114-Page Dental WordPress Rebuild
A 114-page rebuild collapsed into 14 templates and shipped in 37 days. 54 hours against a migration spec with 29 URL restructures and 2 redirects.
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.
Client (end user): Peak City Family Dentistry — family and cosmetic dentistry practice, Apex, NC
Engagement: White-label development for a US marketing agency
Delivered: October – December 2025 · 37 days · 54 hours · on schedule, no overrun
The Craft of a Rebuild
A 114-page dental rebuild shipped in 37 days and 54 hours to a US marketing agency’s sitemap workbook — 14 templates, 29 URL restructures, 2 redirects, and an 85-item launch checklist closed before handoff. The original site’s header animation was buggy from the start; the team rebuilt it as a clean accordion and re-styled the text to a uniform weight rather than carry forward the formatting drift of the live site.
This case study is a record of one such rebuild, in which the agency owned the strategy and we owned the execution — a 114-page dental practice site rebuilt on a new WordPress stack while the original site remained live.
Snapshot
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| End-client industry | Healthcare — General & Cosmetic Dentistry |
| End-client | Peak City Family Dentistry (family and cosmetic dentistry practice, Apex, NC) |
| Engagement | White-label WordPress build for a US marketing agency specialising in local-business websites |
| Project Type | WordPress rebuild with Elementor Pro on Kinsta |
| Scope | Full site rebuild — 114 URLs migrated from original to new stack, with URL restructuring |
| Timeline | 37 days (30 Oct – 6 Dec 2025), on schedule |
| Effort | 54 hours against a 54-hour estimate — no overrun |
| Team | 4 specialists (Nikita Tumasevic — lead development; Timur Arbaev — QA; Pavel Sazhin — QA and fixes; Anton Hersun — project lead) |
| Tech Stack | WordPress · Elementor Pro · Gravity Forms · Kinsta · Yoast · Screaming Frog · Site Checker (xaverPRO QA plugin) |
| Content parity check | Original-vs-rebuild content diff cleared before handoff — no missing copy, no broken internal links, no structural drift |
| Delivered | Spec followed line-for-line — 114 URLs rebuilt, 29 URL changes mapped, 2 redirects implemented, 14 templates applied, 85-item launch checklist closed |
| Engagement cadence | 3 agency-raised issues · all closed by handoff |
| Review rounds | ≈4 review rounds across the 37-day calendar window |
| Per-ticket effort | 7 internal Redmine tickets · median 53m / P75 11.2h per ticket |
| Launch checklist | 84 items, signed off before cutover |
The Brief
The agency had a retained dental-practice client whose existing WordPress site needed a rebuild — modern page-builder, reliable forms, tidy template system, and a cleaner URL structure. They’d already done the groundwork: a Google Sheets workbook containing every URL to migrate, every template assignment, every URL change and redirect rule, and an 85-item pre- and post-migration launch checklist.
The ask was specific. Take the spec as given; rebuild the site on Elementor Pro; implement all integrations; hand it back ready for agency-managed cutover. Remain outside the client-facing loop. Implement the SEO decisions as written. Deliver inside the quoted hours.
For a two-doctor practice running a phased rebuild — one practitioner URL restructured in-scope, a second deferred to After Launch — the agency’s real exposure was a dev team that improvises around the spec: a “minor” revision to a practitioner URL, a template applied to the wrong page type, a redirect skipped because it looked optional. The risk was handing the build to a shop that would quietly improvise around the brief: a missed redirect, a re-interpreted template, a “minor” revision to a meta title, a budget overrun, a slipped launch window. Compounded across 114 pages, even small deviations become a large regression.
Risk context. When a rebuild’s cutover is deferred — the original site stays live while the new build sits on staging — the failure mode is invisible at handoff. It surfaces later, when the agency flips the DNS and real traffic hits URLs that were verified only in isolation. A URL change that looked correct in the workbook meets a bookmarked link. A meta description that matched in staging diverges from the original under live search indexing. The risk is not in the rebuild itself; it is in what the rebuild silently breaks when the agency eventually cuts over.
How We Did It
1. Template-first build. Rather than rebuilding 114 pages one by one, we collapsed them into 14 reusable templates and fit every page into them:
- Homepage, About Us, Contact Us, and a Default fallback (16 pages)
- Services Lander + Service Page — the core clinical offering structure, applied 23 times across preventive, cosmetic, restorative, and specialty dentistry
- Doctor Page — individual doctor bio pages (2 doctors)
- Blog Lander + Blog — post archive and individual posts (63 blog posts, 1 lander)
- Smile Gallery — the practice-specific before/after template
- Financing, Insurance, Payment Policy, Terms of Conditions, Payment Plan / Membership — practice operations pages
14 templates, 114 pages delivered. Future edits on the agency’s side live in one place per page type.
2. Spec followed line-for-line, from the agency’s sheet. The agency handed us a Google Sheets workbook: every URL to migrate with its target path, every template assignment, every URL change (29 rows), every redirect rule (2 rows), every delete instruction (2 rows), and 15 post-launch items. We implemented each row as written. Where the sheet had a value, that value landed on the new site. Where it didn’t, we flagged it back to the agency. No “creative interpretations” shipped.
The principle behind this is simple: on a rebuild, the spec is the contract between the agency and its client. A dev team’s job is to protect that contract, not to edit it.
3. Crawl-based verification, not “looks fine to me”. Before staging handoff, we ran Screaming Frog on the original production site and the staging rebuild side-by-side. Status codes, broken links, redirect chains, meta-tag differences — every delta reconciled against the agency’s spec. The 85-item launch checklist — Design, Functionality, Content, SEO & Analytics, Responsive, client-specific integrations, and Domain & DNS — closed behind the crawl verification.
4. 85-item launch checklist, closed before handoff. Seven categories covering every surface that could regress at cutover: design fidelity, functionality, content accuracy, SEO & analytics, responsive behavior, client-specific integrations, and a Domain & DNS migration section. Nothing shipped until each line was signed off. Cross-device QA on Chrome / Firefox / Safari / Edge and six viewports.
The accordion decision was the discipline that mattered. The original header animation had a bug baked in — triple-nested submenu logic that surfaced on the first QA pass and had no clean path forward in Elementor. Rather than port the broken interaction forward, we rebuilt it as a clean accordion — the spec protected by not reproducing what the original got wrong.
Results
| Metric | Outcome |
|---|---|
| Spec fidelity — URLs rebuilt | 114 / 114 content URLs returning HTTP 200 on staging before handoff |
| Spec fidelity — URL changes | 29 / 29 URL change rows implemented as specified |
| Spec fidelity — redirects | 2 / 2 redirect rules implemented as specified |
| Spec fidelity — templates | 14 / 14 templates built and applied site-wide |
| Launch checklist | 85 / 85 items signed off before handoff |
| Timeline | 37 days, delivered on schedule |
| Effort | 54h / 54h estimate — no overrun, no scope creep |
| Responsive verification | Zero layout issues across 4 browsers × 6 viewports |
| Internal QA | All agency-scoped issues closed before handoff (3 SEO items + 3 CX items; remaining items were agency-managed post-launch tasks) |
| Handoff | Rebuild delivered to agency staging on Kinsta, ready for agency-managed cutover |
| Site status, verified 2026-04 | Original site peakcitydentistry.com still live; rebuild on staging awaiting agency cutover |
The outcome, restated plainly: the agency’s spec was implemented as written, inside the quoted hours, on the scheduled handoff date. The rebuild sits on Kinsta staging, verified and ready for the agency’s cutover window.
Operational Integrity at handoff
Site Checker’s link audit surfaced a sitewide internal-link issue pre-handoff — every page in the build carried a reference to /page/dental-specialties/ that now resolved as a 301 to /cosmetic-dentistry/, flagged across the staged build before the agency saw it and routed back for cleanup. 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
| Phase | Duration | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Brief & estimation | 2 days | Agency spec reviewed; 54h quoted and agreed |
| Development | ~18 days | Full site rebuilt across 14 templates; 29 URL changes and 2 redirects implemented |
| Internal QA & review | ~10 days | 6 issues logged and closed; crawl verification completed |
| Spec verification | 2 days | Meta and redirect matches reconciled against sheet; 85-item checklist closed |
| Delivery & staging handoff | 1 day | Rebuild delivered to Kinsta staging, ready for agency-managed cutover |
Phases overlap (QA ran alongside late development), which is why the calendar timeline is 37 days rather than the sum of individual phases.
Team
Delivery team
- Nikita Tumasevic — lead developer (full site build and template system)
- Timur Arbaev — QA rounds and rebuild accuracy verification
- Pavel Sazhin — QA fixes and meta-data implementation
- Anton Hersun, xaverPRO — project lead (estimation, agency-side communication, sign-off)
The agency stayed the visible vendor; we stayed invisible to the end client throughout cutover planning and staging review. All decisions on URL preservation and redirect strategy belonged to the agency; our role was implementation fidelity to the spec they delivered.
For agencies considering a white-label WordPress build
If your agency has been handed back a rebuild where a dev team reproduced a live-site bug instead of cleaning it up, the inverse is readable in the spec: flag what’s broken before build, rebuild clean, leave the spec intact. Send a migration workbook or a pre-build sitemap spec. We will read it for rebuild risk — gaps, ambiguities, and anything on the live site worth not reproducing — and return a fixed-hours estimate within 24 hours. No cost, no obligation to proceed.
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.