RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Middle Eastern women worldwide increasingly seek aesthetic treatment to enhance their beauty and improve self-esteem, but literature describing standards of beauty across the Middle East are scarce. Knowledge of facial anthropometry and Middle Eastern subregional beauty preferences and aesthetic weaknesses are key to develop an effective facial enhancement strategy that does not jeopardize ethnic identity or facial harmony. METHODS: Dermatologists and plastic surgeons from 8 Middle Eastern countries who had 7.5-25 (mean 13.5) years of experience in aesthetic medicine examined female Middle Eastern beauty in 4 geographic subregions: the Gulf (comprising Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates), Iran, Lebanon, and Egypt. They developed consensus opinions regarding facial beauty, aesthetic deficiencies, and injectable treatment solutions. RESULTS: Facial anthropometry differs between Middle Eastern and Western women, and also within the region. Although subregional differences are seen, beauty is generally recognized by an oval or round face; temple fullness; pronounced, elevated, arched eyebrows; large almond-shaped eyes; well-defined, laterally full cheeks; a small, straight nose; full lips; a well-defined jawline; and a prominent, pointed chin. The relative prominence of the nose necessitates attention to the lips and the shape and projection of the chin. Aging is often accompanied by midface sagging that leads to increased heaviness in the lower facial third. CONCLUSIONS: Middle Eastern beauty is characterized by striking eyes, defined cheeks, and full lips. These consensus opinions inform aesthetic practitioners who treat Middle Eastern women worldwide about their aesthetic ideals and the implications for treatment.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) is widely used in consumer goods, foods, and medicaments as a binder, emulsifier, and viscosity enhancer. Cases of immediate and delayed allergic reactions to this anionic cellulose polymer have been reported. OBJECTIVE: To report a case of contact urticaria from CMC in chalk, with possible cross-reaction to methyl hydroxyethylcellulose (MHEC). METHOD: Patch tests with readings at 48 and 96 hours were performed with the North American Contact Dermatitis Group standard series and benzisothiazolinone. Open and prick tests with readings after 30 minutes were performed with two brands of chalk as well as with various petrolatum and aqueous dilutions of CMC, MHEC, oleic acid, and calcium carbonate. RESULTS: The patient developed strong urticarial reactions during open tests with both powdered chalks and had milder reactions to the open test with CMC 10% aqueous (aq) and to prick testing with CMC 0.1% aq. No reaction to MHEC or any of the other ingredients of the chalks was observed. No relevant delayed reaction was noted. CONCLUSION: CMC can cause contact urticaria. It remains unclear why our patient reacted more strongly to the chalk than to CMC itself. We speculate that the abrasive nature of the chalk enhances the cutaneous penetration of CMC or that calcium carbonate, the main ingredient of the chalk, acts as an adjuvant. It is also possible that CMC and MHEC cross-react and that our negative results with MHEC may be due to improper testing technique or concentrations.