44-Page General Dentistry WordPress Rebuild
WordPress rebuild with heading-parity checks across 55 pages for a Texas dental practice — 12 templates, 11 redirects, 82-item checklist, 68 hours.
Screenshots captured by automated tooling — some elements may not have loaded fully or may layer on top of each other. For the most accurate view, visit the live site →
Rebuild the site on a new stack. Implement the spec. Don't improvise. Hand it back ready for cutover.
Client (end user): Complete Dentistry — Dr. David Crumpton DDS, Trophy Club & Las Colinas, TX
Engagement: White-label development for a US marketing agency
Delivered: August – September 2025 · 27 days core rebuild · 68 hours total engagement
The Craft of a Rebuild
44 pages of a WordPress rebuild on Kinsta for a two-location general and cosmetic dentistry practice in Trophy Club and Las Colinas, TX — 12 templates, 11 redirects, and a dedicated workbook tab that compared 55 pages live-versus-staging heading by heading, tracking every H1, H2, and inline span tag. The Htags comparison surfaced 30 heading-structure discrepancies before the agency opened their review; each was corrected before staging handoff.
This case study is a record of one such rebuild — delivered for a US marketing agency for a two-location general and cosmetic dentistry practice in Trophy Club and Las Colinas, TX.
Snapshot
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| End-client industry | Healthcare — General & Cosmetic Dentistry |
| End-client | Complete Dentistry (Dr. David Crumpton DDS, Trophy Club & Las Colinas, TX) |
| Engagement | White-label WordPress rebuild for a US marketing agency specialising in local-business websites |
| Project Type | WordPress rebuild with Elementor on Kinsta |
| Scope | 44 URLs rebuilt — 1 homepage, 1 about, 1 doctor page, 3 services landers, 21 service pages, 3 blog posts, blog lander, contact, plus 11 default-template supporting pages — plus 11 redirects and 2 URL changes |
| Timeline | 27 days core rebuild (19 Aug – 15 Sep 2025); post-launch retained engagement through Jan 2026 |
| Effort | ~61 hours core rebuild; ~68 hours total engagement including post-launch header fix and insurance page addition |
| Team | 5 specialists (31h dev · 10h QA · 15h PM · 2.8h post-launch fixes) |
| Tech Stack | WordPress · Elementor · Kinsta · Yoast · Screaming Frog · Site Checker (xaverPRO QA plugin) |
| Content parity check | Original-vs-rebuild content diff cleared before handoff — no missing copy, no broken internal links, no structural drift |
| Delivered | 44 URLs rebuilt to spec, 11 redirects verified, H1 heading parity confirmed across 44 pages, 37 DEV backlog items closed, 82-item launch checklist signed off |
| Engagement cadence | 37 agency-raised issues · all closed by handoff (21-day active span, 2025-09-04 – 2025-09-24) |
| Review rounds | ≈8 review rounds across the 159-day calendar window |
| Per-ticket effort | 20 internal Redmine tickets · median 20m / P75 6h per ticket |
| Launch checklist | 81 items, signed off before cutover |
The Brief
A US marketing agency, retained by Complete Dentistry — a general and cosmetic dentistry practice led by Dr. David Crumpton DDS, operating from two Texas locations (Trophy Club and Las Colinas) — handed us a Google Sheets workbook with a 56-row URL map, a 12-template catalogue, an 82-item launch checklist, and a pre-populated three-track issue backlog (DEV, SEO, CX). The rebuild environment was the agency’s Kinsta staging instance; the page builder was Elementor; the production destination was completedentistrytx.com with URL structure largely preserved.
The ask was a line-for-line rebuild: implement every page against its template assignment from the sitemap, preserve the original headings and content structure exactly as they appeared on the live site, wire 11 redirects and 2 URL changes per the sitemap spec, and close the DEV backlog against the agency’s criteria before staging handoff. Client-facing decisions — copy, menu structure, contact details, imagery context — stayed with the agency. We surfaced ambiguity and did not improvise.
Risk Context. The practice’s live site carried a heading structure that was functionally deliberate: H1 tags with inline HTML spans to create two-line display at desktop and single-line at mobile, with a small
<span class="small">for the city qualifier. Rebuilding inside Elementor risks losing that structure — a developer who builds the heading visually but uses<br>breaks instead of the original span structure produces a page that looks similar at first glance but is structurally different from the original. The workbook’s dedicated Htags Live vs Staging tab — 99 rows tracking heading content across 55 pages on both environments — made any such structural drift visible before the agency opened their own review. Thirty heading-level discrepancies surfaced in that comparison; each was corrected before handoff. That is the kind of parity gate that lets a QA round move fast.
How We Did It
1. Twelve templates, 44 pages, one rebuild pipeline. Complete Dentistry’s pages spread across the agency’s standard dental template library: Homepage, About Us, Doctor Page (the principal dentist Dr. David Crumpton), Services Lander (3 — cosmetic, restorative, general), Service Page (the heaviest — 21 service pages including smile makeover, dental veneers, composite bonding, dental implants, full arch reconstruction, orthodontics, and general procedures), Blog Lander, Blog (3 posts), Contact, Insurance, Privacy Policy, Terms of Conditions, and a Default Template covering supporting pages. Each page was built on its template assignment from the sitemap row; no page was hand-rolled outside the template system.
2. Spec followed line-for-line — including heading structure. Where the live site’s heading elements contained inline HTML (<span class="block-desktop">, <span class="small">, CSS-class typography controls), we replicated that structure in the Elementor build. The Htags Live vs Staging workbook tab drove this verification: it reported the raw heading content (not just the visible text) on both the live and staging URLs. We used the Htags comparison rather than visual review because heading-structure drift in Elementor (markup replaced with <br> breaks, spans flattened) passes a browser preview but shows up immediately in a raw-content diff. Of 55 pages compared, 30 showed heading-structure discrepancies in the initial build pass — markup differences, whitespace artefacts, an instance of wrong-content copy carried from a different service page. All 30 were corrected before handoff.
3. Eleven redirects and two URL changes implemented per spec. The sitemap carried 11 redirect rows (primarily collapsing sub-pages under consolidation paths — e.g. /about-us/meet-the-dentists/ redirecting to /about-us/) and 2 URL changes (moving the doctor profile from /about-us/meet-the-dentists/meet-dr-david-crumpton/ to a flat /about-us/dr-david-crumpton/ path). All were implemented and verified against the sitemap’s status-code column before handoff.
4. Three-track issue backlog closed before staging sign-off. Issues ran in three agency-side tracks. The DEV backlog (37 real rows) addressed bugs and change requests on our side: trailing-slash link corrections, form heading text, non-English code comments, image-crop accuracy, H1 count errors, header visibility, and menu clean-up. The SEO backlog (25 active rows — 5 Completed, 17 in QA, 3 To Do) and CX backlog (6 active rows in QA) were the agency’s post-handoff review tracks. The 82-item launch checklist — Status Codes, Redirects, URL Structure, Contact Forms, Layout, Mobile Responsiveness, Content, SEO — signed off before the agency migrated to production.
The Htags Live vs Staging comparison was the discipline that mattered. Thirty heading-structure discrepancies — markup differences, whitespace artefacts, a wrong-content carry-over from an adjacent service page — were visible in the diff before the agency opened their review. A visual pass alone would not have caught them; the raw-content comparison did, which is why the QA round moved fast once the agency started.
Results
| Metric | Outcome |
|---|---|
| URLs rebuilt | 44 across 12 templates (1 Homepage · 1 About · 1 Doctor · 3 Services Landers · 21 Service Pages · 1 Blog Lander · 3 Blogs · 1 Contact · 11 Default/supporting) |
| Templates applied | 12 from the agency’s standard dental library |
| Redirects implemented | 11 redirects + 2 URL changes per sitemap spec |
| Heading parity check | 55 pages compared live-vs-staging; 30 discrepancies surfaced and corrected before handoff |
| DEV issues backlog | 37 / 37 real rows closed as Completed |
| SEO issues backlog | 25 active rows (agency-managed post-handoff) — 5 Completed, 17 in QA, 3 To Do at time of export |
| CX issues backlog | 6 active rows (agency-managed post-handoff) — in QA |
| Launch checklist | 82 items signed off across Development / Layout / Mobile / Content / SEO |
| Core rebuild timeline | 27 days (19 Aug – 15 Sep 2025), delivered on schedule |
| Core rebuild effort | ~61 hours (31h dev · 10h QA · 15h PM · 5h backlog review and fixes) |
| Post-launch retained | Header fix + insurance page addition · Oct 2025 – Jan 2026 |
| Site status, verified 2026-04 | Production live and serving 200 from a fresh curl check |
The outcome, restated plainly: the agency received a 44-page Kinsta rebuild with heading structures verified page-by-page against the live site, all redirects and URL changes applied per spec, and the DEV backlog cleared before migration. The post-launch engagement added a header correction and a net-new insurance page inside the same agency relationship.
Operational Integrity at handoff
Pre-handoff QA caught two code-hygiene issues on this build: Russian-language comments in two footer.php scripts — identified and removed before staging handoff — and a heading-container mismatch on the homepage where two elements were placed inside the H1 container rather than the original single-element span structure, surfaced by the Htags parity diff across 55 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.
Process
| Phase | Duration | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Brief & estimation | ~1 week | Workbook reviewed, sitemap confirmed, 56h dev + QA + PM quoted |
| Build phase (pages + templates) | ~2 weeks | All 44 URLs rebuilt; redirects wired; initial heading comparison tab reviewed |
| QA and backlog closure | ~1 week | 37 DEV backlog items closed; 30 heading discrepancies corrected; checklist signed off |
| Staging handoff | 15 Sep 2025 | Staging delivered; agency opened SEO + CX post-handoff review |
| Post-launch header fix | Oct 2025 | Sticky-header CSS and logo visibility correction across all pages |
| Post-launch insurance page | Dec 2025 – Jan 2026 | Net-new insurance page added within retained engagement |
QA and build ran concurrently — heading-comparison review began while late-stage service pages were being finalized, which is why the core timeline is 27 days rather than sequential phases.
Team
Delivery team
- Nikita Tumasevic — lead developer, template implementation and redirect wiring
- Pavel Sazhin — QA lead and backlog review; post-launch header fix
- Anna Polunina — implementation support and QA across the rebuilt pages
- Timur Arbaev — QA support on post-launch fix rounds
- Anton Hersun, xaverPRO — project lead, management, agency-side communication, and backlog coordination
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 rebuild
First engagement is a calibration batch — typically a single rebuild at fixed hours, with heading-parity evidence and a closed DEV backlog delivered before your review starts. If that pace fits your pipeline, send your sitemap or a workbook. We will return a fixed-hours quote within 24 hours — no cost, no obligation to proceed.
Don't have a spec yet? Send a one-paragraph description — we'll come back with the questions worth asking. Send a description →
Site Checker runs before the agency sees anything.
Before handoff, every staging build runs through Site Checker — the WordPress QA plugin we built and maintain. It is a fail-zero gate: nothing goes to the agency with an open failure. Warnings are reviewed and judged non-blocking; the agency gets a clean slate to run their own QA layer against, not a staging site with known issues in the queue.