31-Page Pediatric Dentistry WordPress Build

Client (end user): ChildSmiles OC — Fullerton, CA
Engagement: White-label pediatric dental development for a US marketing agency
Delivered: Mar – Jun 2025 · 75 days · 51 hours across build and fix-and-feedback phases

The Craft of a Build

31 pages of a pediatric dentistry and orthodontics build translated from a Webflow staging source to WordPress across six templates — a structural mapping exercise between two rendering engines, not a visual trace. The H1 on 19 service pages had been assembled from two stacked div elements in Webflow; replicating it in Elementor required an explicit 0px SEO node plus a visible heading on every page, or the meta-title specification would silently diverge from the sitemap per-page metadata.

On a pediatric dentistry and orthodontics site, that structural precision compounds: two service ladders (children’s general dental care and orthodontic treatment for children, teens, and adults) run on a shared Service Page template, and each ladder carries a different CTA and form target. A translation that looked right visually but left a consultation-booking CTA on a pediatric cleaning page — or vice versa — would not announce itself in any build log.

This case study is a record of a Webflow-to-WordPress translation executed with that level of structural care, delivered for a US marketing agency in the pediatric dentistry segment.

Snapshot

The Brief

ChildSmiles OC is a pediatric dentistry and orthodontics practice in Fullerton, California, serving children for general dental care and patients of all ages for orthodontic treatment. A US marketing agency specialising in local-business websites was managing the project: they owned the design (a Webflow staging site served as the visual reference), the content strategy, the hosting setup on WP Engine, and the client relationship. Our scope was to take the Webflow-side design, build it in WordPress with Elementor, and hand off a production-ready site that matched the source design on every page and every breakpoint.

The workbook structured the engagement across 31 active URLs (24 committed builds plus 7 managed as hidden during the initial launch window) mapped to 6 templates from the agency’s standard library. Every sitemap row carried an Hours Estimated value; the aggregate came to 51 hours. The ask: build all pages, wire the forms to the correct email destinations, handle meta and H1 per the specifications in the sitemap, work down the two QA backlogs, and close the launch checklist before handoff. Design, content, SEO strategy, and client communication remained with the agency.

How We Did It

1. Six templates, 31 pages, one pipeline — built from Webflow source design. The site’s 31 active pages spread across the agency’s standard template library: Homepage (1), About Us (1), Doctor Page (2 — one per practitioner), Blog lander (1), Service Page (the heaviest at 19 pages, carrying both the pediatric dentistry and orthodontics ladders), and a Default Template fallback for the supporting pages (contact, membership, parent resources, first visits, referrals, thank-you, privacy policy). Each page was mapped to its template from the sitemap row before a single line of Elementor was written.

2. Webflow-to-Elementor structural mapping, not visual tracing. The source design was a Webflow staging site, not a Figma file. Webflow and Elementor express identical-looking layouts through different structural primitives — in this case, the H1 on multiple service pages was assembled from two stacked div elements in Webflow, a pattern that cannot be reproduced as a simple Elementor Heading widget without diverging from the SEO spec. We identified these structural differences early, mapped them explicitly, and confirmed the rendered H1 matched the workbook’s per-page SEO metadata column before any page left staging. We chose explicit per-component structural mapping over a visual-comparison approach because the Webflow-to-Elementor gap was invisible to screenshot review but surfaced immediately in an SEO data audit, and on a two-ladder site where every service-page H1 fed the meta-title spec, a silent divergence would not announce itself before launch.

3. Per-row Hours Estimated column as the contract. The agency’s sitemap row values defined the budget per page — 5 hours for the homepage, 3 hours for About Us, and 0.25–0.5 hours per service page with increasing allocation for higher-complexity pages. Our job was to deliver inside those row-level budgets without renegotiating per page. The aggregate came in at the agreed 51 hours.

4. Two QA loops, worked down before launch. Issues were tracked in two agency-side backlog tabs: the SEO Issues Backlog (60 rows, priorities across Low to High) and the AM Issues Backlog (8 rows). Of the 60 SEO items, 45 closed as Completed before launch; 10 were in QA pending sign-off; 1 was Info-Needed. All 6 applicable AM items closed as Completed. The 39-item launch checklist — Design, Functionality, Content, and SEO sections — closed behind both backlogs.

The Webflow compound-div H1 pattern — two stacked divs assembling the heading on 19 service pages — was the structural gap that the rest of the build turned on. Confirming the correct H1 interpretation before a single Elementor template was written meant the QA backlogs never carried a structural correction; only layout and content fixes surfaced post-handoff.

Operational Integrity at handoff

The QA load split across two categories — URL structure and H1 mapping: the AM Issues Backlog caught inconsistent trailing-slash usage across the URL tree before cutover, and the build chat (issue #406) surfaced the Webflow compound-div H1 pattern («слепили они H1 из 2-х Div») requiring an explicit 0px SEO node plus a visible ACF heading on all 19 service pages. 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.

Results

The outcome restated plainly: 31 URLs across 6 templates on WP Engine, inside the 51-hour quoted budget. Two QA backlogs (SEO Issues + AM Issues) were worked to agency-acceptance levels and the launch checklist closed before the domain went live.

Process

Build and QA ran concurrently from the third week; the fix-and-feedback stretch began before the last build-phase items closed — which is why the calendar is 75 days rather than the sum of sequential phases.

Team

Delivery team

• Nikita Tumasevic — build review and QA support
• Pavel Sazhin — QA iterations and fixes
• Vladimir Kozlov — lead developer, Webflow-to-Elementor mapping and full build across both phases
• Natalia Bogatel — developer support on post-launch fix rounds and issues-backlog corrections
• 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. All QA feedback arrived through the shared issue backlog; nothing about the build’s internal process was visible to the end client.

For agencies commissioning a white-label WordPress build