1. Introduction and Preliminaries

Let denote the class of functions of the form which are analytic in the unit disc . For and for , , the integral operator is defined by where is the Pochhammer symbol given by

For , , is defined by Komatu in [1, 2]. Here,

The operator is the Bernardi operator [3, 4]. In fact the operator is related rather closely to the Beta or Euler transformation. Moreover, for , the operator was used by Owa and Srivastava [5–8].

For , , we define a class of all analytic functions involving the integral operator, , by

The aim of this paper is to study the class and find the similar type of results proved by Frasin in [9], where the author has defined similar type of class involving the operator Also in [10], the authors studied the similar type class involving the well-known Salagean operator.

2. Definitions and Lemmas

Definition 1. Let be analytic and univalent in . If is analytic in , , and , then we say that the function is subordinate to in , and we write .

Definition 2 (subordinating factor sequence). A sequence of complex numbers is called a subordinating sequence if, whenever is analytic, univalent, and convex in , we have the subordination given by

Lemma 3 (see [11]). A sequence is a subordinating factor sequence if and only if

Lemma 4. If where , and then .

Proof. It is sufficient to show that
Now, we have
The above expansion is bounded by if hence the proof follows from (10).

Let denote the class of functions whose coefficients satisfy the condition (10). So .

3. Main Results

By using the technique used earlier by Attiya [12] and Singh [13], we state and prove the following theorem.

Theorem 5. Let the function defined by (1) be in the class , where . Also let denote the class of functions which are convex and univalent in . Then, The constant is the best estimate.

Proof. and let Then,
Thus by the Definition 2 and (14) will hold if the sequence is a subordinating factor sequence, with , in view of Lemma 3, this will be the case if and only if
Now
Case I (). From (19), we obtain
Since is an increasing function of , so
Case II (). From (19), we obtain
Since is decreasing function of , so
Thus, (18) holds true in . This prove the inequality (14). The inequality (15) follows by taking the convex function in (14). To prove the sharpness of the constant, we suppose that the function given by from (14), we have After a simple calculation, we get

Corollary 6. Let the function defined by (1) be in the class and satisfy the condition then
The constant is the best estimate.

Corollary 7. Let the function defined by (1) be in the class and satisfy the condition then
The constant is the best estimate.

Corollary 8. Let the function defined by (1) be in the class and satisfy the condition then
The constant is the best estimate.