63-Page Oral Surgery WordPress Build in 58 Days — White-Label Delivery for a US Marketing Agency
63-page oral and facial surgery WordPress build delivered in 58 days — 35 hours, 6 section-level redirect pairs, 49-item checklist signed off, WP Engine.
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 →
Build the URLs across the agency's templates, wire the conversion primitive, then work the QA backlogs to closure.
The Craft of a Build
A 63-page oral and facial surgery build, procedure taxonomy three levels deep, handed to the dev team with a 70-row workbook and six section-level redirects. The agency’s pre-launch issue list surfaced meta-tag mismatches at sub-procedure depth and 404 errors on surgical paths that referring-provider links target. The build team’s job was to close those signals before DNS cutover — not to push them to an agency’s post-launch backlog.
Snapshot
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| End-client industry | Healthcare — Oral Surgery & Facial Surgery |
| End-client | St. Augustine Oral & Facial Surgical Center (St. Augustine, FL) |
| Engagement | White-label WordPress build for a US marketing agency specialising in local-business websites |
| Project Type | WordPress build with Elementor on WP Engine, single-phase with pre-launch reconciliation stretch |
| Scope | 63 completed URLs — homepage, procedures hub + 33 procedure and sub-procedure pages, patient information hub + 8 patient-info pages, surgical instructions hub + 6 instruction pages, facial cosmetic procedures section + 9 face pages, meet-us section + 2 team pages, contact, disclaimer |
| Timeline | 58 days (25 Jan – 24 Mar 2025), delivered on schedule |
| Effort | 35 hours against a 35-hour estimate — no overrun |
| Team | 3 specialists (Nikita Tumasevic · Lyudmila Travkina · Evgeniy Karpov + Anton Hersun, project lead) |
| Templates | 1 template foundation — Original Design, applied site-wide across the existing site structure |
| Tech Stack | WordPress · Elementor · Gravity Forms · WP Engine · Rank Math · Header Footer Code Manager · Site Checker (xaverPRO QA plugin) |
| Delivered | 63 URLs built, 6 internal redirect pairs implemented, 49-item launch checklist closed, Issues Backlog pre-launch items resolved before handoff |
| Engagement cadence | 2 agency-raised issues · all closed by handoff (1-day active span, 2025-04-03 – 2025-04-03) |
| Review rounds | ≈2 review rounds across the 58-day calendar window |
| Launch checklist | 49 items, signed off before cutover |
The Brief
A US marketing agency retained by St. Augustine Oral & Facial Surgical Center — a Florida practice offering oral surgery, dental implants, bone grafting, jaw surgery, and facial cosmetic procedures — handed us a Google Sheets workbook with a 70-row URL map, section-level redirect flags, a launch checklist, and Elementor installed on a WP Engine staging environment. The workbook’s Template tab listed a single template source — Original Design — signalling that the build was a faithful reconstruction of the existing site structure rather than a clean-sheet layout. The forms plugin was Gravity Forms; the SEO plugin was to be Rank Math (the agency confirmed an active licence during the pre-launch phase).
The ask: rebuild all 63 pages faithfully against the existing floridafacedoc.com URL surface, implement six section-level redirects that consolidate lander paths into their first-content subpage (e.g. /contact-us/ → /contact-us/contact-information-office-map/, /surgical-instructions/ → /surgical-instructions/before-anesthesia/), and resolve the pre-launch issue list before the agency signed off for DNS cutover. Design, content, SEO strategy, and client communication remained with the agency throughout.
Risk Context — An oral surgery site’s URL surface is unusually deep. The procedure taxonomy alone runs three levels:
/procedures/→/procedures/dental-implants/→/procedures/dental-implants/teeth-in-an-hour/. A pre-launch issue list that surfaces meta-tag mismatches at the sub-procedure level is not an inconvenience — it is the agency’s signal that individual surgical-procedure URLs, which patient-referral links from other providers routinely target, need to match the production site spec before any traffic touches the new build. The risk the agency was hedging against was a dev team that builds the page structure accurately but leaves the meta and redirect layer to the post-launch backlog, turning the agency’s QA time into a fire-drill instead of a confidence check. The workbook tracked 70 URLs at the page level, but the sub-procedure meta layer — individual surgical-instruction and sub-procedure pages — was not cross-referenced against production automatically. The pre-launch issue list surfaced those mismatches before cutover, closing a gap the initial build pass could not have caught from the sitemap alone.
How We Did It
1. One template source, 63 pages, site-wide structural fidelity. St. Augustine Oral & Facial Surgical Center’s site runs six top-level sections, each with its own hub page and sub-pages: Procedures (34 URLs covering surgical implants, bone grafting, wisdom teeth, jaw surgery, TMJ disorders, sleep apnea, impacted canines, platelet-rich plasma, and facial trauma), Patient Information (9 URLs covering registration, insurance, first-visit, financial policy, online videos, and privacy), Surgical Instructions (7 URLs covering anesthesia prep, extractions, implant surgery, and impacted-tooth exposure), Facial Cosmetic Procedures (10 URLs covering facelift, rhinoplasty, genioplasty, brow lift, eyelid surgery, Botox, and four cosmetic-filler sub-pages), and Meet Us (2 URLs for the doctor bio and staff pages), plus homepage, contact, and disclaimer. All 63 completed URLs were built on the Original Design template and matched to the production site structure.
2. Spec followed line-for-line, within the hours we scoped. We scoped every sitemap row in hours ourselves, and those figures added up to the 35-hour budget we’d agreed. The homepage took the largest row allocation, standard sub-procedure pages 0.2–0.5 each. We built against each value. The aggregate matched the project quote.
The logic is plain enough: once the sitemap is scoped row by row, that scope stands in for the contract. The build team delivers within the per-row budgets it set, rather than re-litigating the cost of each page as it goes.
3. Six section-level redirect pairs, all mapped before launch. The workbook flagged six lander paths for 301 redirect: the parent hub pages for contact, patient information, meet us, surgical instructions, facial procedures, and cosmetic fillers each redirect to their first-content child page. These are the paths that patients and referring providers most commonly bookmark at the section root. All six pairs were implemented on staging and verified against the redirect table before the pre-launch issue list was opened. The workbook carried no separate redirects tab — the rules were documented in the Sitemap Action column with inline target comments, a deliberate approach that kept every routing decision on the same row as its source path rather than splitting the redirect map into a second sheet that could drift out of sync with the sitemap.
4. Pre-launch issue list worked to agency sign-off. A second Redmine issue — Pre Launch (#222) — surfaced meta-tag discrepancies between staging and production across surgical-procedure sub-pages, 404 errors on two procedure paths (impacted canines, impacted wisdom teeth), a missing Patient Registration button link on the homepage, and two procedure-page video embeds that opened to the wrong consent form. Rank Math was installed and configured as part of this resolution pass. Each item in the pre-launch issue list was resolved before the agency submitted the site for DNS cutover. The launch checklist — Design, Functionality, Pre-Migration, Post-Migration columns — closed behind the pre-launch pass.
The pre-launch issue list surfaced gaps the sitemap alone could not predict — meta mismatches at sub-procedure depth, 404 errors on two surgical paths, and video-embed failures that only appeared once staging was reviewed against production. Closing all five categories before DNS cutover meant the agency’s QA pass was a confidence check, not a fire-drill.
Operational Integrity at handoff
The agency’s pre-launch issue list surfaced five finding categories before DNS cutover: meta mismatches at sub-procedure depth (/procedures/wisdom-teeth/impacted-wisdom-teeth/), 404 errors on two surgical paths, an unlinked Patient Registration button, a missing Rank Math install, and video-embed mismatches on two procedure pages — all closed through a full test → send → sign-off loop. Pre-handoff QA ran through Site Checker — see how we run QA for the categories and the rule that no item ships open. Past that point the agency ran its own QA, dropping findings into the shared backlog for us to fix and recycle until sign-off.
Results
| Metric | Outcome |
|---|---|
| URLs built | 63 across six site sections: Procedures (34 · hub + sub-procedures) · Patient Information (9) · Surgical Instructions (7) · Facial Cosmetic Procedures (10) · Meet Us (2) · Core pages (homepage, contact, disclaimer) |
| Templates applied | 1 / 1 — Original Design, applied site-wide |
| Section-level redirect pairs implemented | 6 — lander paths consolidated to first-content subpage in Contact, Patient Info, Meet Us, Surgical Instructions, Face, and Cosmetic Fillers sections |
| Pre-launch issue list | All meta-tag discrepancies, 404 errors, broken button links, and video-embed mismatches resolved before DNS cutover |
| Launch checklist | 49 items signed off across Design / Functionality / Pre-Migration / Post-Migration |
| Timeline | 58 days (25 Jan – 24 Mar 2025), delivered on schedule |
| Effort | 35h / 35h estimate — no overrun, no scope creep |
| Site status | Live on WP Engine at https://www.floridafacedoc.com/ — verified April 2026. |
In the end: the agency’s 63-URL oral surgery build shipped inside the 35-hour budget, with six section-level redirects implemented and every pre-launch issue resolved before the agency submitted for DNS cutover.
Process
| Phase | Duration | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Brief & estimation | ~1 day | Workbook reviewed, row-level hours confirmed, 35h quoted and agreed |
| Build phase (pages + templates) | ~3 weeks | All 63 URLs built against Original Design structure on WP Engine staging; Elementor and Gravity Forms installed and configured |
| Pre-launch reconciliation | ~2 weeks | Meta-tag pass across all procedure sub-pages, 404 fixes, redirect pairs implemented, Rank Math installed, video embeds corrected |
| Launch checklist + delivery | ~1 week | 49-item checklist signed off; site submitted for DNS cutover; production live |
Phases overlap — the redirect implementation and pre-launch meta pass ran concurrently with the final build rows, which is why the 58-day calendar is shorter than a sequential reading of the phase list suggests.
Team
Delivery team
- Nikita Tumasevic — lead developer, build phase and pre-launch reconciliation
- Lyudmila Travkina — developer support, page builds and content migration
- Evgeniy Karpov — QA, link verification and staging review
- 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. The surgical center spoke to its agency and saw the agency’s name on every email; the dev hours that closed the 404s and meta gaps shipped under that masthead.
For agencies commissioning a white-label WordPress build
On an oral surgery practice site, the service taxonomy drives the URL structure and the rankings the agency built for its client. For this practice — a single-surgeon clinic focused on surgical extractions and implant placement; for others — a multi-surgeon group managing complicated dentoalveolar procedures and recovery pathways. The risks are quiet ones. A new surgical service line added in month six won’t fit the URL pattern. Filter pages drop out of index after migration. Schema markup vanishes on import.
The question to ask a dev partner before committing is not “can you build the pages?” — it is “how exactly will you build the taxonomy so the next service line fits without a full migration?”
Send us a current build workbook, a draft sitemap, or your design files. We will walk the URL plan against your ranking inventory, point to the spots that will fight you in month six, and return a fixed-hours quote. The review is free, with a 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 →