65-Page Multi-Specialty Dental Template Customisation

Client (end user): Dental Associates of Jersey City — a multi-specialty dental practice in Jersey City, NJ
Engagement: White-label template customisation for a US marketing agency
Delivered: February 2025 · 41 days · 40 hours · 65 pages + 132 blog posts · on schedule

The Craft of Template Customisation

65 pages of a multi-specialty dental template customisation on the agency’s Template 6, plus 25 service URL restructurings from flat legacy paths into a five-branch sub-specialty taxonomy. The URL architecture work ran as a dedicated parallel Redmine task — #165 «сделать проверку ссылок» — verified independently before the main handoff, because a misconfigured redirect on any of the 25 moves would have dropped established patient search paths.

Snapshot

The Brief

A US marketing agency delivered us a WP Engine deployment target and their branded Template 6 configuration for Dental Associates of Jersey City. The agency had the upstream work handled — design approval, hosting setup, content plan. What they needed was a development team that would map the template faithfully to the agency’s spec across a site substantially larger and more complex than a typical single-specialty dental practice.

Dental Associates of Jersey City operates across five clinical areas — general dentistry, periodontics, endodontics, orthodontics, and cosmetic dentistry — each with its own procedure sub-pages. The legacy site had accumulated those pages over time under flat, top-level slugs (/arestin, /biopsy, /bridges, /crowns, and so on). The agency’s template required reorganising those URLs into a proper sub-specialty tree: /periodontic/periodontal-disease/arestin/, /dental-implants/bridges/, /endodontic/apicoectomy-surgery/, and so on across 25 affected pages.

The ask was operational. Apply the template, execute the URL restructuring, handle the 54-item launch checklist, and raise QA findings back to the agency’s shared workspace. Don’t close items without sign-off.

How We Did It

1. Figma-as-contract, template-as-canvas. The agency’s Template 6 provided the underlying page structure. Our job was to customise it to match the agency’s spec page by page — where the template’s default layout was correct, we kept it; where the spec required a deviation, we customised. No design decisions originated on our side.

2. URL restructuring as a first-class deliverable. Reorganising 25 service page URLs from flat paths into a five-branch sub-specialty taxonomy was not a cosmetic change — it was the structural backbone of the new site. Each affected page required both the new destination URL and a redirect from the legacy slug. We kept URL restructuring as a separate track from template customisation rather than merging them into a single build task, because each redirected path needed independent verification — a misconfigured redirect on any of the 25 restructured URLs would have broken the practice’s established search presence. The link-verification task ran as a parallel workstream during the main build, ensuring the internal link map was consistent before handoff rather than corrected post-launch.

3. QA cycle at template-customisation scale. A clean template customisation is not “build once, review once”. Over the course of this project, the 54-item launch checklist covered browser compatibility, navigation integrity, contact form notifications, image and video rendering, meta-data accuracy, Screaming Frog crawl comparisons against the original site, redirect verification, and multi-viewport responsive checks. The checklist ran in two phases — pre-migration and post-migration — with each item signed off independently before the site was cleared for launch. The initial handoff shipped with brand colours applied per-page rather than globally because the template had been customised for a PPC landing page before the site-wide deployment was scoped — this gap surfaced post-launch as a dedicated colour-propagation task across all 65 pages.

4. Post-launch fix rounds. After the initial handoff, the agency surfaced two follow-on tasks through the shared issue backlog: a single-page brand-colour correction that expanded to a site-wide colour update, and a consolidated list of client-driven content corrections (practitioner credential updates, photo replacements, gallery scrolling behaviour, hours-of-operation accuracy, promotional copy). Each round was closed only after the agency’s reviewer confirmed the fix was complete.

5. 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 affected by that round’s delta, which is how a large-page-count build stays efficient without losing coverage.

The link-verification track was what kept the 25 URL moves safe. Evgeniy flagged mid-build that redirect coverage needed its own workstream — not mixed into the main build ticket — so issue #165 («сделать проверку ссылок») ran in parallel and closed independently before the handoff. Without that separation, a misconfigured redirect on any of the five sub-specialty branches would have surfaced as a post-launch fix, not a pre-handoff check.

Operational Integrity at handoff

Pre-handoff QA centred on URL integrity — 25 flat-to-nested redirect moves across five sub-specialty branches ran as a dedicated parallel Redmine task (#165 «сделать проверку ссылок») to confirm every chain before submission; a site-wide brand-colour gap (template initially deployed in PPC single-page mode) surfaced post-handoff through the agency review and went through the fix loop. 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.

Additional verifications documented in the workbook checklist:
– Screaming Frog crawl of the original site archived as baseline reference
– Screaming Frog crawl of staging compared against the original to confirm page/post URLs, title tags, and meta descriptions matched
– Internal links verified post-DNS cutover (staging URLs replaced with the live domain)
– Rank Math SEO settings verified
– Google Analytics / Tag Manager scripts confirmed in place

Results

The outcome, restated plainly: the agency’s Template 6 was applied across 65 pages for a five-specialty dental practice, 132 legacy blog posts were migrated with URL preservation, 25 service page URLs were restructured from flat paths into a sub-specialty taxonomy, and the engagement closed in 41 days inside 40 hours total.

Process

Development and QA ran concurrently throughout — the link-verification task was opened as a parallel Redmine issue and closed independently before the main issue handoff.

Team

Delivery team

• Nikita Tumasevic — lead developer (template customisation, URL restructuring, Figma-to-layout mapping)
• Anna Polunina — developer (QA iterations, design verification, image sourcing)
• Evgeniy Karpov — developer (QA support, link verification)
• Alexey Melkov — implementation support
• Natalia Bogatel — developer (post-launch content corrections)
• Anton Hersun, xaverPRO — project lead (estimation, agency-side communication, sign-off)

Agency-side project management, design, hosting, and client communication remained with the partner agency throughout. Our team was invisible to the end client. All customisation requests came through the agency’s shared issue backlog; nothing about the build was visible to the end client directly. Each fix round was closed only after the agency-side reviewer confirmed the delta was resolved.

For agencies with a branded template system