Validated composite assessment scales for the global face.

BACKGROUND: Twenty grading scales have been developed to assess age-related facial changes. Until now, the validity with regard to the patient's actual age and the clinical importance of combined measurement tools to describe facial aging was unclear. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the reliability and validity of a total face score and three global face assessment scales for estimated age, estimated aesthetic treatment effort, and signs of aging in the facial units. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Descriptive, reliability, correlation, and principal component analyses based on the assessment of 50 subjects by 12 raters using the 20 grading scales and the global face assessment scales. RESULTS: Inter- and intrarater reliability was high for the total face score and for the scales on estimated age and aesthetic treatment effort. Actual age was highly correlated with these three measures. Facial aging was indicated particularly by scales of the lower face. CONCLUSION: The aesthetic grading scales and global scales on estimated age and aesthetic treatment effort are reliable and valid instruments. The results suggest that a more-comprehensive evaluation of the human face and its age-related changes can help to identify important areas of facial aging and to define optimal aesthetic treatment strategies.

Validated assessment scales for the upper face.

BACKGROUND: Age-related upper face changes such as wrinkles, lines, volume loss, and anatomic alterations may affect quality of life and psychological well-being. The development of globally accepted tools to assess these changes objectively is an essential contribution to aesthetic research and routine clinical medicine. OBJECTIVE: To establish the reliability of several upper face scales for clinical research and practice: forehead lines, glabellar lines, crow's feet (at rest and dynamic expression), sex-specific brow positioning, and summary scores of forehead and crow's feet areas and of the entire upper face unit. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Four 5-point photonumerical rating scales were developed to assess glabellar lines and sex-specific brow positioning. Twelve experts rated identical upper face photographs of 50 subjects in two separate rating cycles using all eight scales. Responses of raters were analyzed to assess intra- and interrater reliability. RESULTS: Interrater reliability was substantial for all upper face scales, aesthetic areas, and the upper face score except for the brow positioning scales. Intrarater reliability was high for all scales and resulting scores. CONCLUSION: Except for brow positioning, the upper face rating scales are reliable tools for valid and reproducible assessment of the aging process.

Validated assessment scales for the mid face.

BACKGROUND: The improvement of aesthetic treatment options for age-related mid face changes, such as volume loss, and the increase in patient expectations necessitates the development of more-complex and globally accepted assessment tools. OBJECTIVE: To develop three grading scales for objective assessment of the infraorbital hollow and upper and lower cheek fullness and to establish the reliability of these scales for clinical research and practice. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three 5-point rating scales were developed to assess infraorbital hollow and upper and lower cheek fullness objectively. Twelve experts rated identical mid face photographs of 50 subjects in two separate rating cycles using the mid face scales. Test responses of raters were analyzed to assess intra- and interrater reliability. RESULTS: Interrater reliability was substantial for the infraorbital hollow, upper cheek fullness, and lower cheek fullness scales. Intrarater reliability was high for all three scales. Both of the cheek fullness scales yielded higher reliabilities when three rather than two views were used to assess the volume changes of the cheek. CONCLUSION: The mid face scales are reliable tools for valid and reproducible assessment of age-related mid face changes.

Validated assessment scales for the lower face.

BACKGROUND: Aging in the lower face leads to lines, wrinkles, depression of the corners of the mouth, and changes in lip volume and lip shape, with increased sagging of the skin of the jawline. Refined, easy-to-use, validated, objective standards assessing the severity of these changes are required in clinical research and practice. OBJECTIVE: To establish the reliability of eight lower face scales assessing nasolabial folds, marionette lines, upper and lower lip fullness, lip wrinkles (at rest and dynamic), the oral commissure and jawline, aesthetic areas, and the lower face unit. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Four 5-point rating scales were developed to objectively assess upper and lower lip wrinkles, oral commissures, and the jawline. Twelve experts rated identical lower face photographs of 50 subjects in two separate rating cycles using eight 5-point scales. Inter- and intrarater reliability of responses was assessed. RESULTS: Interrater reliability was substantial or almost perfect for all lower face scales, aesthetic areas, and the lower face unit. Intrarater reliability was high for all scales, areas and the lower face unit. CONCLUSION: Our rating scales are reliable tools for valid and reproducible assessment of the aging process in lower face areas.

Validated assessment scale for neck volume.

BACKGROUND: Sagging of the neck aesthetic area is an important indicator of age. The development of complex and globally accepted tools for proper assessment of the change in neck volume is an essential contribution to aesthetic research and the routine clinical setting. OBJECTIVE: To develop a grading scale for the objective assessment of the neck volume and to establish the reliability of this scale for clinical research and practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 5-point rating scale was developed to assess neck volume objectively. Twelve experts rated frontal and lateral neck photographs of 50 subjects in two separate rating cycles using the neck volume scale. Responses of raters were analyzed to assess inter- and intrarater reliability. RESULTS: Interrater reliability for the neck volume scale was almost perfect, with intraclass correlation coefficients for the first and second rating cycles of 0.85 and 0.84, respectively. Intrarater reliability for the neck volume scale was high (0.90) and Pearson correlation coefficients ranged between 0.88 and 0.95 and were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The neck volume scale demonstrates optimal reliability for clinical research and practice.