60-Page Dental Prosthodontics WordPress Build

Client (end user): Ocean Breeze Prosthodontics — Delray Beach, FL
Engagement: White-label development for a US marketing agency
Delivered: February – April 2025 · 70 days · 84 hours across build, fix-and-feedback tail, and post-launch fixes

The Craft of a Build

Sixty-plus pages of a dental prosthodontics WordPress build matched to a Webflow design reference — every staging URL compared against the agency’s visual spec, every Screaming Frog crawl tab treated as a structural contract. We owned the cross-platform fidelity: design-match QA and crawl-based verification running in parallel across 84 hours and 70 days, so the agency could defend both the visual match and the live-site integrity to their client.

This case study is a record of such a build — a Delray Beach prosthodontics practice, delivered for a US marketing agency in the dental segment, with a Webflow-to-WordPress design match as the load-bearing discipline.

Snapshot

The Brief

A US marketing agency retained by Ocean Breeze Prosthodontics — a Delray Beach practice specialising in prosthodontic treatments, cosmetic dentistry, and dental implants — handed us a Google Sheets workbook with a full URL map, a Webflow design reference (wond-obp.webflow.io), a templates catalogue, a 58-item launch checklist, and Screaming Frog crawl exports of the original site. The build sat on their WP Engine environment; the page builder was Elementor. The agency owned strategy, content, the Webflow design, and client-facing communication. We owned execution: template application, page build, design-match discipline, and crawl-based QA.

The ask: rebuild the practice’s existing URL surface on WordPress + Elementor, match the Webflow reference page-for-page, work through the fix-and-feedback tail, and close the launch checklist. Then, post-launch, investigate 404s, fix blog image references, and resolve H1 mismatches surfaced by the crawl comparison.

How We Did It

1. Ten templates, 60+ URLs, one build pipeline. Ocean Breeze’s pages spread across the agency’s standard dental template library: Homepage, About Us, Doctor Page, Services Lander, Service Page (the heaviest — covering prosthodontic treatments, cosmetic dentistry, general dentistry, and periodontal services), Smile Gallery, Blog Lander, Blog Page, Contact, Privacy Policy, and Default Template for supporting pages. Each page was built on its assigned template from the sitemap row; no page was hand-rolled outside the template system. Where the Webflow design and the live-site content diverged — different header structure, missing sections, pages that existed in one source but not the other — the team prioritised live-site content as the canonical source and matched the design spec as closely as that content allowed, escalating only unresolvable differences to the agency rather than guessing or duplicating content.

2. Spec followed line-for-line — including the per-page Hours Estimated column. The agency’s workbook carried an Hours Estimated value for every row. We implemented against that value. Where a row specified 12 hours for the Homepage and 1 hour for a standard service page, that was our budget for the row, and the aggregate came in at the agreed 61 hours for the core build.

The principle behind this is simple: on a build with a pre-costed sitemap, the workbook is the contract. A dev team’s job is to deliver inside the row-level budgets, not to re-open the pricing conversation page by page.

3. Design-reference QA against the Webflow spec. The agency’s Issues Backlog tab carried 27 design-match items, each comparing a staging URL to its Webflow reference page — “Page should be formatted to this — https://wond-obp.webflow.io/services/…” Seven of those items were verified and closed as Completed during the build; the remainder were absorbed into the fix-and-feedback tail. Separately, the Screaming Frog-derived tabs — H1 issue (23 rows), Missing pages (22 rows), 404 (1 row), and Broken links (2 rows) — provided a structural QA layer that ran in parallel with the design-match backlog.

4. Post-launch crawl verification and fix loop. After the initial build and launch, the agency directed us to a set of post-launch issues: blog images that had referenced the original site instead of being uploaded to the new environment (fixed by re-exporting and re-attaching media), incorrect H1 headers on a subset of pages (corrected against the original-site backup), and a cluster of 404 status codes surfaced in the workbook’s STATUS CODE column (investigated and resolved). The 58-item launch checklist — Design, Functionality, Pre-Migration, Post-Migration — closed behind both the build-phase and post-launch QA loops.

The Webflow spec gave us the structural target; the live site gave us the content — and on a cross-platform build, those two sources never fully agree. On the 9 service pages where they diverged — different block order, missing sections — we held live-site content as canonical and matched the Webflow structure as closely as that content allowed, escalating unresolvable gaps rather than guessing.

Results

The outcome, restated plainly: the agency’s prosthodontics build shipped across 10 templates on the WP Engine environment, inside the hour budget. Design-reference QA and Screaming Frog crawl verification ran in parallel through the fix-and-feedback tail, and post-launch issues were resolved before the final close.

Operational Integrity at handoff

Pre-handoff QA ran against a six-category checklist — responsiveness (desktop/tablet/mobile), link integrity, H1–H6 tags, title and meta tags, content-migration accuracy, and a full link archive — per the QA spec in Redmine issue #200; post-handoff, the agency’s crawl surfaced blog images still pointing to the original domain and STATUS CODE 404 rows in the workbook, both resolved in our fix loop. Pre-handoff QA ran through Site Checker — see our QA discipline for the categories and the fail-zero gate. The agency’s own QA layer — their tools, their process — ran post-handoff and surfaced issues into the shared backlog for our fix loop until they signed off.

Process

Phases overlap — the fix-and-feedback tail began before every build-phase QA item had closed, and post-launch fixes ran in parallel with the final checklist items, which is why the calendar timeline is 70 days rather than the sum of individual phases.

Team

Delivery team

• Nikita Tumasevic — lead developer across build and fix-and-feedback phases
• Natalia Bogatel — developer on late-phase customisation, smile gallery updates, and post-launch fixes
• Pavel Sazhin — QA iterations and fixes
• Anna Polunina — post-launch QA and verification
• Anton Hersun, xaverPRO — project lead (estimation, agency-side communication, sign-off)

Agency-side project management and client-facing communication remained with the partner agency throughout. Our team was invisible to the end client.

For agencies commissioning a white-label WordPress build