Background and objective: The purpose of this study was comparing the treatment outcomes between the rigid intraoral fixation using a superior border 2.3 plate versus 2.0 semirigid intraoral fixation via Champy technique for management of fractures of the angle of the mandible.

Materials and Methods: Ten patients were divided into 2 equal groups. Patients in both groups open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) via an intraoral approach. In the study group, fixation at the fracture site was achieved via 2.3 superior border plate. In the control group, fixation at the fracture site was achieved by 2.0 superior ridge plate via Champy technique. Each patient was assessed in terms of fracture segment reduction, malocclusion, wound dehiscence, and fixation failure.

Results: Both groups achieved contemporaneous skeletal stability, with little variation in the evaluation standards. However, superior border rigid plate group showed the advantage of better fracture segment reduction as shown by CBCT in comparison to Champy technique group.

Conclusion: Rigid superior border fixation showed superiority in terms of fracture segment reduction in angle fractures, although the plate is not low in profile as the 2.0 used in the Champy technique group, no plate exposure or wound dehiscence was noted.