Cross-sectional study reveals severe facial pores linked to smoking and tanning in a population, indicating lifestyle impacts.
Background While facial pores are a normal skin feature, they can be perceived as a cosmetic concern. Facial pore risk factors vary and contradict within the existing literature, with limited large‐scale research in European middle‐aged to older individuals, hindering generalization. Objectives This cross‐sectional study investigated facial pore appearance distribution across demographic, lifestyle, UV‐related and dermatological variables by systematic grading of facial pores in a large population‐based study. Methods Photographs of Rotterdam Study (RS) participants were graded on an adapted photo‐numeric grading scale from one (mild) to five (severe) to assess facial pore appearance severity. Uni‐ and multivariable ordinal logistic regression analyzed associations between (non‐)dermatological variables and facial pore appearance severity, using odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Interassessor reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results In total, 2293 participants were included (56.7% female; median age 54.0). Most prevalent were moderate to severe facial pores (37%), with 10% being the most pronounced (grade five). Previous and current smokers [OR 1.41 (CI 95% 1.18–1.67); OR 1.46 (CI 95% 1.16–1.86)] and individuals that excessively indoor tan [OR 1.61 (CI 95% 1.03–2.56)] were significantly associated with more severe facial pore appearance in the multivariable analysis. Age had a small but statistically significant effect [OR 0.98 (CI 95% 0.97–0.99)]. Our grading method showed high reliability of measurements. Conclusions In this RS cohort, over one‐third had moderate to severe facial pore appearance scores. Smoking and indoor tanning were modifiable determinants linked to more severe facial pores. For individuals concerned about their pore appearance, quitting smoking and reducing UV exposure are advisable strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Eecen et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: