Background <p>Facial assessment is central to treatment planning and outcome evaluation. Traditional approaches, including visual inspection, manual anthropometry, and classical esthetic proportions, are limited by inter-observer variability and challenges in accounting for cultural and demographic diversity. Recent advances in digital imaging and computational analysis now enable more objective, reproducible, and clinically standardized evaluation.</p> Methods <p>This structured review employed a transparent literature search across Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar to identify peer-reviewed publications published between 2020 and 2025. The aim was to provide a comprehensive overview of contemporary facial assessment technologies. The retrieved evidence was synthesized narratively and qualitatively with emphasis on clinical accuracy, reproducibility, workflow integration, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).</p> Results <p>A large body of contemporary literature was reviewed and synthesized. The synthesized literature demonstrates a clear progression from qualitative visual assessment toward quantitative and technology-supported evaluation. Modern three-dimensional (3D) imaging systems achieve submillimeter precision, enabling reliable volumetric measurement for surgical planning and longitudinal monitoring. Automated approaches assist in grading wrinkles, pigmentation, and other aging-related features. However, important limitations remain, including inconsistent acquisition protocols, restricted demographic representation in reference datasets, and the need for clearer standards for prospective validation and workflow integration.</p> Conclusion <p>Facial assessment in esthetic medicine is evolving toward multimodal integration of 3D volumetry, AI-driven diagnostics, and PROMs. Future clinical practice will benefit from the integration of objective morphological data with patient-reported outcomes, although developing unified platforms requires further prospective validation and real-world clinical studies. Level of Evidence: Not applicable (Review Article).</p> No Level Assigned <p>This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors <a href="http://www.springer.com/00266">www.springer.com/00266</a>.</p>