NegativeNorwood

15 minutes ago, Gasthoerer said:

That a well framed face supported by prominent temples is an aesthetic plus does not (!) contradict with what I have written. 

I am saying: if you go too aggressive on the temples - to much forward, to straight which equals a juvenile hairline, benefit risk ratio is getting worse. 

Agree with this, couldn't understand you well first.

15 minutes ago, Gasthoerer said:

Besides that: most Caucasian do not have such a hairline after puberty even without  (major) hairloss. Brad Pitt is an example you have given yourself. 

That's true, most caucasian men do not have that kind of perfect, well framed hairline...and that shouldn't stop anyone from chasing it, specially when it's proven to look better

Shameless tag I know, but would love to read your opinions about this:

@Melvin- Moderator @DrMunibAhmad@BHRClinic @L0ke@Eugenix Hair Sciences

33 minutes ago, Gasthoerer said:

Besides that everyone's head is different (and therefore not everyone looks good with the same hairline design) the main thinking is:

The model you are showing has almost a juvenile hairline. Bringing the temples this much forward and also have the this straight up, requires a very low hairline to not look odd. This comes with severe risks:

1. You need much more grafts - which you might not have long term.

2. You need very high density, cause such a juvenile hairline looks odd with low density. Which requires even more grafts and most likely several surgeries to achieve the density. 

What you gain on the other side is not that much. With a more conservative approach you can still have great hair, many will compliment (I know that personally). Therefore the risks outweigh the benefits for 99 % of patients. 

 

Agree with you on points 1 and 2, not everyone has a good starting point to afford having so many grafts placed for an optimal hairline.

I respectfully disagree with you with regards to the conservative approach. The prominent temples are a necessity for optimal aesthetics IMO. Please read my two posts above. The conservative approach sounds "safe" but the aesthetics of a well framed face are a big plus.

Either way, this thread is more about the shape of the temporal peaks more than the amounts of grafts needed for them. It catched my eye that I've never seen a hair transplant with that result. Those that go for aggressive temporal peak restorations usually go for hairlines that look more like Brad Pitt's (more sloped, more pointy temporal peaks).

1 hour ago, NikosHair said:

I like your screenname, sounds like you already have a good head of hair😊

There is a lot that can go wrong with poorly executed TP's (they are just so prominent)

When done correctly it makes a HUGE difference.

The issue with turning your TP's up to an 11 is creating balance, naturalness and the limited supply of suitable hairs.

Thanks! It's wishful thinking tbh, I'm norwood 1.5-2 at 30 yo, fortunately I have no thinning and very good hair overall. Hairline has been the same since I was 24-25 yo. I never had prominent temples to being with. My main interest is temporal peaks and eyebrows (which are and always were very sparse and would greatly benefit from a transplant).

I think good temporal peaks are crucial for a good hairline, despite risking and having "hair greediness". For example, check this edit:

His hairline "looks" much higher than it actually is without his very prominent temples. Now imagine him with sparse eyebrows on top of that...

Indeed the number of grafts and it's limited supply is a big factor. I'm mostly thinking about the shape of the temporal peaks here (read my post above).

1 hour ago, Berba11 said:

It depends on lots of factors. The guy in the video is Anil from Eugenix. It would be pretty wild to try and bring his temple points in as much as the model in the photo - the idea of restoration is to get as close to what you had before, maybe with some improvements if the donor capacity, hairloss pattern and patient physiology (frontalis muscle, head shape etc), will allow for it.

If you've never had temple points as closed off as the model's, then you'd be blasting through a lot of extra grafts to achieve that look. It may also just look a bit weird if you've never had temple points like that before - a HT isn't supposed to radical alter you appearance to the point of being unrecognisable!

Yes I know, I've used the pic as example because it was a Youtube video thumbnail and he is an excellent example of a great hair transplant. I should have used someone like Brad Pitt for more clarity or a more apples to apples comparison (both the model and Brad Pitt didn't have a hair transplant), as my main interest is the shape of the temples in this particular case.

Notice how Pitt's temples are more sloped and "pointy" in comparison despite having very similar prominence:

That's my main doubt. All the aggressive temporal peak restorations I've seen resemble Brad Pitt's hairline much more. 

Didn't know about the frontalis muscle being of great importance for the temporal peaks, will definitely search for info about that.

Hi there!

First post but long time lurker.

I've noticed that very, very few doctors are good at transplating the temporal peaks (most doctors just ignore them tbh). 

I've observed that all of them (at least the ones I've seen) go for a very specific design of the temporal peaks, like this one on the video's thumbnail:

Excellent work. Design wise, I notice they are quite sloped in comparison to, for example, this:

The model's temples are straighter, end where his eyebrows start in side profile and give the illusion of a low hairline (when it is actually proportional to his other facial thirds).

Have you seen any transplant where the work on the temporal peaks resemble the hairline of the model (straighter and ending where eyebrows start to frame the face correctly)?

Is it just a design decision (patient or doctor liking the more sloped aesthetic more) or are there any other reasons (ie: docs not bothering to design different types of temples)?