By Sung Jae Ahn, MD · Plastic Surgeon, Facial Bone Contouring · DL Plastic Surgery, Seoul

When patients come in for a consultation about facial contouring, they rarely say “my cheekbones are 5 mm too wide.” They say, “my face looks big,” “I look tired or harsh,” or “my jaw makes my face look square.” What they are describing is not the size of a single bone, but a loss of balance — between the forehead, midface and lower face, and between the cheekbones, the jaw angle and the chin.

In this article I want to explain what that balance actually means: the facial proportions that are consistently associated with an attractive, harmonious face, the classic face shapes, and how the cheekbones, the jaw and the chin each contribute — with a focus on East Asian faces, where the anatomy and the aesthetic goals differ from Western textbooks.

Key takeaways

• A face looks small and balanced because of its proportions, not because any one bone is small.
• In attractive East Asian faces, the face length is about 1.3 times the cheekbone width, and the jaw width is roughly 70–75% of the cheekbone width.
• The oval and inverted-triangle face shapes are rated most attractive; the trapezoidal (wide-jaw) shape the least.
• Cheekbones, jaw angle and chin must be planned together — changing one alone can make the others look worse.

1. Vertical proportions: the facial thirds

The oldest and most widely used guide is the neoclassical canon inherited from Renaissance artists: the face can be divided into three equal vertical thirds — from the hairline to the brow, from the brow to the base of the nose, and from the base of the nose to the chin. Horizontally, the face is classically divided into five equal fifths, each about one eye-width wide.^[1,2]

The lower third deserves special attention because it is where the jaw and chin live. Classically, the distance from the base of the nose to the lips is about one third of the lower face, and the lips-to-chin segment about two thirds.^[1] But studies of Korean women tell a slightly different story. When 800 young Korean women were compared with Korean beauty-pageant contestants, the attractive group had a shorter lower face — particularly a shorter distance from the lips to the chin — and a narrower jaw. Overall, the Korean face had a shorter and narrower lower third than the neoclassical canon.^[3]

In other words, Western canons are a useful starting point, but an East Asian face should be judged against East Asian norms.

2. Width: face length versus cheekbone width

The single ratio that best captures “a small face” is the relationship between face length and cheekbone width (the bizygomatic width — the widest part of the midface).

In an analysis of 450 young Chinese women classified into eight face shapes, the oval face — one of the two most attractive shapes — had the longest, narrowest proportions of all, with a face length about 1.33 times the cheekbone width. Faces rated most beautiful averaged about 1.28.^[4] As cheekbone width increases, this ratio drops and the face reads as shorter, rounder and larger.

Western texts sometimes cite the golden ratio (1.618) as the ideal relationship between face length and width.^[2] But measured attractive East Asian faces cluster around 1.3, so chasing 1.618 in an Asian face is neither realistic nor desirable.

The facial index

Anthropometrists express the same idea as the facial index (face height ÷ cheekbone width × 100), which classifies faces into five types:^[2]

Facial index	Face type
79.9 or less	Very broad
80 – 84.9	Broad
85 – 89.9	Round (average)
90 – 94.9	Long
95 or more	Very long

This is why reducing cheekbone width can make the same face look longer and slimmer even though no length has been added: the facial index goes up.

3. The cheekbones: three parts, three different goals

“Cheekbone” is not one structure. When I plan surgery, I divide it into three regions:

• Anterior malar: the soft fullness under the eye. This is not something to reduce. If it is deficient, the face looks flat and older, and it may need to be filled rather than reduced.
• 45° (oblique) malar: the most prominent point when seen at an angle. When it is sharp and projecting, the face looks strong or harsh.
• Lateral malar (zygomatic arch): the part in front of the ear that determines facial width. A narrow arch is one of the strongest contributors to a small-looking face.

The position of the highest point of the cheekbone also matters. A highlight that sits higher and more toward the centre of the face is associated with a more youthful look.^[5] Western analyses such as Hinderer’s and Wilkinson’s place this point in the upper-outer part of the cheek, but they were designed for cheek augmentation in Caucasian faces.^[6,7] In East Asians with prominent cheekbones, the highest point usually sits below those reference positions, so the goal is to reduce and lift it, not to build it up.^[8]

Aesthetic preferences point the same way: composite “ideal” Chinese and Japanese female faces have flatter cheekbones than Western ideals, whereas prominent cheeks are more readily accepted in Caucasian faces.^[1]

4. The jaw angle (the “square jaw”)

The second width that defines face shape is the jaw width (the bigonial width, between the two jaw angles). The key is not its absolute size, but its relationship to the cheekbones.

• A jaw width of about 66–75% of the cheekbone width is reported as the normal range in anthropometric studies.^[2]
• In a 3D CT study of patients after cheekbone reduction, satisfaction was highest when the cheekbone-to-jaw width ratio approached 4 : 3 — a jaw about 75% of the cheekbone width.^[9]
• Attractive faces in both Korean and Chinese studies had a narrower jaw than average faces.^[3,4]
• Ideal East Asian composite faces show obtuse (softer) jaw angles.^[1]

A face reads as “square” when several features combine: a wide bigonial width, a sharp, low jaw angle, a flat lower border of the jaw, a retruded chin and a short lower face. A thick masseter muscle adds to the effect by masking the cheekbones and squaring off the lower face.^[10]

Interestingly, the same feature is judged very differently across cultures: in Western literature a strongly defined jawline is associated with masculinity and attractiveness,^[2] while in East Asia a prominent jaw angle tends to give an intense, masculine impression, and a slim, V-shaped lower face is preferred — especially in women.^[10]

5. The chin

The chin finishes the lower third, and it influences both the frontal shape and the profile.

• Shape: ideal East Asian female faces have a sharp, tapered chin, which together with softer jaw angles creates the oval or inverted-triangle outline.^[1]
• Length: attractive Korean faces have a slightly shorter lips-to-chin segment than the neoclassical canon.^[3] A chin that is too long makes the face look long and heavy; one that is too short makes it look round.
• Profile: many East Asian studies have found that a slightly retruded lower-face profile is preferred over a strongly projecting chin, with lips sitting slightly behind the average as well.^[1] Profile lines such as Ricketts’ E-line are useful for judging the lip–chin relationship, but the target position should reflect ethnic norms.^[2]

The chin is also the main lever for the vertical ratio: in round faces with a short total face length, lengthening the chin can bring the face-length-to-width ratio closer to the oval range.^[4]

6. Face shapes

Face shape is the visible result of all three structures — cheekbones, jaw angle and chin — together with the shape of the skull. East Asian faces are commonly grouped into round, oval and square types,^[10,11] and a more detailed analysis of 450 Chinese women described eight shapes, ranked here from most to least attractive:^[4]

Rank	Face shape	General outline
1	Inverted triangle	Wider upper face, narrow jaw, tapered chin
2	Oval	Longest face relative to its width; smooth, continuous outline
3	Rectangular	Long face with a relatively wide jaw
4	Round	Short face relative to its width; soft angles
5	Diamond	Prominent cheekbones with a narrower forehead and jaw
6	Square	Cheekbone and jaw widths similar; angular jaw
7	Triangular	Lower face wider than the upper face
8	Trapezoidal	Short, wide face with a broad lower jaw

Ranked by average attractiveness score in Zhao et al.^[4]

Two practical points follow. First, an oval or inverted-triangle face is not about being small everywhere — it is about the width tapering smoothly from the cheekbones to the chin. Second, which structure to change depends on the shape: a round face may benefit from a longer chin, a square face from jaw-angle reduction, and a diamond or wide-midface face from cheekbone reduction. Even early classifications of malar reduction patients noted that a square face with a prominent jaw needs both cheekbone and jaw-angle surgery.^[11]

7. Seeing the face as two lines

In consultation I find it helpful to describe the facial outline as two lines rather than as separate bones:

• Anterior facial line — from the 45° cheekbone down to the jowl. When it projects, the face looks strong or harsh.
• Posterior facial line — from the zygomatic arch down along the jaw angle. When it flares outward, the face looks wide and large.

A harmonious face has both lines smooth and continuous with each other. This is also why the cheekbones and the jaw should be planned together: reducing only the cheekbones while leaving a wide jaw can make the lower face look relatively squarer, and the cheekbone-to-jaw width ratio has been proposed as one of the most important indicators for achieving an oval contour.^[12]

8. Proportions are a guide, not a target

All of these numbers are averages, and they come from different populations and measurement methods (photographs, direct anthropometry, CT). Direct measurements, for example, produce higher face-length ratios than photograph-based ones. They are best used as a compass, not as a formula.

In practice, I combine three things before recommending any procedure:

• Bone shape on 3D CT — which part of the cheekbone, jaw or chin is actually responsible for the proportion that bothers the patient.
• Soft tissue — skin thickness, fat, masseter volume and previous fillers or fat grafting, which all change how bony changes show on the surface.
• The whole face — length, width and profile together, so that improving one ratio does not upset another.

The goal is never simply a smaller face. It is a face whose proportions fit together — with the cheekbones, the jaw and the chin each in the right place for that person.

---

This article is for general educational purposes and does not replace an individual medical consultation. All surgical procedures carry risks, and results vary depending on bone structure, soft tissue and healing.

References

1. Gao Y, Niddam J, Noel W, Hersant B, Meningaud JP. Comparison of aesthetic facial criteria between Caucasian and East Asian female populations: an esthetic surgeon’s perspective. Asian J Surg. 2018;41(1):4–11.
2. Armengou X, Frank K, Kaye K, et al. Facial anthropometric measurements and principles – overview and implications for aesthetic treatments. Facial Plast Surg. 2024;40(3):348–362.
3. Lee JS, Kim HK, Kim YW. Anthropometric analysis of the attractive and normal faces in Korean female. J Korean Soc Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;31(4):526–531.
4. Zhao Q, Zhou R, Zhang X, et al. Morphological quantitative criteria and aesthetic evaluation of eight female Han face types. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2013;37(3):445–453.
5. Lee SW, Myung Y, Jeong YW. Bone resection versus setback in reduction malarplasty: a quantitative analysis of the migration of the summit of the zygoma. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2016;40(3):349–359.
6. Hinderer UT. Malar implants for improvement of the facial appearance. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1975;56(2):157–165.
7. Wilkinson TS. Complications in aesthetic malar augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1983;71(5):643–649.
8. Ahn SJ, Lee KM, Lee J, Park S. Strategic approach for effective reduction malarplasty: depending on malar protrusion type. J Craniofac Surg. 2026;37(6):1672–1677.
9. Yang F, Qi Z, Du L, Song G, Zong X, Jin X. The relationship between the facial proportion changes in hard tissue and the satisfaction of patients after reduction malarplasty: a research based on three-dimensional cephalometry. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2020;44(3):750–763.
10. Han MD, Kwon TG. Zygoma and mandibular angle reduction: contouring surgery to correct the square face in Asians. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2023;35(1):83–96.
11. Lee JG, Park YW. Intraoral approach for reduction malarplasty: a simple method. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;111(1):453–460.
12. Li D, Xu H, Xu L, Huang X, Yuan J, Wei M. The aesthetic proportion index of facial contour surgery. J Craniofac Surg. 2015;26(2):586–589.