Dear Authors,

I would like to thank the authors for the opportunity to review this manuscript. This is a very interesting topic subject that has still not been explored. We found, nevertheless, some suggestion to be considered, as follow:

1. Scoping reviews typically aim to map available evidence, not assess prevalence. The manuscript, however, draws conclusions about the prevalence of OTs, which is methodologically inappropriate for a scoping review. This could potentially mislead readers about the nature of the findings.
   The authors should clarify that they are mapping the frequency of reported OTs in studies, not determining prevalence rates in the population.

2. The exclusion of general analyses that explore odontogenic lesions across various age groups is reasonable but limits the comprehensiveness of the review. This may result in under-reporting the actual frequency of OTs in pediatric populations, as these articles may contain valuable data.

3. The review does not delve into key clinical characteristics such as tumor location, symptomatology, treatment, or follow-up. This omission reduces the practical clinical utility of the findings for dental professionals and pediatric oncologists.

4. The authors could have provided a more explicit discussion on the limitations arising from the quality and variability of the included studies.

5. The use of the 2022 WHO classification for OTs is a strength, as it ensures that the findings are aligned with the most current diagnostic guidelines. However, 11% of the cases are no longer classified as odontogenic neoplasms, which is worth exploring further for its implications in diagnosis and management.

This manuscript provides valuable insights into the characteristics of OTs in pediatric populations. However, the conclusions about prevalence are methodologically inconsistent with the scope of the review. Refining the focus to better align with scoping review methodology, addressing clinical details, and being cautious about drawing prevalence-based conclusions would strengthen the manuscript.

Dear authors,

I appreciate your effort in addressing the previously suggested revisions. To further enhance the quality of the study, I would like to offer a few additional suggestions, as follow:

1. Since the search was conducted up to October 2023 and the final article is expected to be published in 2025, I suggest that the authors perform an updated literature search.

2. If the authors intended to present an example of an odontogenic tumor in a child, it would be more appropriate to include the final diagnosis along with the histopathological characteristics.

3. Please correct the following setences that are repeated in the Discussion:
   "Across diverse institutional settings, the literature report
   ameloblastoma incidence rates ranging between 10% to 15% (Bansal et al., 2015)."
   "Incidence rates ranging from 10% to 15% have been consistently reported across various institutions in extensive case series and retrospective reviews (Bansal et al., 2015)."

I consider that the manuscript meets all recommendations and is solid and complete, providing a valuable source of information in the literature. I thank the authors for their care and diligence in addressing the requested revisions.