41-Page Dental Template Customisation in 47 Days — White-Label for a US Marketing Agency

The Craft of Template Customisation

41 pages of Dentistry on Main Street mapped onto the agency’s Template 6 on WP Engine — built from content migrated off the acquired ESI Dentistry site with every brand reference, location, and staff detail replaced before launch. The agency asked whether an automated find-and-replace would cover it; the answer was no. Meta titles, doctor bios, contact emails, and body-copy location mentions each required individual verification. The 11-template structure was straightforward; the sanitization layer was where the work was.

You get speed without losing consistency, provided the customisation work holds its discipline. Hand the same job to a shop that reads its own intent into the Figma, trims the QA rounds, or wanders off the template’s design system, and you are worse off than if you had built from nothing.

Snapshot

The Brief

A US marketing agency delivered us a Figma design for Dentistry on Main Street and a deployment target on their branded WP Engine-hosted template system. The practice had recently acquired the New Port Richey location from an existing dental group and was rebranding under the Dentistry on Main Street identity. Everything upstream was already in hand on their side: the design audit, the client’s approval, the hosting set up, the content pulled from the legacy site. The gap they were filling was a build team that would lay the Figma over the template without improvising, carry the legacy content across, and scrub out every trace of the old brand before the site went live.

It was hands-on work on a tight clock. The Figma set the target; we matched the template to it one page at a time. Legacy content came across, but only after every mention of the old brand name was swapped out and every location outside New Port Richey stripped. QA findings went back to the agency through the shared workspace, and none of them closed without the agency’s sign-off.

What the agency needed to guard against was a dev shop that would treat a rebrand migration as a bulk-copy exercise. The agency asked whether we could run an automated find-and-replace script across all migrated content — and while that would have handled surface-level text replacement, it could not catch every context-dependent occurrence of the old brand name: meta titles, email addresses, Instagram handles, and location references embedded in body copy each required individual judgement. We performed the automated pass as a first cut, then verified every occurrence manually across all 41 pages. With 41 pages of legacy content — service pages, doctor bios, financial pages, and blog posts — all carrying the old brand’s name, location references, and metadata, the risk was not in the template customisation itself, but in letting a single outdated reference leak into the live site. A dental practice launching under a new brand cannot afford a homepage meta title that still names the predecessor, or a doctor bio that references the wrong city. That is the work the agency hired for, and it is what the 25-item QA backlog on this project was built to verify.

How We Did It

1. Figma-as-contract, template-as-canvas. The Figma file stood as the binding design spec; the branded template supplied the page skeleton underneath it. Squaring the two fell to us, page by page — wherever the template’s stock layout already lined up with the Figma we left it alone, and wherever the Figma asked for something else we adjusted to suit. None of those design calls started with us.

2. QA cycle at template-customisation scale. You do not get a clean customisation by building it once and reviewing it once. The pattern is build, check, correct, check again, correct again. Of the 13 tasks tracked on this project, 9 were QA or fix iterations — individual rounds where the agency flagged design deltas, content discrepancies, or rebrand sanitization issues, we reviewed, fixed, and returned the build for another review. That count is not a wobble in the process; it is the back-and-forth that pulls a templated site from “roughly right” up to a real match against the design and the rebrand spec.

The reason is plain enough: on a templated build, the QA loop is the part that earns its keep. Cut that loop short and you ship a looser fit to the design, not a quicker job.

3. Customisation without drift. Throughout the project we logged every edit to the branded template — a page layout here, a section component there, a style token elsewhere — back against the Figma reference. Each customisation was kept to the single page it belonged to instead of touching the shared template stylesheets or the component partials, since that same branded template was running other client sites across the agency’s portfolio and a template-level override would have bled unwanted changes into those builds. Nothing we customised escaped into the template’s shared components, so the work here left the template no worse off for whichever site it served next.

4. Cross-device verification. We checked every customisation in Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge across desktop, tablet, and mobile viewports — the standard agency breakpoint set. A round of QA only revisited the pages its own design deltas had touched rather than sweeping the whole site, and that is what lets a templated build move quickly while still covering what changed.

The constraint here was not a deadline but a scope boundary — 41 pages to migrate and sanitize with Tampa locations and ESI references explicitly excluded before any page went live. That boundary forced a content-audit pass first, before template customisation began, which is what made the 9-round QA cycle tractable: each round was reviewing customisation deltas, not re-checking whether a predecessor brand reference had slipped through.

Operational Integrity at handoff

QA on this rebrand ran across four workbook categories: brand-sanitization (the predecessor practice’s email still in the footer, Friday-hours text naming the predecessor), five broken /locations/ redirects, duplicate meta descriptions on seven pages, and /?service= URL parameters to remove. Before handoff, that pass ran through Site Checker. How we run QA covers the categories and the rule that no open item leaves. Once with the agency, they ran their own checks and dropped findings into the shared backlog for our fix loop until they confirmed it done.

All of it stayed in the per-client overrides. We left the agency’s shared template components untouched.

Results

Where it ended up: the agency’s Figma went onto their branded template across all 41 pages and 11 templates, the work ran 47 calendar days and stayed within the 47-hour estimate, and the legacy content arrived migrated and cleaned up for the new brand.

Process

Build and QA overlapped rather than queued behind each other, which is how template-customisation work tends to go: there is no tidy “QA phase” that shuts; the loop keeps turning right up to the agency’s sign-off.

Team

Delivery team

• Nikita Tumasevic — lead developer (template customisation and Figma-to-layout mapping)
• Anna Polunina — developer (page customisation, content migration, and stock imagery)
• Natalia Bogatel — developer (final changes, design-advice implementation, and backlog fixes)
• Pavel Sazhin — QA iterations and fix verification
• Anton Hersun, xaverPRO — project lead (estimation, agency-side communication, sign-off)

Project management, design, and the client conversation all sat with the partner agency from start to finish. As far as Dentistry on Main Street could tell, the rebrand shipped under their agency’s name; our developers showed up on no call, no email, and nowhere in the workspace the practice had eyes on. Each customisation request came in through the agency’s issue backlog and left the same way. A QA round only closed once the agency-side reviewer had checked the delta off as resolved.

For agencies with a branded template system