59-Page Periodontics Template Customisation

Client (end user): Middlesex Periodontics & Dental Implants — a US periodontics and dental-implants practice in East Brunswick, NJ
Engagement: White-label template customisation for a US marketing agency
Delivered: Feb – Apr 2025 · 66 days · 54 hours · 59 URLs · on schedule

The Craft of Template Customisation

59 pages of a periodontics and dental-implants practice mapped against the agency’s «DENTAL HOMEPAGE DESIGN» Figma prototype, across 10 templates, with AI-generated content replacing the client’s entire existing copy — because the client did not own the rights to migrate it. The agency defined the design reference and sourced the content; we owned the per-page template execution and the QA loop through four review rounds on WP Engine staging.

On a periodontics and dental implants site, this discipline is more pronounced. A surgical specialty practice carries a service taxonomy that a general-dental template was not originally built around: laser procedures, bone grafting, scaling and root planing, crown lengthening, and full-arch implant reconstructions are not the same content structures as routine cleanings or fillings. The agency also made an unusual call here: rather than migrating the client’s existing copy, they commissioned new AI-generated content for the entire site. Every page was a net-new content placement — Figma as design reference, fresh copy as content, template as the structural container.

This case study is a record of that template customisation — a specialty dental practice, a full-site content replacement, delivered for a US marketing agency.

Snapshot

The Brief

Middlesex Periodontics & Dental Implants is a periodontics specialty practice in East Brunswick, New Jersey, led by Dr. Daniel Reich. The practice covers periodontal surgery, dental implants, laser procedures, and full-arch restoration — a clinical scope that extends well beyond a general dentistry service menu. A US marketing agency was managing the site redesign: they owned the design (a Figma prototype for the homepage plus inner-page templates), the content strategy (AI-generated content because the client had no rights to copy their existing site), the WP Engine hosting setup, and the client relationship. Our scope was to customise the agency’s dental template system to the Figma design and populate every page with the new content.

The workbook was structured across 65 sitemap rows, 4 of which were redirects and 2 were deletions, leaving 59 active pages to build against 10 templates. The ask: replicate the revised “Dental Homepage Design” Figma prototype on the homepage and inner-page templates, integrate the AI-generated content throughout, fix the form and navigation issues that surfaced during the agency’s review cycle, and close the issues backlog before the site moved to production. Design, content approval, client communication, and SEO strategy all stayed upstream with the agency.

How We Did It

1. Figma-as-contract, template-as-canvas. The Figma prototype defined the homepage design and the CSS reference for all inner pages — colours, fonts, text sizing, background treatment, navigation bar, and footer structure. The agency’s branded dental template was the structural container. Our job was to reconcile the two: where the template’s defaults matched the Figma, we kept them; where the prototype called for a deviation, we customised. No design decisions originated on our side. When the Figma became temporarily inaccessible during the engagement (a platform availability issue), the team secured a local export to maintain build continuity without introducing gaps.

2. QA cycle at specialty-dental scale. A clean template customisation is built in rounds, not in a single pass. Over the course of this project, we tracked 14 tasks in Redmine and worked through 41+ items in the agency’s issues backlog — flagged and corrected across navigation structure, hero-section layout, testimonials population, contact-form routing, image swaps, content placement, and link integrity. The issues represented the gap between “template applied” and “template matched to Figma and client content” — the discipline that distinguishes a templated site that looks approximately right from one that holds up to the agency’s review.

3. Specialty vocabulary across 10 templates. The practice’s service taxonomy spans periodontal surgery, dental implants, laser procedures (LANAP, LAPIP), bone grafting, and patient-information sub-sections for financing, insurance, and forms. The agency’s template library included 10 templates for the engagement: Homepage, About Us (used 3 times across the practice’s story, the team, and the staff pages), Doctor Page, Service Page (24 times — the heaviest template on this project), Contact Us, Default Template (28 supporting pages), plus the agency’s Smile Gallery template for the client-supplied before-and-after imagery. Each template was applied where the sitemap row specified it; no page was built outside the template system.

4. Cross-device verification. Customisations were QA’d across Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge on desktop, tablet, and mobile viewports. Each QA round covered the pages touched by that round’s adjustments rather than a full-site re-pass — keeping the cycle efficient without sacrificing coverage at any breakpoint.

The Figma-as-contract discipline was what held the build together when the Figma platform became temporarily inaccessible mid-engagement. The team exported a local copy rather than pause, and the build continued against that reference — four review rounds and 41 backlog items later, the agency signed off on a site that matched what the Figma had specified from the start.

Operational Integrity at handoff

The issues backlog on this engagement ran 41 items over a 12-day active review window — categories included URL integrity (404 errors and unclickable phone and address links), mobile contrast (mobile menu text invisible against the background), and content placement (FAQ answers on the homepage duplicated across all entries) — each caught before the build reached the agency. 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 dental template across 59 pages and 10 templates, over 66 calendar days, inside the estimated hours. The issues backlog — the record of the gap between first pass and finished state — closed at 38/41 items Completed before production.

Process

Development and QA ran concurrently throughout — this is characteristic of template-customisation work, where the agency’s review cycle opens new backlog items as earlier ones close. The 66-day calendar reflects overlapping passes, not sequential phases.

Team

Delivery team

• Nikita Tumasevic — lead developer (template customisation and Figma-to-layout mapping)
• Pavel Sazhin — project management and QA iterations
• Anna Polunina — QA iterations, client-change integration, and fix rounds
• Lyudmila Travkina — content updates, navigation and form corrections
• Natalia Bogatel — QA and project coordination
• Anton Hersun, xaverPRO — project lead (estimation, agency-side communication, sign-off)

Agency-side project management, design, content approval, and client communication remained with the partner agency throughout. Our team was not visible to the end client. Customisation requests came through Redmine tasks and the agency’s shared issue backlog; each round was closed only when the agency-side reviewer signed off.

For agencies with a branded template system