21-Page Dental WordPress Build

Client (end user): Songbird Dental Studio — Crawfordville, FL
Engagement: White-label development for a US marketing agency
Delivered: March – April 2025 · 31 days · 50 hours across build, QA, and content-integration phases

The Craft of a Build

21 pages of a dental-practice WordPress build, translated from Figma designs to Elementor through a workbook sitemap whose every row carried its own hour estimate. The scaffold rose before all the content was in — leaving no gap for a less cautious dev partner to collapse the sitemap — and a content-integration tail plus a two-track QA close followed inside 50 hours across 31 days.

This case study is a record of such a scaffold-first build — delivered for a US marketing agency in the general-dental segment.

Snapshot

The Brief

A US marketing agency retained by Songbird Dental Studio — a general-dental practice in Crawfordville, Florida — handed us a Google Sheets workbook with a full sitemap, Figma designs for homepage and internal pages, a templates catalogue, a launch checklist, and pre-populated SEO and Account Manager issues backlogs. The build sat on their WP Engine environment; the page builder was Elementor; forms were Gravity Forms.

The ask: build all 21 pages against the agency’s template library, translate the Figma designs into Elementor layouts, integrate the content as it arrived from the client, wire the forms, and work through both QA backlogs until the agency accepted the site. Design, content strategy, SEO strategy, and client communication remained with the agency.

How We Did It

1. Thirteen templates, 21 pages, one pipeline — built from Figma source design. The site’s 21 pages spread across the agency’s standard template library: Homepage (1), About Us (2 — practice page + doctor bio), Blog Lander (1), Blog (1), Contact Us (1), Services Lander (1), Service Page (8 — teeth whitening, sedation dentistry, dental implants, checkups, veneers, extractions, dentures, cosmetic dentistry, general dentistry, restorative dentistry), Smile Gallery (1), New Patient (1), Technology (1), and Default Template (2 — thank-you page + 404). Each page was mapped to its template from the sitemap row before a single line of Elementor was written.

2. Figma-to-Elementor structural mapping, not visual tracing. The source design was a Figma prototype, not a static mockup. We identified the structural primitives early — heading hierarchies, section spacing, mobile breakpoints — and confirmed the rendered output matched the Figma spec before any page left staging.

3. Per-row Hours Estimated column as the contract. The agency’s sitemap carried an Hours Estimated value for every row — 9 hours for the Homepage, 2 hours for the Services Lander, 0.2 hours per standard service page, and so on. Our job was to deliver inside those row-level budgets without renegotiating per page. We accepted the row-level budgets as binding rather than reopening pricing as content gaps emerged — a choice that preserved the agency’s fixed-cost model. The aggregate came in at the agreed 50 hours for the project.

4. Two QA loops, worked down before launch. Issues were tracked in two agency-side backlog tabs: the SEO Issues Backlog (48 rows, priorities across Low to High) and the AM Issues Backlog (20 rows, flagged with screenshots against staging). Of the 48 SEO items, 40 closed as Completed before launch; 5 were To Do, 1 was a website-live checkpoint, and 1 was In progress. Of the 20 AM items, 19 closed as Completed. The 39-item launch checklist — Design, Functionality, Content, Pre-Migration, Post-Migration — closed behind both backlogs.

The per-row Hours Estimated column was what held the scope together. When content arrived late and placeholder pages looked like candidates for scope reduction, the sitemap’s row-level budgets were the contract that kept every URL in the build — and the aggregate came in at exactly the agreed 50 hours.

Results

The outcome restated plainly: 21 URLs across 13 templates on WP Engine, inside the 50-hour quoted budget. Two QA backlogs (SEO Issues + AM Issues) were worked to agency-acceptance levels and the launch checklist closed before the domain went live.

Operational Integrity at handoff

Pre-handoff QA on the 21-page staging build caught two categories of issue: the internal QA script flagged page statuses, meta data, links, and heading structure across the sitemap, and a manual image audit surfaced agency-supplied JPGs running 200–500 KB each — batch-converted to WEBP before the performance checklist could close. 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.

Process

Build and QA ran concurrently from the second week; the content-integration stretch began before the last build-phase items had closed — which is why the calendar is 31 days rather than the sum of sequential phases.

Team

Delivery team

• Nikita Tumasevic — developer support on content-integration rounds and issues-backlog corrections
• Pavel Sazhin — QA iterations and fixes
• Anna Polunina — implementation support and QA
• Lyudmila Travkina — lead developer, Figma-to-Elementor mapping and full build across both phases
• Anton Hersun, xaverPRO — project lead (estimation, agency-side communication, sign-off)

Agency-side project management and client-facing communication remained with the partner agency throughout. Our team was invisible to the end client. All QA feedback arrived through the shared issue backlog; nothing about the build’s internal process was visible to the end client.

For agencies commissioning a white-label WordPress build