34-Page Oral Surgery WordPress Build

Client (end user): Peninsula Oral Surgery and Implants — Torrance, CA
Engagement: White-label development for a US marketing agency
Delivered: March – July 2025 · 109 days · 115 hours across build + templated design phases

The Craft of a Build

34 pages of an oral-surgery WordPress build across 10 branded templates, delivered in two phases for a US marketing agency. The first pass constructed every page against the workbook’s per-page Hours Estimated column; the second — a Templated Design Development pass — reconciled 305 unique internal-link redirect pairs and worked down two QA backlogs to completion. The full 115-hour engagement closed across 109 days without overrun.

This case study is a record of such a layered build — delivered for a US marketing agency in the oral-surgery segment.

Snapshot

The Brief

A US marketing agency retained by Peninsula Oral Surgery and Implants — a Torrance-based oral surgery and dental implants practice — handed us a Google Sheets workbook with a full URL map, a templates catalogue, a launch checklist, and a pre-populated issues backlog. The build sat on their existing WP Engine environment; the page builder was Elementor; forms were Gravity Forms.

The ask was staged. First, build out all 34 pages into the agency’s 10 standard templates. Then, through a second phase the agency calls “Templated Design Development”, accept their per-page design deltas, reconcile the remaining SEO issues, and work down the Account Manager’s QA backlog. Throughout, remain outside the end-client-facing loop; surface ambiguity back to the agency; do not improvise design or SEO decisions.

How We Did It

1. Ten templates, 34 pages, one build pipeline. Peninsula’s pages spread across the agency’s standard dental template library: Homepage, About, Contact, Services Lander, Service Page (the heaviest — 15 service pages, which were structurally too diverse to share a single layout pattern and required custom ACF field groups per procedure type), Doctor Page (3 doctors), Smile Gallery, Blog Lander, Blog, and a Default fallback that caught 13 supporting pages (insurance, financing, patient forms, policies). Each page was built on its assigned template from the sitemap row; no page was hand-rolled outside the template system. We used ACF Conditional Logic with Elementor to serve the right field layout for each procedure within the shared Service Page template rather than building separate page templates per type.

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 4 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 115 hours for the project.

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. Internal-link redirect reconciliation across 305 unique URL pairs. On-site link audit flagged hundreds of old-path hyperlinks embedded in body content. We reconciled 305 unique URL-to-URL pairs in the Links-with-Redirects workbook tab — each mapped from the staging path to the final production target and verified against the redirect table. All rows closed with status Fixed before handoff.

4. Two parallel QA loops, closed before launch. Issues were tracked in two agency-side backlog tabs — the SEO/Issues Backlog (50 rows, priorities from Low to Urgent) and the Account Manager’s QA-of-Staging-Site review (29 rows, flagged with screenshots against staging). Of those 79 items, 71 closed as Completed before launch; the balance were Info-Needed waits on the end client. The 38-row launch checklist — Design, Functionality, Pre-Migration, Post-Migration columns — closed behind both backlogs.

The two-phase structure — first-pass build followed by Templated Design Development — meant the per-page Hours Estimated budget had to carry through both passes, not just the first. Keeping the same row-level discipline across 305 redirect pairs and two QA backlogs in the second phase was what kept the engagement from re-opening pricing when the reconciliation work began.

Results

The outcome, restated plainly: the agency’s 34-URL build shipped across 10 templates on the WP Engine environment, inside the 115-hour quoted budget. Two QA backlogs were worked down to agency-acceptance levels and the launch checklist closed before cutover.

Operational Integrity at handoff

On this build the QA load was led by stock-image duplication: the SEO Issues Backlog flagged a High-priority duplicate-image finding site-wide, an Urgent broken layout on the dental-implants page, a missing trailing slash on the homepage link, and three procedure pages returning unwanted redirects — all caught in the staging pass and resolved before the agency saw the build. 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 templated-design pass began before every build-phase QA item had closed, which is why the calendar timeline is 109 days rather than the sum of individual phases.

Team

Delivery team

• Natalia Bogatel — lead developer across both build and templated-design phases
• Pavel Sazhin — QA iterations and fixes
• Nikita Tumasevic — developer support on late-phase customisation and link reconciliation
• 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