## 1 Introduction  
The determination of material types for orthopedic and dental implants is centered around their mechanical and biological advantages suitable for specific applications. Particularly, orthopedic implant devices contribute to the restoration and functioning of load-bearing joints subjected to high levels of mechanical stresses and fatigue and to wear and tear occurring during normal activities [1]. Therefore, it is essential for these artificial implants to possess appropriate structural and surficial criteria suitable for their survival when fused to the host tissue. Devices are not limited to wires, pins, screws, plates, and prosthesis for knee, hip, shoulder, ankle, and elbow joints [2]. The National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey for the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) accounted for about 43 million orthopedic patients between the years 2015-2016. Within that sample population, 20.8% of patients experienced post-surgical complications, with one of the five principal reasons being postoperative visits [3]. Medicinal interventions have included variations of ibuprofen, aspirin, acetaminophen-hydrocodone, meloxicam, and acetaminophen-oxycodone treatment, where these pharmaceuticals all correlate to treating pain and inflammation. Currently used orthopedic and dental implantsare predisposed to direct post-surgical infection, known to disturb and suspend the immediate healing process, and can ultimately lead to necrosis and rejection if left untreated [4; 5]. On the other hand, some cases may initially indicate a successful implantation process; however, the body can, over time, categorize the implant as a foreign entity and initiate a rejection route [4]. This involves an excrucating progression of chronic inflammation and slow rejection, which can last from months to years, and in return can accrue costs often associated with treatment [5]. Also, the implant site is not limited to causative infections destroying the surrounding bone and joint. Staphylococcus infections account for two-thirds of pathogen-related complications, often resulting in septic arthritis and osteomyelitis [6]. Among implant materials, the titanium alloy Ti6 Al4V is widely favored for its biointerness, high strength-to-weight ratio, corrosion resistance, and biocompatibility [1; 7; 8]. Its biointer characteristic qualifies it as a viable option for common jawbone implants [9]. Other known applications of Ti6 Al4V include prosthetics such as plates, rods, pins, and cages, and these have been used to replace shoulder and elbow joints [10]. Its ability to form stable surface oxides enables osseointegration, where the implant fuses directly with the bone, creating a strong implant-bone bond [1]. However, Ti6 Al4V's biointer nature can lead to complications where the body treats it as foreign, causing inflammation, encapsulation, and eventual ejection. This limitation necessitates surface modifications such as bioactive coatings to enhance biocompatibility and reduce rejection rates [4; 11]. The introduction of bioactive glasses, like the pioneering Bioglass(tm) developed by Dr. [PERSON] in the 1960s, revolutionized implant materials. Bioglass(tm) interacts with the body by forming a hydroxyapatite (HA) layer, mimicking natural bone and fostering implant acceptance. These glasses demonstrate osteeconductive and osteestimulative properties, enabling bonding with both hard and soft tissues. Studies have shown that silica-based glasses, such as the 6P55 composition, possess favorable thermal properties and bioactivity. However, compositions with silica concentrations exceeding 55 wt% often exhibit surface flaws or reduced bioactivity. A bioactive coating is utilized in this study to reduce the rejection rate of the implant from the body by creating a bioactive glass coating, enabling a response where the body can recognize the material as its own entity. The formation of HA has since been extensively studied; for instance, in the degradation of magnesium alloys due to their natural corrosiveness [12].