Purpose: The purpose of this studywas to evaluate fracture strength between acrylic resin tooth and composite resin of immediate implant-supported provisional crown after several surface treatments to improve bond strength. Methods and materials: One hundred and twenty screwretained implant-supported provisional crowns were prepared using incisor acrylic resin teeth. Teeth were ground in a concave shape and distributed into 10 groups (n=12) according to the tooth surface treatment: (1) no surface treatment (control), (2) methyl-methacrylate (MMA) monomer for 180 s, (3) metal primer (MP) for 30 s, (4) bonding system (BS) for 30 s and light curing for 20 s, (5) MMA treatment additional to 2:1 (g/g) composite resin/auto-polymerized acrylic resin (CR-AR) mix, (6) alumina sandblasting (Al3O2), (7) Al3O2 additional to MMA treatment, (8) Al3O2 additional to MP treatment, (9) Al3O2 additional to BS treatment and (10) Al3O2 additional to MMA, and CR-AR mix. After tooth surface treatment the lingual surface was reconstructed with composite resin in layers. Subsequently specimens were submitted to thermal cycling (1× 104 cycles, 5–55 ◦C). For the mechanical test each crown was screwed in an embedded implant and afterwards essayed to fracture strength. The static mechanical test was performed with a crosshead speed of 0.5mm/min until the fracture of specimen. Data from fracture strength assay were non-normally distributed (Kolmogorov–Smirnov, P 0.05). Stereomicroscope analysis showed adhesive failure in all specimens of groups 1, 3, 7 and 8. Groups 2 and 7 showed a large amount of adhesive failure followed by some mixed failure, groups 4 and 9 showed a large amount of mixed failure followed by some adhesive failure. Groups 5 and 10 showed cohesive failure in all specimens. Conclusion: Bond strength between acrylic resin tooth and composite was improved by the use of bonding system and application of MMA treatment additional to 2:1 (g/g) CR-AR mix. Alumina sandblasting did not improve bond strength in a significant way.