-024-04240-6. Full text in university repository.

6. Sarkar R, Ranjan R, Garg S, Garg VK, Sonthalia S, Bansal S. Periorbital hyperpigmentation: a comprehensive review. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2016;9(1):49–55. Full text.

7. Brito IM, Avashia Y, Rohrich RJ. Evidence-based nasal analysis for rhinoplasty: the 10-7-5 method. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2020;8(2):e2632. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000002632. Full text.

8. Matts PJ, Fink B, Grammer K, Burquest M. Color homogeneity and visual perception of age, health, and attractiveness of female facial skin. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007;57(6):977–984. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2007.07.040. Abstract and bibliographic information.

9. Hughes MCB, Williams GM, Baker P, Green AC. Sunscreen and prevention of skin aging: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(11):781–790. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-158-11-201306040-00002. Abstract and bibliographic information.

10. Sitohang IBS, Makes WI, Sandora N, Suryanegara J. Topical tretinoin for treating photoaging: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2022;8(1):e003. doi:10.1097/JW9.0000000000000003. Full text.

11. US Food and Drug Administration. Dermal fillers (soft tissue fillers) [Internet]. Silver Spring: FDA; [accessed 12 Oct 2026]. US regulatory source. Original guidance.

Educational information. This English edition is an editorial adaptation of the Portuguese guide, retaining the cited sources and their limitations. External specialist review has not been attributed. For corrections, contact contato@mybestversion.com.br.