Reviewer Comments to Author:
General Comments
Odontogenic keratocysts (OKC) and ameloblastomas are among the most common odontogenic lesions. Despite many studies coverings these injuries, little is known about the gene polymorphisms associated with them. In the present paper, the authors provide a systematic review analyzing available data on gene polymorphisms in OKCs and ameloblastomas, including their possible relationship with clinical and histological features of these lesions.
This article is original and relevant. I can confirm this is the first systematic review covering gene polymorphisms in odontogenic lesions (I have just done a PubMed search for this purpose). The systematic review is well written and the methodology appropriate. I also cross-checked the protocol (registered in PROSPERO) and methods were a priori designed. PRISMA guidelines were correctly followed (point-by-point also revised).
Some little points need to be revised by the authors.
Major comment:
I believe that meta-analysis by gene is inappropriate, due to the heterogeneity reported by the authors. But I would like to know if they tried to perform a meta-analysis by grouping studies by function / classification of the gene. For example: genes are related to cell cycle, DNA repair, and production of proinflammatory cytokines. Try to group the genes in their characteristics / definitions and thus try to run a meta-analysis. I believe it can bring interesting results.

Minor comments:
1. The introduction consists of many phrases without a theoretical framework. Furthermore, some references are old. I recommend that the authors revise this part, adding new and current citations.
2. Embase was not included in the search strategy (as recommended by Cochrane Collaboration). The finding of new papers in this database could improve this review, due to the low sample size
3. A hand search, using the references of the included articles, generally aggregate more articles for the systematic reviews. I suggest that the authors do this check.
4. Consensus methods were implemented for the study selection process. Have the authors calculated the inter-observer agreement?

The authors have made exceptional modifications and the new version of the article is suitable for publication.