The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Dynamometric analysis of normative auricular stiffness and comparison with operated prominent ears.
Abstract
AIM: Stiffness of the auricular cartilage is the main determining factor for the choice of operative technique of the prominent ear deformity. The aim of this study is to evaluate the stiffness of normal appearing ears objectively and quantitatively, compare the results with the operated prominent ear patients, and present prospective short-term dynamometric evaluation of the operated prominent ear patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 190 volunteers without ear deformities were recruited and 9 age groups were formed: group (5-9), group (10-14), group (15-19), group (20-24), group (25-29), group (30-34), group (35-39), group (40-49), and group (50+). Total 28 ears (14 patients) with otoplasty were included in the study as group (operated 5-9) and group (operated 10-14). In addition, 3 patients with prominent ear deformity were prospectively followed for dynamometric changes that occur with otoplasty operation. The auriculocephalic angle (ACA) was measured once and auricle to scalp distance was measured at 4 different standardized levels. Ear stiffness was measured on each ear individually at 4 different points over the antihelix using digital computer-aided dynamometry. Each ear was compared in terms of ACA, distance, and dynamometric values. FINDINGS: Dynamometric values tend to increase with age, which increase and peak around 35 years of age and declines after 40 years of age. Measurements of the first 2 age groups were statistically different compared with the other groups. Postoperative dynamometric measurements (DNM) of group (operated 5-9) were similar with normative values of group (5-9) and postoperative satisfaction visual analogue scale (VAS) score was 92.8%. Postoperative DNM of group (operated 10-14) were higher compared with normative values of group (10-14) for each different measuring level and the postoperative satisfaction VAS score was 75.3. A total of 3 patients with prominent ears had lower dynamometric values preoperatively; these values approached closer to normative values of their age group postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Results show that auricular cartilage stiffens and malleability decreases with increased age. This stiffness peaks in the 35-39 age group and declines after 40 years of age. Dynamometric values increase, at all levels, suggesting increased cartilage stiffness is related to age. In the scope of these results, cartilage sparing techniques are more suitable for 5 to 14 years of age and cartilage-cutting techniques are more suitable for older patients.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Younger patients (5–14 y) achieve near-normative distances with high satisfaction, whereas older patients retain stiffer cartilage and report lower satisfaction, emphasizing age-specific approaches.68”
From Otoplasty Surgical Techniques and Clinical Outcomes: A Practical Review (2026) · cites this paper as [68]
In the citing paper
“Cartilage stiffness peaks at 35 years and declines after 40 years, impacting surgical results.”
From Otoplasty Surgical Techniques and Clinical Outcomes: A Practical Review (2026) · cites this paper as [68]
Citations
Cites
Janis, J. E., Rohrich, R. J., & Gutowski, K. A. (2005) · Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000156218.93855.c9 · Cited by 159
Otoplasty: Evaluation, Technique, and Review
Kelley, P., Hollier, L., & Stal, S. (2003) · Journal of Craniofacial Surgery · doi:10.1097/00001665-200309000-00008 · Cited by 142 · cited 1×
“More than 200 operative techniques have been described for correction of prominent ear deformity.(2) All techniques have drawbacks and shortcomings; therefore, newer techniques and modifications continue to be developed.”
BackgroundArtistic Anatomy, Dimensions, and Proportions of the External Ear
Tolleth, H. (1978) · Clinics in Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1016/s0094-1298(20)32137-4 · Cited by 108
Anthropometry of Normal and Anomalous Ears
Farkas, L. G. (1978) · Clinics in Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1016/s0094-1298(20)32143-x · Cited by 100
Defining Nasal Cartilage Elasticity
Westreich, R. W., Courtland, H., Nasser, P. R., et al. (2007) · Archives of Facial Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1001/archfaci.9.4.264 · Cited by 83
Long-term survey of prominent ear surgery: a comparison of two methods
Tan, K. H. (1986) · British Journal of Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1016/0007-1226(86)90100-1 · Cited by 82
Otoplasty. Clinical protocol and long-term results.
Messner, A. H., & Crysdale, W. S. (1996) · Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · doi:10.1001/archotol.1996.01890190069016 · Cited by 75
The Quantification of Surgical Changes in Nasal Tip Support
Beaty, M. M., Dyer, W. K., & Shawl, M. W. (2002) · Archives of Facial Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1001/archfaci.4.2.82 · Cited by 70
Cartilage-sparing otoplasty: a review with long-term results
Vuyk, H. D. (1997) · The Journal of Laryngology & Otology · doi:10.1017/s0022215100137545 · Cited by 40
Adamson, P. A., & Litner, J. A. (2007) · Otolaryngologic Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.otc.2006.11.006 · Cited by 37
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Double triangular cartilage excision otoplasty.
Gualdi, A., Cambiaso-Daniel, J., Gatti, J., Wurzer, P., Sljivich, M., Scherer, S. S., Pietramaggiori, G., Bertossi, D., Botti, C., & Botti, G. (2018) · Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000004175 · Cited by 23
Otoplasty Surgical Techniques and Clinical Outcomes: A Practical Review
Kaleeny, J. D., & Janis, J. E. (2026) · Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open · doi:10.1097/gox.0000000000007404
Metadata
- Authors
- Ozturan, O., Dogan, R., Ozucer, B., Yildirim, Y. S., & Meric, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Craniofacial Surgery
- Published
- 2015-10
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 2155-2159
- ISSN
- 1049-2275 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2411806361
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 1.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Craniofacial Surgery (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Reconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nasal Surgery and Airway Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pectus Deformity Diagnosis and Treatment
- Keywords
- otoplasty, dynamometry, auricular cartilage, postoperative satisfaction, antihelix, postoperative follow-up
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Age Factors, Biomechanical Phenomena, Cephalometry, Child, Child, Preschool, Ear Cartilage, Ear, External, Elasticity, Esthetics, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Retrospective Studies, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, Plastic Surgery Procedures, Ear Auricle, Young Adult, Visual Analog Scale
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review