Best Hairline Lowering Clinic

[Blacksheep]

Hey everyone! I've been lurking on this forum for a little while now, and thanks to all the great information, been able to eliminate several hairmills from my initial list. However, I'm currently stuck trying to find the right doctor. I'm 29 and not losing my hair (knock on wood), I've just always had a large forehead and would like to finally do something about it. I've found several doctors/clinics that look great, but in their before and after photos, everyone seems to have much greater hair loss or area to cover. Could some more experienced members point to doctors who consistently do well at lowering hairlines? Thank you.

Turkey

Dr. Bicer

Dr. Ahmed Altan 

Dr. Bekir Bek

Dr. Utkan Kiziltac - Unitedcare

Dr. Karadeniz - AEK Hair Clinic

Dr Turan - FUECAPILAR

 

Colombia 

Dr. Sergio Camacho - Bogota Hairlines 

 

Korea

Dr. Sung - Motion Hair Clinic

Dr. Kwon, Oh-Sung - FORHAIR

 

Thailand

Dr. Phakphinya(Patty) - Hairtran Clinic

Dr. Jatechayanon - Bangkok Hair Clinic 

Dr. Pathmovanich - DHT Clinic 

 

[4chanhrn]

Thiago Bianco Leal should be at top of your list.
 

 

[Berba11]

6 hours ago, Blacksheep said:

I've just always had a large forehead

You don't though. Your forehead is entirely proportional with your other facial features. I don't think it would be wise to part with your money to address an issue that doesn't exist and to end up with an artificial hairline (albeit, hopefully nice and refined) with HT-levels of density in place of your natural hairline which is full and more dense than you'll achieve with a transplant.

People often think they have a large forehead, but of course if everyone thinks this then no one has one. The reality is that a forehead is only large if it's out of proportion with your facial features - in other words, you have to consider it in its full aesthetic context. If your hairline is already within the aesthetically pleasing proportions, then you'll get next to zero aesthetic benefits from lowering it. If anything, you risk putting your natural proportions out of whack.

99% of people get a HT to address hair loss, though there are occasions where there's no hair loss and there would be an aesthetic benefit to doing a HT rather than addressing recession or thinning. If you're genuinely not losing any hair and you have a favourable history of hair loss within your immediate family then you'd probably be a candidate for a HT that doesn't address hair loss, but I wouldn't personally advise doing anything to the hairline itself. You may benefit the most from an aesthetic perspective but enhancing your temple points which are naturally set back a bit. That would offer some additional facial framing by narrowing the forehead. It would take decently less grafts than doing the hairline and offer more of an aesthetic benefit as far as I can tell.

So my advice (for what it's worth) would be to leave the hairline alone but maybe consider enhancing the temple points only.

[baddecisions]

None of the above since you don't need any surgery.

[Eli_Avdikian]

If OP want's to lower his hair line, he can. It's true that his hair line is a bit high. It can be lowered by a couple of centimeters. Thing is, none of the options he proposed is solid enough to provide an aesthetically pleasing hair line. Maybe he should look into more options ?

Edited July 25 by Eli_Avdikian

[Berba11]

5 minutes ago, Eli_Avdikian said:

It's true that his hair line is a bit high.

True on what basis? We can see his hairline is not high when viewed within the context of his facial features & proportions, which is all that matters (it's absolutely not about a specific number of centimetres from the glabella in isolation from the other relevant distances). If it's within the range of aesthetically pleasing proportions then it isn't a high hairline and it's doing its job just fine where it is.

7 minutes ago, Eli_Avdikian said:

It can be lowered by a couple of centimeters.

That would be significant lowering for most people. We also don't know how much head room there is for lowering given that a lowered hairline still needs to be clear of the ridge created when the eyebrows are raised. For all you know, lowering by 2cm could mean the hairline is on the frontalis muscle which would be very bad. It doesn't strike me as being very scientific or thoughtful to just throw out a number that the OP's hairline could be lowered by without knowing the critical stuff like where the frontalis muscle is etc...

 

[Eli_Avdikian]

Can't you see that his temple looks receded, and that his forehead is bigger than the two frontal thirds of his face ?

Edited July 25 by Eli_Avdikian

[Eli_Avdikian]

his hair line density is super good and there's no sign of thinnning. But we can't deny, objectively speaking, that the forehead is a bit wide 

[Berba11]

31 minutes ago, Eli_Avdikian said:

Can't you see that his temples looks receded, and that his forehead is bigger than the two frontal thirds of his face ?

First of all the angle of his images doesn't perfectly show us anything, but it's shows us enough: the "thirds" rule is imperfect; in reality, thirds is an approximate guideline but in most cases you can get a better measure of things by taking the distances between the tip of the nose and the chin and seeing how closely it matches with the distances between glabella and mid-frontal point. Most caucasian blokes will have the forehead distance about the same or slightly larger than the tip of the nose/chin distance. Clearly the OP's is fine in that regard. It's much less common for it to be the other way around (where the forehead is smaller than the distance between nose/chin) and unless this is naturally occurring, lowering a hairline and creating that less common variation will throw the proportionality off rather than enhance it and it runs the risk of looking odd or overly hairline dominant.

And as I already said... it doesn't matter if the forehead is larger than any of the other slightly different measuring points. It only has to be within range of aesthetically pleasing proportionality. It does not need to be exact.

40 minutes ago, Eli_Avdikian said:

Can't you see that his temples looks receded

Only minimally and in a matured way that does not negatively impact the overall aesthetic. Indeed, a lot of patients try to recreate this look as not only does it look natural and pleasing but will also look good well into later life.

 

38 minutes ago, Eli_Avdikian said:

the forehead is a bit wide

Which is why I suggested in my first reply that the OP may get more bang for his buck by doing only the temple points rather than touch his already perfectly good hairline.

[SY7]

1 hour ago, baddecisions said:

None of the above since you don't need any surgery.

Hmmmmm🤔🤔🤔 with that name?

[Paul_]

4 hours ago, SY7 said:

Hmmmmm🤔🤔🤔 with that name?

He's exactly the kind of person you should listen no. No better teacher than past mistakes

4 hours ago, Berba11 said:

Which is why I suggested in my first reply that the OP may get more bang for his buck by doing only the temple points rather than touch his already perfectly good hairline.

Objectively I'd agree, but hey if OP doesn't have an issue with it, why bother

[Konsole93]

I know a lot of friends and celebrities from the TV where there are hair under the forehead muscle, so it can't be that bad if it occurs in nature.

 

When the wrinkles move the hair up a bit, you only notice it when you pay attention to it. I know people who haven't noticed me for a lifetime.

 

What if these people are now suffering hair loss? Would any doctor then reject the patient on the grounds that it is unnatural to have under a muscle hair?

 

Then the patient says that he had hair there for 45 years and then?

 

Transplanting on the muscle is not a problem, rather you need a lot more grafts.

[Matthias]

Any updates @Blacksheep? Hope you went with a doctor with a proven track record of temple work.