60-Page Dental Prosthodontics WordPress Build in 70 Days — White-Label Delivery for a US Marketing Agency

The Craft of a Build

Sixty-plus pages of a dental prosthodontics WordPress build matched to a Webflow design reference — every staging URL compared against the agency’s visual spec, every Screaming Frog crawl tab treated as a structural contract. We owned the cross-platform fidelity: design-match QA and crawl-based verification running in parallel across 84 hours and 70 days, so the agency could defend both the visual match and the live-site integrity to their client.

Snapshot

The Brief

A US marketing agency retained by Ocean Breeze Prosthodontics — a Delray Beach practice specialising in prosthodontic treatments, cosmetic dentistry, and dental implants — handed us a Google Sheets workbook with a full URL map, a Webflow design reference (wond-obp.webflow.io), a templates catalogue, a 48-item launch checklist, and Screaming Frog crawl exports of the original site. Everything ran inside their WP Engine account, with Elementor doing the page assembly. The agency owned strategy, content, the Webflow design, and client-facing communication. We owned execution: template application, page build, checking each page against the Webflow reference, and crawl-based QA.

The ask: rebuild the practice’s existing URL surface on WordPress + Elementor, match the Webflow reference page-for-page, work through the fix-and-feedback tail, and close the launch checklist. Then, post-launch, investigate 404s, fix blog image references, and resolve H1 mismatches surfaced by the crawl comparison.

How We Did It

1. Ten templates, 60+ URLs, one build pipeline. Ocean Breeze’s pages spread across the agency’s standard dental template library: Homepage, About Us, Doctor Page, Services Lander, Service Page (the heaviest — covering prosthodontic treatments, cosmetic dentistry, general dentistry, and periodontal services), Smile Gallery, Blog Lander, Blog Page, Contact, Privacy Policy, and Default Template for supporting pages. The sitemap row dictated which template each page inherited, and nothing got assembled by hand outside that catalogue. Where the Webflow design and the live-site content diverged — different header structure, missing sections, pages that existed in one source but not the other — the team prioritised live-site content as the canonical source and matched the design spec as closely as that content allowed, escalating only unresolvable differences to the agency rather than guessing or duplicating content.

2. Spec followed line-for-line, within the hours we scoped. We scoped every row in hours ourselves and built to that number. 12 hours to the Homepage, 1 to a standard service page — those were the ceilings we worked under, and the totals settled at the 61 hours quoted and agreed for the core build.

Once a sitemap is scoped row by row, that scope is what binds both sides. Our part was to land each page inside its allotted hours rather than treat the quote as something to renegotiate page by page.

3. Design-reference QA against the Webflow spec. The agency’s Issues Backlog tab carried 27 design-match items, each comparing a staging URL to its Webflow reference page — “Page should be formatted to this — https://wond-obp.webflow.io/services/…” Seven of those items were verified and closed as Completed during the build; the remainder were absorbed into the fix-and-feedback tail. Separately, the Screaming Frog-derived tabs — H1 issue (23 rows), Missing pages (22 rows), 404 (1 row), and Broken links (2 rows) — provided a structural QA pass that ran in parallel with the design-match backlog.

4. Post-launch crawl verification and fix loop. After the initial build and launch, the agency directed us to a set of post-launch issues: blog images that had referenced the original site instead of being uploaded to the new environment (fixed by re-exporting and re-attaching media), incorrect H1 headers on a subset of pages (corrected against the original-site backup), and a cluster of 404 status codes surfaced in the workbook’s STATUS CODE column (investigated and resolved). The 48-item launch checklist — Design, Functionality, Pre-Migration, Post-Migration — closed behind both the build-phase and post-launch QA loops.

The Webflow spec gave us the structural target; the live site gave us the content — and on a cross-platform build, those two sources never fully agree. On the 9 service pages where they diverged — different block order, missing sections — we held live-site content as canonical and matched the Webflow structure as closely as that content allowed, escalating unresolvable gaps rather than guessing.

Results

Where it landed: the prosthodontics build went out across 10 templates on the WP Engine environment without breaching the hour budget. Design-reference QA and Screaming Frog crawl verification ran side by side through the fix-and-feedback tail, and post-launch issues were resolved before the final close.

Operational Integrity at handoff

Before anything left our hands, the build cleared a six-category checklist — responsiveness (desktop/tablet/mobile), link integrity, H1–H6 tags, title and meta tags, content-migration accuracy, and a full link archive — logged as a QA spec. Once it landed on the agency side, their crawl turned up blog images still pointing at the original domain and 404 rows in the workbook, both feeding our fix loop. That pass ran through Site Checker — our QA approach covers the categories and the rule that every item closes. Once we’d handed off, the agency re-checked the work its own way and fed findings into the shared backlog for us to clear up to sign-off.

Process

Phases overlap — the fix-and-feedback tail began before every build-phase QA item had closed, and post-launch fixes ran in parallel with the final checklist items, which is why the calendar timeline is 70 days rather than the sum of individual phases.

Team

Delivery team

• Nikita Tumasevic — lead developer across build and fix-and-feedback phases
• Natalia Bogatel — developer on late-phase customisation, smile gallery updates, and post-launch fixes
• Pavel Sazhin — QA iterations and fixes
• Anna Polunina — post-launch QA and verification
• Anton Hersun, xaverPRO — project lead (estimation, agency-side communication, sign-off)

Project management and every client-facing conversation stayed on the partner agency’s side for the duration. To Ocean Breeze, the rebuild was its agency’s work; our names never reached the practice, and the design-match QA that defended the Webflow parity carried the agency’s stamp, not ours.

For agencies commissioning a white-label WordPress build