Evidence note: The Golden Ratio (φ≈1.618) is a historical design concept. Modern data show mixed or weak correlation between φ and perceived facial attractiveness across populations. Use φ as a guide only; plan to patient‑specific anthropometry, sex, and ethnicity. ^{1 2 3}

1. Purpose

Provide a standardised framework for applying facial harmony and Golden Ratio concepts in dermal‑filler planning while maintaining safety, individuality and compliance with Australian governance (AHPRA/TGA/ACSQHC/RACGP). ^{6 7 8 10}

2. Scope

Applies to all clinicians at Newcastle Cosmetic Doctor performing dermal filler treatments. Covers analysis, planning and execution referencing φ while respecting sex and ethnic variability.

3. Principles of the Golden Ratio & Facial Harmony

The Golden Ratio (φ≈1.618) is a mathematical proportion used historically in art/architecture. In facial aesthetics, it can inform proportional balance between facial thirds/fifths. Modern evidence is mixed; proportional harmony and population norms trump rigid φ targets. ^{1 2 3}

4. Gender‑Specific and Anatomical Considerations

Female patterns: softer nasal slope, higher malar projection, fuller lips; lip‑to‑chin projection can approach φ‑like ranges in some populations—use as a guide only. ³

Male patterns: stronger mandibular width/angle, flatter midface, reduced upper‑lip projection; avoid feminising over‑projection. ⁵

Ethnic variation: anthropometric norms differ; adapt targets to local norms rather than imposing φ. ^{4 5}

5. Regional Application & Aesthetic Planning

• Midface: balance anterior vs lateral projection by sex/ethnicity; some propose φ‑adjacent width:height guides, but evidence is inconsistent—prioritise soft‑tissue harmony and malar support. ^{3 4}
• Chin & Jawline: harmonise lower facial third with total height (~one third) and with nose/lips; avoid elongation that breaks thirds/fifths harmony. ⁵
• Lips: popular ) # left single quote text = text.replace('’', upper:lower ≈ 1:1.6’ is a **guide**, not a rule; preferences vary by population and age. ^{2 4}
• Forehead/vertical thirds: aim for approximate thirds in many populations; adapt to individual craniofacial pattern. ^{3 5}

6. Safety & Clinical Documentation

• Record pre‑treatment anthropometric measurements (thirds/fifths, lip‑chin, nasal projection) and images in neutral expression.
  • Note that φ is guidance only; plan to patient‑specific anatomy.
  • Avoid over‑projection; preserve dynamic function; reassess at 2—4 weeks with repeat photography. ¹⁰
• Store batch/lot, planes, volumes; document consent and proportional rationale per AHPRA guidance; if devices are implicated in AEs, report via TGA MDIR. ^{6 8 9}

7. Regulatory Compliance (Australia 2025)

• AHPRA non‑surgical cosmetic procedures: scope, consent (incl. under‑18 safeguards), and advertising rules (no testimonials; image standards). ^{6 7}
• TGA: use ARTG‑listed products; report device adverse events via MDIR; follow advertising code (no Schedule‑medicine promotion). ^{8 9}
• ACSQHC: documentation, infection control, clinical governance for services providing cosmetic procedures/surgery. ¹⁰
• RACGP: align with primary‑care governance and referral/records expectations where applicable (context coverage). ¹¹

Appendix — Quick φ Reality Check

Sources

1. Naini, F.B. (2024). The golden ratio—dispelling the myth. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. (Open access)., viewed 05 November 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10792139/ ↩
2. Pallett, P.M., Link, S., Lee, K. (2009). New 'Golden' Ratios for Facial Beauty. Vision Research. (Open access)., viewed 05 November 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2814183/ ↩
3. Milutinovic, J. et al. (2014). Evaluation of Facial Beauty Using Anthropometric Proportions. Sci World J. (Open access)., viewed 05 November 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3951104/ ↩
4. Zwahlen, R.A. et al. (2022). Does 3‑D facial attractiveness relate to golden ratio? J Korean Assoc Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. (Open access)., viewed 05 November 2025, https://jkamprs.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40902-022-00358-2 ↩
5. Chandra, H.J. et al. (2012). Standards of Facial Esthetics: Anthropometric Study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. (Open access)., viewed 05 November 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3485457/ ↩
6. AHPRA (2025). Performing non‑surgical cosmetic procedures — guidelines (in force 2 Sep 2025)., viewed 05 November 2025, https://www.ahpra.gov.au/Resources/Cosmetic-surgery-hub/Cosmetic-procedure-guidelines.aspx ↩
7. AHPRA (2025). Advertising higher‑risk non‑surgical cosmetic procedures — guidelines., viewed 05 November 2025, https://www.ahpra.gov.au/Resources/Cosmetic-surgery-hub/Cosmetic-procedure-advertising-guidelines.aspx ↩
8. TGA (2025). Medical device adverse events — obligations (MDIR)., viewed 05 November 2025, https://www.tga.gov.au/safety-and-shortages/adverse-events/medical-device-adverse-events/obligations-report-adverse-event-medical-devices ↩
9. TGA (2025). Medical device adverse events — overview., viewed 05 November 2025, https://www.tga.gov.au/safety/adverse-events/medical-device-adverse-events ↩
10. ACSQHC (2023). National Safety and Quality Cosmetic Surgery Standards (PDF)., viewed 05 November 2025, https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-12/national_safety_and_quality_cosmetic_surgery_standards.pdf ↩
11. RACGP (2025). newsgp coverage of AHPRA non‑surgical guidelines (context)., viewed 05 November 2025, https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/professional/ahpra-broadens-crackdown-on-cosmetic-procedures ↩