Is temple restoration necessary?

[SoSoz]

Are temples important to restore a good hair look? Would a person who has a lot of hair loss benefit from not doing temples? Would it look weird if they weren't touched? Could the grafts not better be placed on the hairline?

[devnull]

Well it depends, pictures are neccessary. 

[Ryan Daniel]

For the majority of patients, temple points are like the icing on the cake.

However... without temple points no matter how good a hair transplant will look, if your natural temple points are pushed back you will end up having a wide forehead and the hair on top will look like a wig.  Temple point restoration is great for everyone because it connects the hairline and everything will blend in together, depending on the patient it will determine how far you bring out the temples. Some patients might only need 100 grafts on each side,  some might require 200-230 grafts.  

If you already have pre existing temple points that are present enough and aren't showing any signs of recession, I wouldn't bother

[NARMAK]

My hairline sits at a decent aize from the glabella and isn't overly receded bur because i do not have any temple points at all, its what makes my hair look more receded than it probably is and also contributed to me looking older than i was. 

It's the #1 thing imo to get restored if you don't have any or they're very weak and washed out. However not very many clinics can properly do them and that's why i think it's really important to choose wisely and if the clinic cannot do them, then do not get them done there.

[Eugenix Hair Sciences]

1 hour ago, SoSoz said:

Are temples important to restore a good hair look? Would a person who has a lot of hair loss benefit from not doing temples? Would it look weird if they weren't touched? Could the grafts not better be placed on the hairline?

Temples help frame the face and give a natural look. If the temples have receded or have completely disappeared then it would look unnatural to only have the hairline done.

[HappyMan2021]

Many doctors - even "good ones" are utter sh*t with the temples. This doesn't excuse the fact that temples are indeed necessary for giving youthfullness and framing the face.

Edited April 2, 2022 by HappyMan2021

[NARMAK]

35 minutes ago, HappyMan2021 said:

Many doctors - even "good ones" are utter sh*t with the temples. This doesn't excuse the fact that temples are indeed necessary for giving youth fullness and faming the face.

I feel like unfortunately even though its been over 10+ years of refinements to FUE techniques etc. that we don't have more competent clinics for restoring temple points appropriately is a travesty. 

Hell, i'd go one step further. With the explosion of FUE clinics i'd even go so far as to argue that frontal hairlines have gotten worse too. Pluggy and multi graft ridden with ridiculously lower juvenile distance when not appropriate. 

[Mike10]

It is a luxury. Only if without it would look unnatural

[Fue3361]

I love how they reconstructed my temples, couldn't be happier.

If my procedure was done without it, it would be 30% of the final result that it really is.  The difference is night and day.

 

[Rahal Hair Transplant]

SoSoz,

To answer your question, no - temple hair restoration is not necessary however, it really depends on individual preference and whether or not you feel that restoring the temples would aid in the overall appearance that you’re going for.

In my case for example, I didn’t need to restore my temples because I already had “high sides”.   While I had advanced hair loss and could have potentially enhanced my look in the front, I didn’t feel it was necessary and felt my limited donor supply was better off being used elsewhere  

In my opinion therefore, you will have to make a decision on whether or not restoring your temples is beneficial to your overall look and whether or not that takes precedence over other areas that you also find important.  Just know that donor hair is limited and you need to think hard about where these precious follicles should be used to provide the most benefit to your overall appearance.

Best wishes,

Rahal Hair Transplant 

[Curious25]

Temple points are important. Clinics that tell you they aren’t, probably just can’t do them very well. 
 

It is important to obviously have ‘enough’ grafts to focus on them, but in terms of your facial aesthetic - going lighter on the crown, to compensate for prioritising grafts for good temple point and hairline restoration, will result in a more eye pleasing result IMO. 
 

They’re hard to do though, plenty of decent surgeons haven’t had and don’t have much luck with getting them naturally blended in. 
 

Ask some of the reps on here if they can post three separate cases of patients who have had their temple points restored in the last 2 years, and you’ll be surprised at the reluctance/lack of results. 

Edited April 3, 2022 by Curious25

[Eugenix Hair Sciences]

Do go through the following link to know more about temple recreation.

 

 

 

[TommyLucchese]

I had very very bad recession so my HT at age 23 was ultra conservative. It gave me a V hairline rather than a U and no temporal work. The transformation was GREAT though especially when grown out and my hair is down.

However, now it's 10 years later and I haven't lost any more hair, tweaking of the hairline and temporal work is my next goal along with crown restoration. I'd like to turn the V into more of a U and connect it up to the native hair on the sides.

To conclude: it isn't essential and it's best for when you're a bit older and can anticipate future loss a bit better. Am definitely jealous when I see temple work on post-op pics now but it's something you can always do at a later stage. Better to add to a hairline later than to go too extreme and risk wasting grafts. 

[Rahal Hair Transplant]

Curious,

I think your statement, “Temple points are important.”  Is it too dogmatic for my taste. I think they can be important but at the end of the day, not everybody even has temple points naturally and those who do, they may decide that they personally look a little better without them. On the other hand, to those they are important to, I agree that re-creating them is important unless they feel that there are other areas that are more important and donor hair is limited.  But this of course is my opinion.

at the end of the day, I think we need to recognize that everybody has their own opinion and people need to understand all the facts so they can formulate their own opinion accurately.

Best wishes,

Rahal Hair Transplant

[NARMAK]

1 hour ago, Rahal Hair Transplant said:

Curious,

I think your statement, “Temple points are important.”  Is it too dogmatic for my taste. I think they can be important but at the end of the day, not everybody even has temple points naturally and those who do, they may decide that they personally look a little better without them. On the other hand, to those they are important to, I agree that re-creating them is important unless they feel that there are other areas that are more important and donor hair is limited.  But this of course is my opinion.

at the end of the day, I think we need to recognize that everybody has their own opinion and people need to understand all the facts so they can formulate their own opinion accurately.

Best wishes,

Rahal Hair Transplant

Isn't it also extremely rare though to have individuals without temple points at all? 

That's coming from somebody btw who has lived without them since like 17/18 right now and at 32, i can 100% say they're probably the #1 reason i am going for a hair transplant because if they couldn't be done, i would consider it a waste of time imo because it won't alter my aesthetic as much as recreating the temple points 

I know there's always individual cases but i do believe they offering a framing that definitely has a positive effect. Not having them ages you imo. 

[Curious25]

3 hours ago, Rahal Hair Transplant said:

Curious,

I think your statement, “Temple points are important.”  Is it too dogmatic for my taste. I think they can be important but at the end of the day, not everybody even has temple points naturally and those who do, they may decide that they personally look a little better without them. On the other hand, to those they are important to, I agree that re-creating them is important unless they feel that there are other areas that are more important and donor hair is limited.  But this of course is my opinion.

at the end of the day, I think we need to recognize that everybody has their own opinion and people need to understand all the facts so they can formulate their own opinion accurately.

Best wishes,

Rahal Hair Transplant

Nothing dogmatic about it at all, it’s universally acknowledged amongst the hair loss industry that the framing of the face is the most monumental aesthetic improvement hair transplantation can offer, and without temple points, there ain’t no frame ol boy. 

[EvoXOhio]

6 hours ago, Curious25 said:

Nothing dogmatic about it at all, it’s universally acknowledged amongst the hair loss industry that the framing of the face is the most monumental aesthetic improvement hair transplantation can offer, and without temple points, there ain’t no frame ol boy. 

I disagree. For me the worst part about hair loss is a bald crown. A receded hairline and temple points can just look like a mature age appropriate hairline, whereas a bald crown is what screams “I’m bald”. If I had to choose between having a receded hairline with a full crown versus a perfect hairline with a bald crown, I choose the former every time. Which is in fact exactly what I did. Everyone is different of course, but for many people like myself, we feel the bald crown is the worst part of hair loss. 

[anotherbaldguy]

The temple points need about 300 - 500 grafts and are supposed to be composed of fine singles, whereas the crown can take up to 2-3k grafts and should be composed of multis. It's not really a fair comparison, and realistically there isn't really a compromise here ... putting those 500 singles in the crown would make almost no cosmetic difference at all. 

As long as the hairline has been properly placed then temple point work isn't really necessary, but I just had my temple points fully restored and I cant believe how much of a difference they make already ... moreso than the crown work I done at the same time.

Think of someone like Jack Nicholson who has a heavily receded hairline but has always maintained his temple points ... his face is still somehow framed by them. But without them I believe he would appear much more balding.

But ofc we each have our preferences.

[Curious25]

6 hours ago, EvoXOhio said:

I disagree. For me the worst part about hair loss is a bald crown. A receded hairline and temple points can just look like a mature age appropriate hairline, whereas a bald crown is what screams “I’m bald”. If I had to choose between having a receded hairline with a full crown versus a perfect hairline with a bald crown, I choose the former every time. Which is in fact exactly what I did. Everyone is different of course, but for many people like myself, we feel the bald crown is the worst part of hair loss. 

I totally get that from a psychological perspective, as I myself would feel more self conscious of having a noticeable bald crown than perhaps a receded hairline or temple points. 
 

But when you talk about improving a persons aesthetic, the most focal part is the front on facing impression that we give people - in which temple points make up part of the facial framing, along with the hairline.  
 

I don’t know why there’s such a debate about this, all I originally said was ‘they are important’ . . Which I think is a pretty mild and valid statement.  

[NARMAK]

10 hours ago, EvoXOhio said:

I disagree. For me the worst part about hair loss is a bald crown. A receded hairline and temple points can just look like a mature age appropriate hairline, whereas a bald crown is what screams “I’m bald”. If I had to choose between having a receded hairline with a full crown versus a perfect hairline with a bald crown, I choose the former every time. Which is in fact exactly what I did. Everyone is different of course, but for many people like myself, we feel the bald crown is the worst part of hair loss. 

I think generally it's acknowledged that the crown is a black hole and takes up an enormous amount of grafts to make a noticeable visual improvement whilst trying to respect the whorl pattern which is why generally people tend to focus on the frontal framing of the face. I also think it's significantly easier to use fibres and cover the crown if it's a bit more light to disguise any balding/thinning on the crown. 

Aesthetically the frontal hairline worries far more people because it's visually what we see in the mirror and others predominantly see. 

I personally think until there's unlimited grafts, the crowns the very last place i'd want to personally be investing my finite grafts when trying to improve my visual appearance via Hair Transplant. 

In that picture of Jack Nicholson i do agree, if he basically had receded on his temple points, he would look significantly worse. 

[deeznuts]

On 4/2/2022 at 5:22 AM, SoSoz said:

Are temples important to restore a good hair look? Would a person who has a lot of hair loss benefit from not doing temples? Would it look weird if they weren't touched? Could the grafts not better be placed on the hairline?

Depends on what you consider a good hair look. 

Would a person who has a lot of hair loss benefit from not doing temples? Yes, because you are saving grafts and going for a more conservative look. Aggressive temple points also mean lots of grafts spent making everything else match the temple points. You can't have an N64 cartridge hairline without lowering your hairline everywhere. If you go for a conservative hairline, you can also go for more conservative temples and you're basically saving a nice chunk of grafts and $

Would it look weird if they weren't touched? Not really. If you went for a less aggressive hairline, then somewhat receded temple points would also make sense.

 

[Britanium]

Question is are they important/necessary for you? If they are then make sure your very careful in who you choose for your Dr/Clinic.

[EvoXOhio]

6 hours ago, Curious25 said:

I totally get that from a psychological perspective, as I myself would feel more self conscious of having a noticeable bald crown than perhaps a receded hairline or temple points. 
 

But when you talk about improving a persons aesthetic, the most focal part is the front on facing impression that we give people - in which temple points make up part of the facial framing, along with the hairline.  
 

I don’t know why there’s such a debate about this, all I originally said was ‘they are important’ . . Which I think is a pretty mild and valid statement.  

I still disagree, but that’s just my opinion. To me it’s more aesthetically pleasing when someone has a receded hairline with a full crown, versus a nice hairline and a bald crown. To each their own though. 

[EvoXOhio]

2 hours ago, NARMAK said:

I think generally it's acknowledged that the crown is a black hole and takes up an enormous amount of grafts to make a noticeable visual improvement whilst trying to respect the whorl pattern which is why generally people tend to focus on the frontal framing of the face. I also think it's significantly easier to use fibres and cover the crown if it's a bit more light to disguise any balding/thinning on the crown. 

Aesthetically the frontal hairline worries far more people because it's visually what we see in the mirror and others predominantly see. 

I personally think until there's unlimited grafts, the crowns the very last place i'd want to personally be investing my finite grafts when trying to improve my visual appearance via Hair Transplant. 

In that picture of Jack Nicholson i do agree, if he basically had receded on his temple points, he would look significantly worse. 

Anecdotally speaking, of all my balding friends, almost none of them care about their hairline receding. What they hate and are self conscious of is their bald crown. I was actually surprised when I joined here how many people were ok with a transplanted hairline and a bald crown. 

[NARMAK]

1 hour ago, EvoXOhio said:

Anecdotally speaking, of all my balding friends, almost none of them care about their hairline receding. What they hate and are self conscious of is their bald crown. I was actually surprised when I joined here how many people were ok with a transplanted hairline and a bald crown. 

I guess your friends group and yourself generally go against the grain as the saying goes. 

Most people i have come across worry about the frontal framing and temple recession moreso but i think again as somebody said above  its an individual thing and as an elective cosmetic procedure, you can focus on the hair loss that matters to you. 

To me, i still believe the temple points and frontal hairline should be focused on to maximise aesthetics. I would also care about a balding crown and mine thinning out does concern me, but it's also usually the area on the head that can naturally appear thinning without hair loss due to how the whorl pattern makes hair sit on the scalp area.