21-Page Dental Template Customisation in 38 Days — White-Label for a US Marketing Agency
A 21-page dental template customisation shipped in 38 days — 6 templates applied across 21 URLs, 43 hours of effort, rebrand absorbed mid-build.
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.
The Craft of Template Customisation
21 pages of a dental template customisation to the agency’s Figma — 6 templates applied across a Pensacola practice that was actively rebranding while the build was in progress. New practice name, new logo, new brand colours, and a late-arriving hero image: every brand asset swap landed mid-build, against the same Figma reference, without touching the shared template structure beneath.
Snapshot
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| End-client industry | Healthcare — General Dentistry |
| End-client | Coastal Cosmetic & Family Dentistry (Pensacola, Florida) |
| Engagement | White-label template customisation for a US marketing agency specialising in local-business websites |
| Project Type | WordPress template customisation (agency’s branded template + per-page Figma design on WP Engine) |
| Scope | 21 URLs — homepage, services lander, 7 service pages, meet the dentist, our team, smile gallery, new patients, reviews, contact, appointment request, and supporting pages |
| Timeline | 38 days (17 Jan – 26 Feb 2025), on schedule |
| Effort | 43 hours — development, QA iterations, and project management |
| Team | 7 specialists |
| Templates | 6 reusable templates provided by the agency, all applied across the 21 pages |
| Tech Stack | WordPress · Elementor · WP Engine hosting · Figma-driven per-page design · Site Checker (xaverPRO QA plugin) |
| QA discipline | 20 tracked issues reconciled in the agency’s backlog across a 48-item launch checklist |
| Engagement cadence | 20 agency-raised issues · all closed by handoff (14-day active span, 2025-04-04 – 2025-04-17) |
| Review rounds | ≈5 review rounds across the 38-day calendar window |
| Launch checklist | 48 items, signed off before cutover |
The Brief
A US marketing agency delivered us a Figma design for Coastal Cosmetic & Family Dentistry and a deployment target on their branded WP Engine template system. By the time it reached us, the agency had handled everything upstream: client requirements, design audit, hosting setup, and content sourcing. The gap they were filling was a development team that would lay the Figma over the template without distortion and keep the QA loop running as long as their review process demanded.
The ask carried an extra variable: the practice was rebranding mid-engagement. The practice name, doctor lineup, logo, and brand colours all changed while the template customisation was already under way. What the agency needed to guard against was a dev shop that would bake the old brand into the template structure and then charge rework to unwind it. On a templated build, a rebrand is not a simple find-and-replace — it touches every page that carries the practice name, every doctor bio, every logo placement, every colour token tied to the template’s design system. The job was to build the customisation so that brand assets could be swapped without destabilising the template structure beneath them. That is the value the agency hired for, and it is what the 20-item issue backlog on this project was built to verify.
Risk context. When a template customisation runs alongside an active rebrand — new practice name, new doctor lineup, new logo, new colour tokens — the failure mode is a dev team that hard-codes the old brand into template structure and then bills rework to reverse it. The agency was hiring for a customisation that could absorb upstream brand evolution in-flight: brand assets swapped without destabilising the template layer beneath them, and no iteration charged twice.
How We Did It
1. Figma-as-contract, template-as-canvas. What the Figma file specified, we treated as the binding design. Underneath it sat the branded template, supplying the page structure. Reconciling those two was the work, taken one page at a time: a page whose template default already matched the Figma stayed as-is, and only the pages where the Figma asked for something different got customised. No design decisions originated on our side. We reconciled each page deviation individually rather than rebuilding the template to match the Figma outright, because preserving the agency’s shared template structure meant the customisation could absorb the rebrand without destabilising components across future template sites.
2. Rebrand discipline within a template customisation. Mid-engagement, the practice name changed, the doctor lineup was finalised, and new brand assets (logo, colours, staff photos) arrived in batches. We applied every change against the Figma reference, not as an ad-hoc edit. When the homepage hero image, tagline, and doctor profile pictures arrived late, we swapped them into the existing customisation without touching the template’s shared components. The build absorbed the rebrand rather than being rebuilt by it.
3. QA cycle at template-customisation scale. Getting a template customisation clean is never a “build once, review once” affair. The rhythm is build, QA, adjust, QA, adjust. Of the 23 tasks tracked on this project, 14 were QA or fix iterations — individual rounds where the agency flagged design deltas or content updates, we reviewed, fixed, and returned the build for another review. This volume is appropriate for a 21-page engagement with an active rebrand; that repeated back-and-forth is exactly what divides a templated site that lands “roughly right” from one that lands on the design.
The logic here is plain enough: on a templated build, it is the QA loop that actually delivers the value. Cut the QA cycle short and you get a looser fit to the design, not a quicker delivery.
4. Customisation without drift. Whenever we altered the branded template — a page layout, a section component, a style token — we logged that change against the Figma reference. Nothing we customised bled back into the template’s shared components, so the work on this project left the template intact for whatever site it would serve next.
5. Cross-device verification. We put each customisation through Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge across desktop, tablet, and mobile viewports — the breakpoint set the agency works to as standard. A given QA round looked only at the pages that round’s design deltas touched rather than the whole site, which keeps a templated build efficient while still covering everything that changed.
The practice name, doctor lineup, logo, and hero image all changed while the build was live in staging. We absorbed each swap against the Figma reference without touching the template’s shared components — Dr. Yee’s placement restructured, tagline updated to “Brighter Smiles, Beachside Comfort”, brand tokens reapplied. The template structure held.
Operational Integrity at handoff
Pre-handoff QA on this engagement caught a stray-space URL in the phone link and stripped third-party copyright footers baked into the template — a visual-comparison pass and link crawl then verified all 21 pages before staging went to the agency. Pre-handoff QA ran through Site Checker — see how we run QA for the categories and the zero-error bar. Once the build was in their hands, the agency put it through its own verification on its own tooling, dropping whatever it caught into the shared backlog for us to clear, and the cycle ran until they signed off.
All of it lived in the per-client overrides, leaving the agency’s shared template components untouched.
Results
| Metric | Outcome |
|---|---|
| URLs delivered | 21 — 1 homepage, 1 services lander, 7 service pages, 1 meet the dentist, 1 our team, 1 smile gallery, 1 new patients, 1 reviews, 1 contact, 1 appointment request, and 5 supporting pages |
| Templates applied | 6 of 6 reusable templates built and mapped across the 21 pages (Homepage, About Us, Doctor Page, Service Page, Blog, Default Template) |
| Launch checklist | 48 items signed off |
| QA / SEO issues tracked + resolved | 20 items reconciled across the agency’s issue-backlog tab |
| Redmine QA iterations | 14 of 23 tasks tracked at the iteration level |
| Timeline | 38 days, delivered on schedule |
| Effort | 43 hours — no overrun, no scope creep |
| Team | 7 specialists |
| Hosting handoff | Live on the agency’s WP Engine template environment |
Bottom line: we implemented the agency’s Figma against their branded template across 21 pages and 6 templates, over 38 calendar days, inside the 43-hour estimate — including a mid-build rebrand that the customisation absorbed without rework.
Process
| Phase | Duration | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Brief & estimation | ~2 days | Figma reviewed, template access confirmed, scope agreed |
| Customisation development | ~3 weeks | Page-by-page template customisation to match Figma |
| QA iterations (concurrent) | ~2 weeks | 14 QA and fix rounds logged; each closed only on agency sign-off |
| Rebrand asset integration | ~1 week | Logo, colours, doctor photos, and staff bios swapped into the live customisation |
| Delivery | final day | Site live on WP Engine |
Development and QA overlapped throughout, as they tend to on template-customisation work: there is no tidy “QA phase” that closes on its own, so the loop just keeps turning until the agency signs off.
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 and content-layout fixes
- Evgeniy Karpov — development support
- Natalia Bogatel — QA and project coordination
- Anton Hersun, xaverPRO — project lead (estimation, agency-side communication, sign-off)
Agency-side project management, design, and client communication remained with the partner agency throughout. Coastal Cosmetic & Family Dentistry dealt with the agency alone — the practice never had a dev contact, and our name appeared on nothing that reached them. Customisation requests came through the agency’s shared issue backlog. A round closed only once the reviewer on the agency’s side gave their sign-off.
For agencies with a branded template system
On a branded template system, a live rebrand tests how well the template layer can accept new branding without destabilising client customizations. For this practice—a multi-location dental group mid-rebrand; for others—a solo dentist launching a finished template. The old brand will be baked into shared components, so when the new logo and colours arrive, those components will serve the stale identity. Cached asset versions from the initial build will keep the old styling alive, requiring a site-wide audit each time the brand evolves. A single colour change in the customizer will not propagate to all pages, leaving the site in two visual generations.
The question is not “can you customise a template?” but “how will you make the brand customizations propagate through a rebrand?”
Send us the template source or template ID and your brand spec. We will audit the template for hard-coded brand assets, pinpoint where the next rebrand revision will demand extra work, and return a fixed-hours quote. Free review, fixed quote in hours.
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.