OK, so we have established that this program did give you the tracings on it to establish where they put the 'N' point (and the other ones). It is always preferable to put up all the information from the get go if one has it. Otherwise the request of 'analyze my ceph' resolves to asking for something no one here can (or would be willing to even if they could) do--you know, by hand--charting out all the points and measuring all the relationships. Quite a task given there are automatic programs to do that. When I look at a ceph for a few common points, sometimes the areas where I look for them are too fuzzy or not distinct enough for me to be sure. For example, the 'N' and 'A' point were not distinct enough from the unmarked ceph. Although once I saw the one with JUST the LINES on it, I knew which points those lines would be going though and could then just label them and hold a hand protractor up to screen to measure the same angles the program did.
Now, looking at another aspect of the analysis read out, it kind of conveys it's a 'Bjork -Jarabak' analysis, one of the MANY types of ceph analysis out there. Some ceph analysis programs can give a read out of dozens of different kinds. But at least or for the most part, they find all the same/similar points and list the deviations from the norm.
The thing is-and you were QUICK to spot it-is because of a small deviation to the norm for the 'B' point/SNB angle (80.42 + 5.3 = 85.72= within their norm) whereas you were ONLY .12 points over it that kicked up the assessment of 'prognathic mandible'. So a very small fraction of what went over the norms of this analysis kicked up something that I AGREE is very COUNTER INTUITIVE relative to the APPEARANCE that it LOOKS LIKE it's the MAXILLA that's too far behind. Right? That's what it looks like. So, the numbers/angles convey raw data to substantiate all the relationships they list relative to the type of analysis they did. But still, it's that very small difference of .12 points in excess of their norm for B point that telling us the mandible is protruded when it looks like the maxilla is retruded.
What we want to consider here is what basically would happen TO THE READ-OUT IF the B point was a tiny bit back by a little bit more than that .12 point of a deviation that kicks up prognathic mandible. On the ceph we would NOT notice a difference. It would look basically the SAME. But (I think) the read out would kick up more 'normal' mandible values along with other changes where the B point factors in some non normative 'meanings'. Some of values in RED would change to Green. Just consider the CONCEPT of that and not what the actual read outs would be.
Then we look at another value on there that's way off the norm; the 'Cant of the occlusal plane' whis is the OP the occlusal plane angle where it says; 'FLAT OPA'. If we changed that angle to be within the norm we would be doing CLOCKWISE rotation of the maxilla. That, IN TURN would move both the A and B points and would kind of push your mandible backwards.
So, clockwise rotation would be PART of the solution. Of course, since the whole case looks to be rather COMPLEX and not straight forward, CW-r would just be part of the solution. But I think you want to keep an ear out for that suggestion when you consult about surgery. Other things to consider is that you might have some bi-max protrusion that is factoring into the lips sticking out too much. Add an Open bite which adds some complexity.
The educational section has a diagram I posted as to what CW-r does and there is some material there too concerning bi-max protrusion. I'm NOT a doctor. But I have full confidence that you are SMART and with a little info, could take it further on the self research aspect of things. In closing, we have a new and GREAT maxfax on board; SMSOMS is his screen name. I'm hoping he comes back to chime in on this one.
