The Crown is No Longer a Black Hole For Grafts- Dr. Wong

[Melvin- Admin]

 

[Britanium]

Very nice 👍🏽 Recreation of the whorl/crown is a art in itself. Not many pull it off as well 👌

[rob7331]

Wow, amazing result. Getting my crown done on my next HT and was concerned I'd be "using up" a fair amount of grafts into it. Good to see it can be done without depleting the donor.

[Al - Moderator]

I never understood why so many people think the crown is a black hole. Most people will agree that the front half on a NW 6 would take around 4500 grafts, depending on the person's hair characteristics. Why would they not realize that the same size area in the back half of the head would need the same amount of grafts to get the same density and coverage? Less grafts are done in the crown because most people don't have 9000 or more grafts that they can use, so you have to leave some areas with less density. It makes sense in most cases to have the frontal half more dense than the back half because that creates the best overall appearance when you don't have an unlimited amount of grafts to use.

Here's what I mean. Here's a NW 6 head.

 

So if it takes 4500 grafts to fill in the front half at a reasonable density that provides acceptable coverage, then why wouldn't the back half be the same?

 

 

You can flip the oval around and it's the same either way, but somehow most people assume the crown should only need half or even less than half of what the front needs. That thinking never made any sense to me. Again, obviously we have to try to use as little grafts as possible in the crown in order to use them in the front where they provide a better visual improvement, but that doesn't somehow make the crown a "black hole" for grafts.

 

Edited August 3, 2021 by BeHappy

[Melvin- Admin]

5 hours ago, BeHappy said:

I never understood why so many people think the crown is a black hole. Most people will agree that the front half on a NW 6 would take around 4500 grafts, depending on the person's hair characteristics. Why would they not realize that the same size area in the back half of the head would need the same amount of grafts to get the same density and coverage? Less grafts are done in the crown because most people don't have 9000 or more grafts that they can use, so you have to leave some areas with less density. It makes sense in most cases to have the frontal half more dense than the back half because that creates the best overall appearance when you don't have an unlimited amount of grafts to use.

Here's what I mean. Here's a NW 6 head.

 

So if it takes 4500 grafts to fill in the front half at a reasonable density that provides acceptable coverage, then why wouldn't the back half be the same?

 

 

You can flip the oval around and it's the same either way, but somehow most people assume the crown should only need half or even less than half of what the front needs. That thinking never made any sense to me. Again, obviously we have to try to use as little grafts as possible in the crown in order to use them in the front where they provide a better visual improvement, but that doesn't somehow make the crown a "black hole" for grafts.

 

Great post, I agree for most head shapes and sizes 9,000 grafts is enough, but very few can reach these numbers. Especially if you get FUE only, with FUE alone you can probably extract 6,000 grafts at most from the average person. 

[Curious25]

5 hours ago, BeHappy said:

I never understood why so many people think the crown is a black hole. Most people will agree that the front half on a NW 6 would take around 4500 grafts, depending on the person's hair characteristics. Why would they not realize that the same size area in the back half of the head would need the same amount of grafts to get the same density and coverage? Less grafts are done in the crown because most people don't have 9000 or more grafts that they can use, so you have to leave some areas with less density. It makes sense in most cases to have the frontal half more dense than the back half because that creates the best overall appearance when you don't have an unlimited amount of grafts to use.

Here's what I mean. Here's a NW 6 head.

 

So if it takes 4500 grafts to fill in the front half at a reasonable density that provides acceptable coverage, then why wouldn't the back half be the same?

 

 

You can flip the oval around and it's the same either way, but somehow most people assume the crown should only need half or even less than half of what the front needs. That thinking never made any sense to me. Again, obviously we have to try to use as little grafts as possible in the crown in order to use them in the front where they provide a better visual improvement, but that doesn't somehow make the crown a "black hole" for grafts.

 

I think it's to do with the shape of the back half of the head, due to the curved nature of our skulls in this region, the cm2 of the surface area is actually a lot greater than what it appears to be. 

Regardless, all positive that modern day hair transplantation is utilising grafts much more effectively, and efficiently. 

I always try to make the point that, people often get too hung up with finding 'the cure' . . however, sometimes improving and perfecting what we already have, is going to be just as good, if not better for some. Look at how far we have come from transplants that were being carried out 10 years ago - they are only going to get better and better.