38-Page Dental Template Customisation

Client (end user): Maple Glen Modern Dentistry — a US dental practice
Engagement: White-label template customisation for a US marketing agency
Delivered: October 2025 · 112 days · 55 hours · 38 URLs · on schedule

The Craft of Template Customisation

38 pages of a dental practice template customisation across 40 page-type designs — 10 service pages spanning general, cosmetic, restorative, implants, clear aligners, pediatric, emergency, periodontal, sleep apnea, and TMJ — all built to a per-page Figma spec on Kinsta with custom brand typography (QUENTIN cursive, ALTONE print). The agency had prepared content per page; half the pages arrived with gaps that surfaced at first QA review, requiring a return pass before the backlog could close.

The value is speed with consistency — but only if the customisation is disciplined. A dev team that “interprets” the Figma, skips QA rounds, or deviates from the template’s design system is worse than starting from scratch.

This case study is a record of a template customisation executed to the agency’s Figma, with a QA profile that shows the discipline it takes — on an engagement where the long tail of fix rounds, not the initial build, was the primary indicator of quality.

Snapshot

The Brief

A US marketing agency delivered us a Figma design for Maple Glen Modern Dentistry and a deployment target on their branded Kinsta-hosted template system. The agency had already completed the upstream work: client intake, design audit, content sourcing via Google Docs per page, and hosting setup. What they needed was a development partner that would customise the template to match the Figma faithfully and sustain the feedback loop for however long the agency’s review process required.

The ask was straightforward in scope and open-ended in duration: 38 pages across a full dental-practice service taxonomy, each with its own Figma frame, customised against the agency’s template system and returned for review round after round. The 55-hour estimate covered the build; the 112-day timeline covered the discipline.

What the agency needed to guard against was not a single failed delivery but a dev team that would complete the initial customisation and then lose responsiveness during the long tail of feedback. A templated build with 38 pages and a 240-item agency backlog does not ship in one pass; it requires a team that returns for the sixth round of image replacements, the ninth round of widget adjustments, and the final two-item sign-off pass two months after the first handoff. That sustained availability — not the initial build — is what protects the agency’s client relationship and ensures the backlog closes rather than stalls. The agency chose to release the site as a draft with placeholder content on pages awaiting client-supplied team biographies and testimonials rather than hold the launch cycle for the full content package — a sequencing decision that kept the build timeline decoupled from content readiness.

How We Did It

1. Figma-as-contract, template-as-canvas. The Figma file was the design spec. The branded template was the underlying page structure. Our job was to reconcile the two page by page — where the template’s default layout matched the Figma, we kept it; where the Figma required a deviation, we customised. No design decisions originated on our side.

2. QA cycle at template-customisation scale. A clean template customisation is not “build once, review once”. It is “build, QA, adjust, QA, adjust”. Of the 14 tasks tracked on this project, 10 were QA or fix iterations — individual rounds where the agency flagged design deltas, content gaps, or backlog items, we reviewed, fixed, and returned the build for another review. Behind those rounds was a much larger reconciliation: the agency tracked 240+ items across two issue-backlog tabs (83 SEO findings and 159 CX findings), of which 235 were marked Completed at the time of handoff.

The principle behind this is simple: on a templated build, the QA loop is where the value is delivered. A shorter QA cycle is a weaker match to the design, not a sign of speed.

3. Customisation without drift. Every change we made to the branded template — whether to a page layout, a section component, or a style token — was documented against the Figma reference. No customisation leaked into the template’s shared components, which means this project’s work did not degrade the template for the next site it would serve.

4. Cross-device verification. Customisations were QA’d against Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge on desktop, tablet, and mobile viewports — the standard agency breakpoint set. Each QA round covered the pages affected by that round’s design deltas, not the whole site, which is how a templated build stays efficient without losing coverage.

10 QA rounds across 112 days, each closed only on the agency’s sign-off before the next pass opened. That cadence — not the initial build — is what kept 240+ backlog items moving: nothing was declared resolved until the agency confirmed it, which meant the engagement closed without a residual queue the agency then had to own.

Operational Integrity at handoff

Pre-handoff internal QA on the initial build caught a double-slash URL pattern (//services/general-dentistry) accessible across the staging site — the agency’s sitemap used single-slash paths throughout, so the double-slash variant was flagged, investigated, and documented before the first handoff, with the resolution noted in the fix log. 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.

Customisations stayed in the per-client overrides; the agency’s shared template components were not modified.

Results

The outcome, restated plainly: the agency’s Figma was implemented against their branded template across 38 pages, over 112 calendar days, inside the 55-hour estimate.

Process

Development and QA ran concurrently — this is characteristic of template-customisation work, where no “QA phase” closes cleanly; the loop runs continuously until the agency signs off.

Team

Delivery team

• Nikita Tumasevic — lead developer (template customisation and Figma-to-layout mapping)
• Pavel Sazhin — QA iterations and fixes
• Anna Polunina — developer (customisation rounds and fix implementation)
• Evgeniy Karpov — development support
• Timur Arbaev — design-vs-build review and pre-handoff QA
• Anton Hersun, xaverPRO — project lead (estimation, agency-side communication, sign-off)

The agency managed every client-facing interaction. Maple Glen Modern Dentistry never interacted with our team directly — every request flowed through the agency’s shared backlog, and nothing about the build process was visible to the end client. Each round was closed only when the agency-side reviewer signed off.

For agencies with a branded template system