24-Page Dental Template — Blog URL Migration

The Craft of Template Customisation

Twenty-four pages for a Reno dental practice, mapped against a Figma spec across 10 reusable templates on a Kinsta-hosted branded template — with a blog URL restructure folded in: the lander moved from /about/our-blog/ to /blog/, two indexed posts with it. Post-launch, a content accuracy pass surfaced copy that misrepresented the practice’s actual services; fixing distributed strings without introducing new inconsistencies was what the QA loop had to hold to.

Snapshot

The Brief

A US marketing agency handed us a Figma design for Futch Dental and access to their branded Kinsta-hosted template. The agency had handled the upstream work: client requirements gathering, Figma production, content sourcing, and hosting setup. What they needed from us was faithful execution — map the Figma design onto the template, page by page, then work through the agency’s issue backlog until sign-off.

The engagement covered 24 URLs across the practice’s full site — homepage, service pages for Futch Dental’s core procedures (emergency dentistry, Invisalign, implants, crowns, fillings, root canal, dentures, teeth whitening, cosmetic dentistry, and night guards), supporting pages (new patients, technology, reviews, office gallery, before/after gallery), doctor bio, about pages, contact, and blog. Alongside the template customisation, the blog section required a URL restructure: the existing blog lander lived at /about/our-blog/ and needed to move to /blog/, with two existing blog posts migrated from their root-level slugs into the /blog/ subdirectory.

The risk this engagement carried was specific to the post-launch content accuracy pass. After the agency’s initial QA cleared structural and design-fidelity issues, a second round surfaced content that did not accurately reflect the practice’s actual services — including marketing copy that overstated same-day treatment capability, Invisalign FAQ language that could mislead patients, and a reference to an after-hours answering service the practice no longer offered. For a dental practice competing in a local market, copy that misrepresents what the office actually does is a credibility liability, not just a QA finding. Executing those corrections cleanly — across globally repeated strings and within specific service pages — required careful scoping to avoid introducing new inconsistencies while fixing the old ones.

How We Did It

1. Figma-as-contract, template-as-canvas. The Figma file was the design spec. The branded template was the underlying page structure. Our job was to reconcile the two page by page — where the template’s default layout matched the Figma, we kept it; where the Figma required a deviation, we customised. No design decisions originated on our side.

2. Blog URL restructure alongside template customisation. The Futch Dental engagement was not a greenfield build — the practice had an existing blog with posts indexed at root-level slugs that needed migration into the /blog/ subdirectory. The agency’s sitemap spec called for these to move under /blog/ to match the new navigation architecture. This URL restructure ran in parallel with the template customisation, adding a redirect and navigation-link layer to what would otherwise be a pure template-mapping exercise. We mapped both the blog lander and the existing posts to their respective templates (Blog Lander and Blog) and confirmed each returning HTTP 200 on staging before handoff.

3. QA cycle at template-customisation scale. A clean template customisation is not “build once, review once”. It is “build, QA, adjust, QA, adjust”. This project tracked 74+ line items across the agency’s SEO and CX issue backlogs — with the SEO backlog alone carrying 74 rows — plus a 29-item launch checklist. Some issues were design-fidelity corrections (duplicate heading tags on cosmetic dentistry, redundant CTA blocks on service pages, missing nav link for the blog lander); others, addressed in post-launch rounds, required rewriting specific copy strings to match the practice’s real service scope. The limitation was that structural QA — design fidelity, HTML correctness — could not verify whether the content accurately described what the practice actually offered; that check needed domain knowledge the tooling layer does not provide. We chose to handle those corrections as individual per-string tasks — replacing ‘same day treatment’ globally, removing the glass ionomer fillings section entirely, rewriting the Invisalign FAQ to match actual treatment parameters — rather than a single bulk copy rewrite, because the inaccuracies mixed globally distributed phrases and page-specific claims that each needed independent verification before sign-off.

The principle is constant: on a templated build, the QA loop is where the value is delivered. A shorter loop means a weaker match — either to the Figma or to the practice’s actual information.

4. Customisation without drift. We documented every change we made to the agency’s branded template against the Figma reference. No customisation “leaked” into the shared template components. The engagement closed with the per-client overrides isolated and the shared template layer intact.

5. Cross-device verification. We QA’d customisations across Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge on desktop, tablet, and mobile viewports. Each QA round targeted the pages affected by that round’s delta, not the full site — keeping coverage tight without losing breadth.

Content accuracy was what this engagement turned on. Structural QA cleared at initial handoff; the post-launch round surfaced what tooling cannot catch — copy that misrepresented the practice’s actual services. Each correction ran as a discrete Redmine task, verified before close, because a fix that introduced a new inconsistency while closing the old one would have made the round pointless.

Operational Integrity at handoff

Post-handoff review surfaced three accuracy failures structural QA cannot catch: ‘same day treatment’ distributed across FAQ and emergency-dentistry pages (the practice can book same-day but not complete treatment same day); Invisalign FAQ copy with non-clinical phrasing and wrong tray-wear duration; and a glass ionomer fillings section for a service the practice does not offer — each fixed as a discrete task. Pre-handoff QA ran through Site Checker — how we run QA covers the categories and the no-issues-left-open rule. After handoff the agency ran its own review, surfacing issues into the shared backlog for our fix loop until sign-off.

Customisations stayed in the per-client overrides. We did not modify the agency’s shared template components.

Results

The headline: we implemented the agency’s Figma against their branded template across 24 pages and 10 templates, with a blog URL restructure, over approximately 70 calendar days, inside the estimated hours.

Process

Development and QA ran concurrently — characteristic of template-customisation work, where no single QA phase closes cleanly. The loop runs until the agency signs off. Post-launch rounds addressed content accuracy items that emerged only after the live site was under full editorial review.

Team

Delivery team

• Nikita Tumasevic — lead developer (template customisation, Figma-to-layout mapping, blog URL restructure)
• Pavel Sazhin — QA lead (issue-backlog review, design-fidelity verification, fix rounds)
• Anton Hersun, xaverPRO — project lead (estimation, agency-side communication, post-launch coordination, sign-off)

The partner agency’s design, content, client communication, and hosting configuration remained entirely upstream of our work. Futch Dental dealt with the agency; the agency dealt with us. Requests came in through the agency’s shared issue tracker; nothing moved to “done” until the agency-side reviewer confirmed it.

For agencies with a branded template system