AI-Based Quantitative and Objective Analysis of Aesthetic Results in Genioplasty.

BACKGROUND

Genioplasty and chin-augmentation are well-established procedures aimed at enhancing lower facial aesthetics. Traditionally, aesthetic outcomes have been assessed subjectively through expert opinions and patient-reported measures. The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) offers an objective approach to evaluating surgical results. This study utilizes the ICA Aesthetic Navigation AI Research Metrics Model (ICAAN® ARMM) to analyze postoperative changes in facial attractiveness, youthfulness, and skin quality following genioplasty.

METHODS

Pre- and postoperative full-frontal images of 50 patients undergoing osseous genioplasty were analyzed using the ICAAN® ARMM. Therefore, an array of three aesthetic scores, the Facial Aesthetic Index (FAI), Facial Youthfulness Index (FYI), and Skin Quality Index (SQI), were measured before and after surgery, with subgroup analyses by age, sex, and ethnicity. Minimally clinically important differences (MCIDs) were estimated.

RESULTS

All three aesthetic scores demonstrated improvement postoperatively, with FAI showing the greatest increase (82 (73-89) to 85 (75-92); p = 0.296), without showing statistical significance. Older patients (≥ 35 years) exhibited greater improvements in FAI scores compared to younger individuals (4 (1-10) vs. 1 (- 3-5); p = 0.028). Sex-related trends were observed, while lacking statistical significance. Ethnic subgroup analysis revealed no differences in score changes, suggesting cross-cultural applicability. Observed improvements did not exceed estimated MCIDs.

CONCLUSION

AI-assisted aesthetic analysis offers a novel, contemporary, and objective method for assessing genioplasty outcomes. While our study suggests general aesthetic improvements following surgery, further research incorporating larger data collections and subjective patient-reported measures is necessary. AI tools hold promise as a complementary tool in aesthetic medicine, supporting both clinicians and patients in surgical decision-making.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .