How many fu/cm^2 consider as a good density?

[Harry2]

How many grafts per square cm do you guys consider as a good result for NW6?

Edited September 1, 2022 by Harry2

[HappyMan2021]

Forgive me, my #'s may be a tad bit off, but i think in general:

Anything less than 40cm is bad

40-59 is decent/average

60-70 is great

70-90cm fantastic. It can be done in one go by an elite surgeon. But this density often requires 2+ surgeries

Its important to keep in mind, even if you go to an elite surgeon, they may give you a lower than great density due to your own unique situation and characteristics 

Also your skin and hair color can greatly affect the illusion of density. 

So you should be going for the holistic illusion, rather than being dead set on a number 

Edited September 1, 2022 by HappyMan2021

[NARMAK]

The question isn't clear cut. The truth is it entirely depends on you and your native hairs density and the level of hair loss you have. For example, a Norwood 2 or Norwood 3 may have large areas with native hair to still tell what that is. 

The next thing that factors in is the illusion of density and this is mainly down to your skin to hair contrast rato. Think fair skin and dark hair as the worst combination. The next part of that illusion is hair type and calibre. The curlier hair can give the visual coverage that's better than more straight hair. Thicker hair, better than thinner and so on. 

So you see, focusing just on hair density is a bit of a fallacy and any elite surgeon, like Dr Bisanga for example talks about this on his YouTube videos. 

[1978matt]

 

[John1991]

  I think the term "illusion of density" fits sometimes, but at other times is a bit of a misnomer and is over-used. Thicker hair that's packed in higher density is actually denser than thinner hair packed in lower density.  Period.  That said, factors such as the angling of grafts and hair to skin color contrast do impact how dense a transplant will end up looking and could be legitimately considered part of an "illusion of density."  As for what's generally dense enough, factors such as the caliber of your hair and how dense the rest of your hair is (everything is relative) come in to play in determining what will be "dense enough" for each individual, but I think @HappyMan2021 put up numbers that most would agree with.

Edited September 1, 2022 by John1991

[shiba1985]

1 hour ago, HappyMan2021 said:

Forgive me, my #'s may be a tad bit off, but i think in general:

Anything less than 40cm is bad

40-59 is decent/average

60-70 is great

70-90cm fantastic. It can be done in one go by an elite surgeon. But this density often requires 2+ surgeries

Its important to keep in mind, even if you go to an elite surgeon, they may give you a lower than great density due to your own unique situation and characteristics 

Also your skin and hair color can greatly affect the illusion of density. 

So you should be going for the holistic illusion, rather than being dead set on a number 

A true Norwood 6 will have atleast 220-300 cm2 of area to cover. At 60 fu/cm2 that will require between 12,000-18,000 follicular units. No one has this many. 
 

the numbers some of these people are throwing around are misleading. I saw that thread by a cuoto patient. Cuoto is supposedly know for density. If u look at that patients mid scalp it is transplanted at around 20fu/cm2

[HairEnthusiast101]

3 hours ago, shiba1985 said:

A true Norwood 6 will have atleast 220-300 cm2 of area to cover. At 60 fu/cm2 that will require between 12,000-18,000 follicular units. No one has this many. 
 

the numbers some of these people are throwing around are misleading. I saw that thread by a cuoto patient. Cuoto is supposedly know for density. If u look at that patients mid scalp it is transplanted at around 20fu/cm2

I’ve always thought 50-60 for frontal third, 40 range for mid third and then around 25 for back third. Probably about 8-10k right there

[shiba1985]

4 minutes ago, JoDimaggio22 said:

I’ve always thought 50-60 for frontal third, 40 range for mid third and then around 25 for back third. Probably about 8-10k right there

you get the point. and most patients wont have 8-10k of true donor follcles so numbers are adjusted even further down. but you get the point it is a gradient. Aint nobody restoring norwood 6s at 60FU or 50 FU or even 40 FU / cm2.. LOL

[HairEnthusiast101]

Just now, shiba1985 said:

you get the point. and most patients wont have 8-10k of true donor follcles so numbers are adjusted even further down. but you get the point it is a gradient. Aint nobody restoring norwood 6s at 60FU or 50 FU or even 40 FU / cm2.. LOL

No very true. That is why being smart when you cover these area with the idea of balding in the future is always a must. I’ve always thought 50-60 for the front third still looks very dense and allows you the ability down the line to fill in the back two thirds with 35 or less which yess under harsh light and while wet may not look great but still will look fine. Sometimes I still don’t know how Pitella and Zarev pull of these 8k plus graft extraction maybe just a planned overharvest I don’t know.

[Al - Moderator]

I'm a NW 7 and have about 400cm2 to cover. If I were to average 40 FUs per cm2 of coverage with 50 in the front and 30 in the back I would need 16000 grafts. This is why even though I've done about 6000 body hair grafts I still look extremely thin. That equates to an average of only 15 FU per cm2. Rather depressing 😔

 

Edited September 2, 2022 by BeHappy

[Al - Moderator]

I have always disagreed with the statement that you have to lose 50% of your hair before you are noticeably thinning. I think this was a made up thing back in the early days of hair transplants to get men to believe they didn't need a lot of grafts to cover an area because not a lot could be done back then. My first session was 50 grafts and I think the 2nd one was 60 grafts. I was a NW 6 when I had my first hair transplant and was given an estimate of 300 grafts. They weren't follicular units. They were 3.75mm plug grafts, but I was told that with my hair density I would get about 5 to 10 hairs per graft, so this equates to between 1500 to 3000 hairs for a NW 6. There is no way that would even cover the frontal third, but in those days the general public had no idea about this stuff and 3000 hairs sounds like a lot if you don't know anything about hair.

I think you actually will have noticeable thinning at around 30% to 40% depending on your hair characteristics. It's very easy to see the 50% number is wrong if you think about it. Someone who has full natural density at 80 FU per cm2 and transplants into a bald frontal area at 40 FU per cm2 is going to look very thin, but that's 50%, so to me it's obviously not correct.

 

[shiba1985]

7 hours ago, BeHappy said:

I have always disagreed with the statement that you have to lose 50% of your hair before you are noticeably thinning. I think this was a made up thing back in the early days of hair transplants to get men to believe they didn't need a lot of grafts to cover an area because not a lot could be done back then. My first session was 50 grafts and I think the 2nd one was 60 grafts. I was a NW 6 when I had my first hair transplant and was given an estimate of 300 grafts. They weren't follicular units. They were 3.75mm plug grafts, but I was told that with my hair density I would get about 5 to 10 hairs per graft, so this equates to between 1500 to 3000 hairs for a NW 6. There is no way that would even cover the frontal third, but in those days the general public had no idea about this stuff and 3000 hairs sounds like a lot if you don't know anything about hair.

I think you actually will have noticeable thinning at around 30% to 40% depending on your hair characteristics. It's very easy to see the 50% number is wrong if you think about it. Someone who has full natural density at 80 FU per cm2 and transplants into a bald frontal area at 40 FU per cm2 is going to look very thin, but that's 50%, so to me it's obviously not correct.

 

also this has been said ad nauseum but it’s not just about density. It is also about avg hairs/ fu and also the diameter of hair. Which is how erdogan came up with the concept of coverage value.  Coverage values, all though not perfect, is probably a more appropriate way to compare “density” between two patients. 

This is the reason why "pound for pound" body hair will have a lot less coverage value than scalp hair mainly because the hair is thinner and there is less hairs per F/u usually just 1 rarely 2. 

Edited September 2, 2022 by shiba1985

[Harry2]

15 hours ago, BeHappy said:

I'm a NW 7 and have about 400cm2 to cover. If I were to average 40 FUs per cm2 of coverage with 50 in the front and 30 in the back I would need 16000 grafts. This is why even though I've done about 6000 body hair grafts I still look extremely thin. That equates to an average of only 15 FU per cm2. Rather depressing 😔

 

@BeHappywhat do you consider as "extermely thin"? Can you PM me your before-after photos?

[general-etwan]

On 9/1/2022 at 11:11 PM, BeHappy said:

I'm a NW 7 and have about 400cm2 to cover. If I were to average 40 FUs per cm2 of coverage with 50 in the front and 30 in the back I would need 16000 grafts. This is why even though I've done about 6000 body hair grafts I still look extremely thin. That equates to an average of only 15 FU per cm2. Rather depressing 😔

 

Is that 400cm^2 a full NW0 coverage area? Because if so, shouldn't be thinking that. Just won't work. Can't do it. Have to cut that recipient area down a bit and then density can be increased. That's the trade.

[Al - Moderator]

On 9/3/2022 at 1:12 AM, general-etwan said:

Is that 400cm^2 a full NW0 coverage area? Because if so, shouldn't be thinking that. Just won't work. Can't do it. Have to cut that recipient area down a bit and then density can be increased. That's the trade.

That's with a high hairline. I really would love to lower it just a bit, but I don't know if it's ever going to happen. I need to get a lot more density first. I agree with you. I was just trying to point out that some guys are never going to be able to get 50-60 grafts cm2 in the front and 35 grafts cm 2 in the back. I was sort of responding to the comment that 40cm2 is bad and I was thinking Yeah, but I'd be thrilled if I can get that! LOL

 

 

Edited September 4, 2022 by BeHappy

[HairEnthusiast101]

Eugenix used 40 in a recent case and I thought the density was incredible so maybe dependent on patient.